# Solved: macintosh??



## suigenerisgal (Dec 11, 2006)

what are the differnces between macintosh and windows?


----------



## MSM Hobbes (Apr 23, 2004)

suigenerisgal said:


> what are the differnces between macintosh and windows?


Ummmm,,, are you serious in this question? 

Lets see...

1. One is made by a warm, friendly, good guy company - other by cold, mean, non-caring, bad guy company...

2. One is an innovator - other is a copycattin' stealer...

3. One is ... well, you get the drift... 
And, really,,, I'm not biased!!!  

Have you done a google search? Just a few sites that can give a comparison are:
http://www.xvsxp.com/index.php
http://macvspc.info/
http://www.jmusheneaux.com/
http://www.guidenet.net/resources/win_vs_mac.html


----------



## zutty (Dec 19, 2006)

Another difference is that Macs DO NOT get virus'


----------



## MSM Hobbes (Apr 23, 2004)

Trying not to laugh too loud...  going along w/ my 2nd point above, there is this video:

http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_mai...aabc2x10f9cceb4bdxw79e6&rdm=307192.9735214691


----------



## zutty (Dec 19, 2006)

haha..Amen..Macs Rule!!


----------



## shyataroo (Oct 6, 2006)

Well I happen to be a self-proclaimed mac zelaot so be prepared for a long ludcrisly misspelled and drawn out rant about the differences.

It starts with the following, in 1984 Apple introduced the macintosh (clever name no?) this was the first computer with a GUI availible to the general public (in that it was relativly affordable) it also introduced the mouse. in 1984 bill gates had MS-DOS 3 (perhaps it was 4?) which was just a poorly-written rip off of DOS which microsoft bought the rights to it (thats right microstupid didn't invent DOS) and DOS is just a poorly-coded unix rip-off granted all text based UI's are unix rip-offs but DOS was especially in the way you executed commands. the GUI was revolutionary for its time (even though it shared more than a few quirks with XEROX's PARC that steve jobs saw before the advent of the macintosh) flash forward to 1998 Apple introduces the first computer that isn't beige it also marks the beginning of the end for the Floppy drive why? the iMac a consumer-friendly priced computer with consumer friendly looks, and no nonsense enclousure it also marked the first consumer friendly computer with a USB port (and a infra-red port...don't ask) why is it consumer friendly? to get online takes 3 steps (not including the plugging in of the phone line to the built in modem) 1 take it out of the box 2 plug it in 3 turn it on (there is a commerical with a voice over that has stuff to that effect) ever since then apple has innovated time after time with thier computers the intel core duo came out on the macbook pro before any place else. Apple also still has the *ONLY TRUE 64 Bit* general public computer the G5 (all the others have 64 bit extention to a 32 bit processor) Apple also introduced the first Quad-CPU (availible to the general public) computer with the Quad 2.5Ghz G5. The Main differences in the macintosh veruss PC is a PC has low grade cases, low grade standard perheprials, low grade internal components and low grade monitors. (In a Interview Steve jobs stated that LG, the maker of the LCD monitors for apple lets apple have first pick in what monitors they want, as a result PC manufactureres get the stuff that apple turns down) Macintosh software is always more thoroughly tested,easier to use (it takes a hafl hour to learn how to use a mac as good as most people need to know vs a few days of tinkering to learn how to use a PC as good as most people need to know)you never hear about how Apple ram sucks do you? you don't ever hear about how Apples hardware is incompatible with itself for some reason or another. As a matter of fact 99.99% of ALL usb/firewire perheprials are plug-'n'-play with mac OS X. and just this past few months apple made another landmark a Quad Xeon Mac Pro IS 700-900 dollars cheaper than a similarly configured Dell. and yet it still works better than the dell (cause lets face it dell sucks) for a easier to read list of reasons why scroll down.

1. Apple/Macintosh software is always easier to use
2. a near-infinate amount more stable (software)
3. looks better
4. Bill gates is the worlds richest man for a good reason, his product has a 97% market share and people need to upgrade it constantly becuase its poorly writtten.
5.Ask anyone who has used both a mac and a PC they will tell you the mac is better.
6. apple invented the iPod microsoft threw up the zune.
7 do I really need to go on?


----------



## Brum (Sep 26, 2006)

Well I read this thread becuase I wanted to get to know OS X a little better. Shyataroo, I do believe you just went on a huge worthless rampage. First off, Macs are known for good hardware becuase they are all built by one company, which is the only thing they have going for them, hardware wise. Please, do not compare macontosh to Dell. Dell sucks becuase they put together a CHEAP heap of junk. Dell is a hardware company where Macontosh puts together whole product with both hardware and software. Using Dell is a terrible comparison.

You seem to be a history buff. Correct me if I'm wrong (cuz I am not a history buff), but didn't Bill Gates invent Windows?

I am a huge PC fan typing this on a MAC. Mac is not better. It is too user friendly. OS X is a perfect operating system for someone new to computers, but I would never recommend it to anyone who uses a computer extensively. I grew up on Apple/Macontosh with OS 8 and 9. Once I became acquainted with windows I was hooked for life.

Looks is a personal prefference.

Apple may have started the iPod / MP3 player thing, but iTunes is a pain in the rear to work with. The only thing I like about iTunes is you are able to drag and drop a copy of your music on the desktop or anywhere you want it.

That's just another opinion though.


----------



## shyataroo (Oct 6, 2006)

History buff? no. Bill gates did invent windows after apple invented the Consumer-Ready GUI. with numerous, NUMEROUS copyright infrignements that apple sued microsoft for, but stopped because it cost too much money, and they were going bankrupt so in exchange for stopping the suit,and the ability to use quicktime on windows not to mention having internet explorer being the mac standard browser (also the fact that if apple went bankrupt bill gates would have to split up microsoft into mulitple companies to avoid anti-trust suits) bill gates gave apple $150 million, which saved apples *** and set the stage for steve jobs to come back and kick the computer industry in the shins.

You however are right, I did go on a huge worthless rampage. 

Conversly you are incorrect about apple building hardware, as apple does not build any hardware of its own (besides the cases, like dell) the difference is apple chooses the higher quality parts (with Extra-low-latency ram etc...) Apple also has a hand in designing all the components for their computers however (as showcased by the Geforce 4 Series)


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

shyataroo said:


> History buff? no. Bill gates did invent windows after apple invented the Consumer-Ready GUI. with numerous, NUMEROUS copyright infrignements that apple sued microsoft for, but stopped because it cost too much money, and they were going bankrupt so in exchange for stopping the suit,and the ability to use quicktime on windows not to mention having internet explorer being the mac standard browser (also the fact that if apple went bankrupt bill gates would have to split up microsoft into mulitple companies to avoid anti-trust suits) bill gates gave apple $150 million, which saved apples *** and set the stage for steve jobs to come back and kick the computer industry in the shins.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is _far_ from correct. _Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp._, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir.1994), was the appeal of a suit filed by Apple in the District Court for the Northern District of California (D.C. No. CV-8-20149-VRW), in which Apple contended that Microsoft exceeded the scope of its licensing agreement _made by and with Apple_ to use certain elements of the Apple GUI. Apple alleged that certain of Microsoft's derivative works (the Windows and NewWave GUIs) exceeded the scope of the license. The district court applied the concepts of idea versus expressions, originality, functionality, standardization, public domain, scenes a faire and merger to make its determination what parts of Apple's GUI were copyrightable, and, after the licensed portions were excluded, found that the copyrightable components of the two works were not substantially similar.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court properly applied its analysis, and decided the case appropriately. The only part of the case that the Ninth Circuit reversed had to do with attorney fees.

Apple appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the *Supreme Court of the United States*, which declined to hear the case. This is _hardly_ the situation you suggest. Quite the opposite. This is following the legal trail to its _very end_.

And the failure (or lack thereof) of Apple as a business entity would have _no_ bearing on any antitrust action against Microsoft.



shyataroo said:


> You however are right, I did go on a huge worthless rampage.


Add "inaccurate" to that and I'll heartily agree. 



shyataroo said:


> Conversly you are incorrect about apple building hardware, as apple does not build any hardware of its own (besides the cases, like dell) the difference is apple chooses the higher quality parts (with Extra-low-latency ram etc...) Apple also has a hand in designing all the components for their computers however (as showcased by the Geforce 4 Series)


There are very few, if any, companies that oversee every phase of a product's development, from the mining of ore (or whatever raw materials are used) to the finished product rolling off the assembly line. The distinction you make here, while not altogether faulty, is a hypercritical one, splitting a hair that needs not be split in the marketplace of today. Can anyone think of _one_ private or public (not government-owned or operated) company which is solely responsible, from start to finish, from acquiring the raw materials to rolling the completed product off a production line, for the creation of a commercially viable product? If so, I'll wager there are not many.


----------



## shyataroo (Oct 6, 2006)

Gasoline. (to adress the last of the above mentioned)

as for the rest of it, I am well aware none of what I have said is based on acutal facts just what I read and remembered from time magazine (or was it newsweek?) anyway in either case, I was mostly inaccurate it seems. (except for the G5 being the only true 64 bit consumer computer) this is not to say that Apple computers are not better than PC's as it has been proven time and again that they are, when it comes to quality. 

and if you want to get REAL technical, the G4 is hz per hz faster than every other processor out there. (if you took the G4, gave it a core 2 duo's motherboard/ram speeds and clock speeds it would beat it)


----------



## davidanders (Dec 30, 2006)

http://www.macvspc.info/

Butler Gives Tiger Thumbs Up
http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/more/butler_approves_of_tiger/

Mad as Hell: I - Switching to Mac
http://securityawareness.blogspot.com/2005/05/mad-as-hell-i-switching-to-mac_25.html#comment

Apple iMac G5 (2.0 GHz) REVIEW DATE: 05.31.05
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1822054,00.asp

Mac vs. PC
http://macs.about.com/od/faqsandglossary/a/mac_vs_pc.htm

Fortune: Windows or Mac?
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/w...ac_better_suited_to_future_starbucks_workers/

MacIntosh vs. Windows: Choosing to take a bite of the Apple
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/general/0,295582,sid14_gci1094430,00.html

Mac users don't seem to realize that I wasn't reviewing the iPod.
http://www.kantor.com/usatoday/quality_.shtml

Why I Might Switch Back...
http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008631.html

Take Control of Switching to the Mac
http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/[email protected]@

PC users can't get no satisfaction
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6105569.html


----------



## MSM Hobbes (Apr 23, 2004)

davidanders, some interesting sites, but,,, many are somewhat outdated 

Find funny the one from Fortune that claims that those that use Mac's are more likely to be working at Starbucks,,,  since they are history & liberal-art type majors, whereas those that use Windows are engineers and the such. Please. I'm an engineer, and many of those from my old school actually used either/both platforms - and quite a few, such as me, prefer Macintosh.


----------



## davidanders (Dec 30, 2006)

MSM Hobbes said:


> davidanders, some interesting sites, but,,, many are somewhat outdated


An indication about how long I have been collecting them.
Would you like the full load?
.


----------



## davidanders (Dec 30, 2006)

WinOS was designed and marketed to the most numerous users - business network users.
Thus the applications were given powers to read and write to the OS.
After MS recognized the internet as useful and powerful, the browser and email applications were builtin and given powers to write to the OS.
This presupposed that the PC was behind a powerful firewall and was watched over by white-coated geeks with large salaries.

OS9 was designed for single users, most ports were closed by design and required knowledge to open.

OSX is based on BSD Unix - a network server. Most ports are closed and need to be opened.

Virus and trojan writers fall within three narrow boundaries.
1] Scriptkiddies - they download readily available apps that create malware. 
Not available for OSX, as far as I know.
2] Malware for egos - they produce malware for standing in a community.
The most likely to produce the first wide-spread OSX virus or trojan or malware.
3] Malware for profit - the most prolific Win malware authors - dependent on builtin Windows flaws and PCs without the most current updates.

Windows with Firefox for web browsing and Thunderbird for email is MUCH less liable to be hacked, virused, trojanned, hijacked and cracked.
.


----------



## MSM Hobbes (Apr 23, 2004)

davidanders said:


> An indication about how long I have been collecting them.
> Would you like the full load?
> .


Thanks, but imagine that I've quite a few of the same ones.


----------



## shyataroo (Oct 6, 2006)

the point is Apple>every one else.


----------



## Brum (Sep 26, 2006)

shyataroo said:


> the point is Apple>every one else.


lol, you just don't give in. Give it up. There is a reason 9 out of 10 computers run Windows.


----------



## MSM Hobbes (Apr 23, 2004)

Brum said:


> lol, you just don't give in. Give it up. There is a reason 9 out of 10 computers run Windows.




At the risk of yet another mine-is-better-than-your-platform skirmish, I submit the following: 

1. Please enlighten us, in your words, as to why "9 out of 10 computers run Windows". I'm curious as to why YOU think that is the case. 

2. Now, if you desire to go back to your previous post in this thread, I find it interesting that you claim that, regarding a Mac, "It is too user friendly." Too user friendly? Good grief! Sorry, but there are those weird people that maybe enjoy using a devise that does not require umpteen different means to detect, minimize, &/or remove the various 70k malware, etc. threats, people that enjoy the ease and convenience of a machine that does not require a reboot every time a bird chirps, people who like the overall way this type of OS "feels" - even it is "too user friendly".

You, as an admitted lover of things PC, evidently don't share in this POV. That is fine - to each their own. However, the reason why "9 out of 10 computers run Windows" is not based upon which machine is 'inferiour' or 'superiour' in and of itself - it's called marketing, and various mistakes & different paths/decisions therein, that both MS & Apple had during their history to date. To use the worn analogy, Betamax was 'better' than VHS, but what tape version is found in homes? {of course, VHS too will be dead in short time, as digital devices take over }.

3. Windows based PC's are good. Macintosh based computers are good. Alternative OS based computers are good. There are just different degrees of 'goodness', depending upon the users' tastes, needs, experience, and desires. I use both MS Windows [2k, 98SE, & XP Pro] and Apple OS X [Tiger] - each has their quirks, charms, and demerits, but I do prefer and 'believe' more in the Mac OS.

Anyhow, enough of the attacks of another's OS - got something useful and enlightening to add or share regarding differences, then :up:.


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

Does this "9 out of 10" include Intel-based Macs? Soon (statistically speaking, at least) 10 out of 10 computers will be running (or capable of running) Windows. But an ever-increasing number of those 10 will be Apple machines, if the current trend continues. I can personally testify to ten people who were Wintel-only users who now have Macs. And they range the spectrum from casual users to serious users.

Does market saturation equate with what is "better"? I think not. Still, there are those who have used nothing but Windows (because, like Sony in its consumer market failure with the Betamax format, Apple made some rather striking miscues in marketing and licensing--though the professional format is _still_ some format of Beta, the editing of which is done, largely, on Macs--and there are professional areas that are still _completely_ dominated by Macs, despite some advances in the Windows side of things [audio recording/editing, publishing, et cetera]).

The advent of Intel-based Macs has opened the door to those who have for so long toiled under the master of Microsoft who are now seeing the light of day for the first time. While I must admit to have wrung my hands and gnashed my teeth at the announcement of Apple going the way of Intel processors, this has proved to be a very good thing for Apple. On the professional side of things that were already dominated by Apple the major players have (for the most part) quickly fallen in line with the new order of things, and have offered new MacIntel versions of their soft/hardware to keep the ball(s) rolling. On the consumer side of things, Apple firmly had its foot in the doors of a vast number of users with the iPods that it created. Now those iPod users are asking themselves "why not buy an Apple-branded computer? It will run all my Windows-only apps, and it offers me the user-friendliness that I've come to enjoy with my iPod. It's a win-win situation."

For those who cling to market share analyses to prove their dominance this is a bad thing. One needs only to point to the auto industry to show what a red herring this line of thinking entails. Just because there are more Honda Civics on the streets than BMW 745ils doesn't mean the former is "better". It just means it suited a need. And now Apple has made its first steps towards rectifying its former marketing errors. It didn't need clones to run its OS. It just needed to prove itself.

There will _always_ be those who choose a Dell over an Apple. And cost may well be a factor. But I'd rather see Dell better itself by moving towards Apple than see Apple lower itself by moving towards Dell.

Save your market share analyses for your goosestepping friends. A shakeup is happening. And Apple is leading the way. Wait. No it's not. Microsoft thought up the Zune on its _own_. And Vista is _nothing_ like Mac OS X.

That said, I am, have been, and will continue to be, a user of both platforms. I use each for what it is best suited. But that line is being blurred not by Microsoft, but by Apple.

I've got some more Kool-Aid if you'd like it, Brum. But it's sour grape flavored.


----------



## shyataroo (Oct 6, 2006)

In the words of that 70's show BURNED!

(sorry for the non-regulation size increase)

The reason why 7.8 out of 10 computers use windows is quite simple: the hardware is cheaper. if it werent for bill gates lisencing widnows out to whoever wants to build hardware for it (which apple stopped becuase it cannibalized apple hardware sales) you wouldn't have the market sharre as it is today nor would you have the cheap comptuers (in quality and in price)...when bill gates did that and as a result when MSFT word was released (with its propritary .doc crap) since most of the computers ran DOS/Windows at the time it became a fast growing format because people used it in their businesses and to comunicate with their business (because they didn't want to have to convert the **** or buy a better more expensive computer) when that happened all of the sudden apple market share dropped like a brick because everyone was using windows JUST BECAUSE OF THE WORD PROCESSING. Apple revolutionizes the computer industry by introducing the consumer GUI and bill gates steals steves thunder by putting the Apple OS on an easel and said: "copy this, but not blatently" (co-insidentally people have been saying that about vista vs OS X) apple didn't use amd or intel processors for the longest time casue they sucked. it wasn't until 2 years after the introduction and the struggling of the G5 that apple finally said you know what **** it lets bring out the virtualization software and show people that os x has been running on intel processors since the beginning (and OS 9 has been too... see project STAR TREK I think its called)

Bottom line 2 years ago the budget for MSFTs R&D division was 1 BILLION dollars more than apples entire budget period..and yet apple still came out with better products. now its prolly like 2 billion more. its like the Microsony Vs nintendo thing. Microsony comes out with the playstation 3 and xbox 360 powerful gaming machines that do all this other **** that you don't need. and nitnendo comes out with a wii that is waaaaaaaaaaaay less powerful but acutally gets people involved in the games. just like apple is introducing user friendly products to get them interested in computers.

This has been another useless rant. (this rant bought to you by walt disney...(which by the way steve owns more shares of than any other *single* person)


----------



## Brum (Sep 26, 2006)

If you guys would care to return to the original posters question. It has nothing to do with hardware. Please do not compare Dell. Dell has nothing to do with microsoft. It is not Microsoft's fault that Dell can't put together a decent machine. The reason PC's are cheaper is becuase there are more than one market provider of PC's. Are you morons forgeting about HP, Gateway, or any of the other companies.

I will admit, I have learned a lesson, it is hard to argue with someone who will only listen to their side of the arguement. 

oh and my bad for not haveing my facts right. 7.8 out of 10 computers run windows. Still, in does prove a very valide point. Don't give me marketing ploys are the fualt. If Apple/macontosh thought that was the reason no one will buy buy their computers, then they could easily make a POS too. 

Besides, That has nothing to do with the differences in the operating systems. So instead of arguing that you would prefer a monopoly from Apple/Macontosh , you could instead argue something productive like what the differences btween the two OS are. Wait isn't that what the topic of this forum is truely about?

Like I said before, some people are just to stuburn to argue with.


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

_Someone_ takes this sort of thing waaaaaaay too seriously, while simultaneously completely lacking an understanding of the power of sound marketing strategy. Hello, Ford Edsel, anyone? Sony Betamax, anyone? 1984 Mac OS 1.0, anyone?

Wait... Do you work for Apple?!? I _know_ you're not Steve Wozniak, because I know Steve Wozniak, and you're no Steve Wozniak. Are you Gil Amelio? That seems more befitting.

Dude, Brum, Gil, whatever you wish to be called... We don't _care_ what the rest of the world thinks. We didn't get in the same Kool Aid line as you. We went our own way. And, frankly, it's a better way. Not only do we get the beauty of the MacOS, but now we can run whatever piddling little applications you want to trumpet for _your_ OS of choice on _our_ Macs.

Fancy that. In the end we Mac users win. Not just because our OS is the epitome of elegance. Not just because our OS is the harbinger of what your OS _will_ become. Not just because our hardware is graceful. But because we get all that _plus_ what you have to offer (and that would be... What?.. Half Life? Some Windows-only CAD applications? Myriad _horrible_ games that never were fit to run on the MacOS?).

Thanks for your contribution. The world is a better place because of it.

Oh, and if you think I'm doing anything but having fun at your expense you _really_ should consider a break from the Intarweb.


----------



## Brum (Sep 26, 2006)

Brum said:


> Like I said before, some people are just to stuburn to argue with.


----------



## Brum (Sep 26, 2006)

It takes a view point of both sides. Which I ws trying to do until you came along.


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

Like I said before:



VegasACF said:


> _Someone_ takes this sort of thing waaaaaaay too seriously, while simultaneously completely lacking an understanding of the power of sound marketing strategy.


:shrug:


----------



## shyataroo (Oct 6, 2006)

VEGAS you have offically proved yourself as a Mac Zelot I salute you. (we are a dying breed, that is to say Mac zelots that are DIE-HARD mac fans) oh and I was wrong about 7.8 out of 10 computers using widnows, its more like 7.6 (I forgot about every single varation of unix/linux and of course everyones favorite LINDOWS)


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

While I have been a Mac user since the first Macintosh was released in 1984, and an Apple user since the late 70s, I am proficient with a variety of other platforms, and in addition to the six Macs I currently own (including that original--all of which are in good working order), I have several Windows-only machines. I use the best tool for the job. There _are_ some things that Windows is better at doing. But, in general, I find the Mac to provide an all-around more pleasing environment to work in.


----------



## shyataroo (Oct 6, 2006)

oh and btw the market share for Apple is up to 4.6% and appel sold 21,066,000 iPods in this quarter alone


----------



## guilo (Dec 9, 2003)

my 2 cents.. Im in IT and work with Windows XP all day and I cant wait to 
get home to my Mac...


----------



## Pensacola Tiger (Apr 23, 2006)

guilo said:


> my 2 cents.. Im in IT and work with Windows XP all day and I cant wait to
> get home to my Mac...


You too?


----------



## MSM Hobbes (Apr 23, 2004)

Some potentially additional relevant info... 

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1842175,00.asp
http://www.networkcomputing.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=194400555

Edit: added the following:


----------



## MSM Hobbes (Apr 23, 2004)

interesting article...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16873608/


----------

