# Differences on Mac and Windows



## ejspin

Can someone school me on the differences between Macintosh and windows?


----------



## MSY-Houston

Boy, you ask the simple ones, don't you? 

Both are good machines. Some people prefer one to the other (wars have been started for less!). I work on both computers, and I'm a graphic designer and illustrator. I prefer the Macs for graphics because their hardware and software were designed around a graphic interface. Tasks that I do for my job seem smoother and work easier than the same tasks on a PC (even with their graphics interface). I have other friends who think the exact opposite.

I bought a Mac for home, eventhough there are PCs out there that are less expensive and the majority of users own PCs. I love the ease of use, and the graphics capabilities of Macs (and I've always been a bit of a rebel). Also, Macs seem to be easier to troubleshoot than PCs, because the interface is user friendly. Again, someone else will think the exact opposite!

All kinds of software is available for the Macs, including games, database, project management, Microsoft Office, utilities and Internet applications, etc. The only thing that might be problematic is if you need to use a statistics program, you might be better off with a PC because the PC world (from what I understand) has better statistics software. (I don't know if that's still accurate.)

So really, it becomes an issue of what do you want to do with a computer? If it's straightforward word processing, spreadsheets, etc., go with a PC. If you really want to rock on the graphics, go with a Mac.

And don't be surprised if you get LOTS of answers on this one...


----------



## MSM Hobbes

There are many differences, yet there are none. 

However, since you mentioned being schooled, lets start at the beginning.

Chapter 1... both are nothing more than a device, a tool to help people compute, perform drawings, render images, create documents, play games, and so forth.

Chapter 2... Apple rules, Wintel eats dust.

End of lesson. Any questions? 

Ok, seriously, your question kinda hinges on what applications and/or interests that you have for the machine. The main differences are based on the OS, how the machine as a total package is created, your perceptions of ease of use, support by the vendor, and the such.

Now for some more humour, since I believe laughter is the best teacher:
Macs are like Steak 'n Shake.
Windows is like McDonalds.

Macs are like classical music or classic rock 'n roll.
Windows is like teeny bopper pop music.

Macs are like a Porsche, Toyota, or Lexus.
Windows are the Chevy Cavalier.

Macs are steaks. Medium well. Perfectly marbled. Juicy.
Windows are bologna. Cold bologna.

Now, for some research head on over to the library and check out the following references - keep in mind that some may be older, but parts are still relevent:
http://www.sketchpad.net/filetypes.htm
http://www.apple.com/switch/
and
http://www.chicagotribune.com/techn...ductreview,1,1501937.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Hope that helps somewhat. 

PS: oh, speed [depending upon the application, overall setup, etc.], security [depending upon the user's habits too], beauty, etc. are also other differences that some may want to consider.


----------



## MSY-Houston

LOVED Chapter 2. Made me chuckle big-time!


----------



## ejspin

Yeah I got kinda hungry

Thanks for the info


----------



## Maverick83

There are a few differences.
1. They cost about three times more than PC's with the same specs.
2. The software selection is lacking compared to what is available for PC's.
3. They're easier to use.
4. They have slightly better security.
5. It's not completely owned by Bill Gates.

If you want to play games, get Windows. If you want an easier to use OS that costs more money than it should, get a Mac. Or, you could have the best of both worlds; have the gaming OS, and the most secure OS on one machine. Run a dual-boot between Windows and Linux.

There are plenty more differences, and plenty more reasons why you should, or shouldn't a Mac. But it's really preference and pocket size. You make the choice.


----------



## MSM Hobbes

Maverick83 - thanks much for your points! :up: But... but... but... 
1. Sorry, don't agree there. Esp. when you utilize quality components. For example, my home-built PC cost me actually slightly more than what a Mac would have when I built it ~2.5 years ago - and that didn't included the bundled Apple software, etc. [also, please look at the last two links mentioned below]
2. Maybe so, to a small extent, but not as much as some would think. Mainly just in the selection of games and financial/statistical type software - vast majority of other applications are available to my knowledge.
3. True. But, since most people are more familiar w/ Windows, the switch to a Mac can be at times frustrating; ie: why does my mouse have only one button? where did the top-right close button go? 
4. Again, true - esp. if use Apple's built-in browser, Safari, or even Firefox.
5. True, again, not yet!!! 

To me, if you really wanna play games, get an X-box.  Honestly, so friggin' frustrating to have compatibility probs w/ this game or that game on the PC... 

Do like your suggestion of the dual Windows and Linux world.

More references to check out for this debate are:
http://www.jmusheneaux.com/6000.htm [altho' from July 1996, cool letter to an editor... ]
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22738.html [Nov '03 article that discusses the TOC of both platforms - w/o really declaring a clear winner, but pointing out relevent issues surrounding this fun debate ]
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4895 [for a one-person's trial to look at this debate]
http://www.ctpid.ufm.edu.gt/DellPCWindowsIBMApple/computorsevaluation.html [for some silly university's silly attempt to justify their silly decision in some silly Central American country... ]

But, however, two of the better articles I've found are thus:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/36120.html
and
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/But-Macs-Are-Slower-Right-36964.html

Again, hope the above helps some.


----------



## ejspin

It is very frustrating to use a mac but people tell me the security is better

How do you run a dual boot between windows and linux?


----------



## MSM Hobbes

Oh, one more article is thus: http://homepage.mac.com/jpapola/iblog/B2047079309/C1863867956/E207536501/

Much detail, as the linuxinsider articles, but from a Mac person. No, not that is a bad thing, just maybe not as non-biased as the linux material...  And, trust me, I really am trying to be honest w/ this too... hey, I did include that link to that silly Guatamealean university article, no?


----------



## MSY-Houston

Re: Security Issues

This isn't always the case, but consider this (over and above purchasing virus protection software): 

If someone wants to spread a virus to as many computers as possible, which operating system or application program do you think they'll target? The one with the most users.

There have been many times when viruses have hit my office and the PCs are down while the Macs continue to function. An exception to this is Microsoft application products, because some macro viruses are aimed at cross-platform application programs.

Still, we don't use Microsoft's email program(s) on our Macs either, and the Macs usually continue functioning when the PCs are down.

But, if you really want to stay with a PC because you prefer them, go ahead. Just be sure to get the appropriate virus protection software and configure it to update automatically.


----------



## MSM Hobbes

MSY brings up a very good item, security. Here is some info related to that:

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=335882
A Simple Guide To Macintosh Security
Macintosh security is built in, not added as an afterthought. The design of Mac's OS X made security a top priority and achieved it in many different ways. Larry Loeb gives you an update on some of the ways security has been implemented.

http://www.securemac.com/
Welcome to SecureMac.com, a site devoted to Apple Macintosh security and Mac OS X Security! Use the Side Bar to navigate the site, check this page frequently for updates and new security products for the Mac OS!

http://www.firewallguide.com/macintosh.htm
Our Macintosh Security Guide provides background information and includes personal firewall, anti-virus, privacy and security suite/family software.

More info/sites are available, but the above are a good starting point. As mentioned before, no system is 100% immune from malware  However, what the user of the device does above and beyond the computer plays a very large role in its security.


----------



## Maverick83

ejspin said:


> It is very frustrating to use a mac but people tell me the security is better
> 
> How do you run a dual boot between windows and linux?


Well, Linux is often sharing hard drives with other OS's, so seting up a dual boot with Linux isn't hard, so just grab yourself a distro my man.
I would suggest Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE, or MEPIS. Another user also suggested Ubuntu(Free shiping if you order the distro), Arch, and Ark.

Once you have a distro on CD, just put it in the CD drive, restart your computer, and it should boot right into installation settings. With Linux, you can partition your HD to make space for Linux(You need about 5 gigabytes). If you don't have a lot of RAM, make a large swap partition as well. If you have a lot of RAM, make a small one. A large swap partition is from 1-2GB, small is 256-512MB.
Linux should install either Lilo or Grub as a boot loader, enabling you to choose which OS you want to boot into.
Linux comes with more than enough programs to keep you running. Word proccessing, graphics creation, media players, and small games(like solitaire and minesweeper).
I have had a problem installing the bootloader for the 2004.06 MEPIS distro, but there are aperently ways around that.

If you want to learn about the security differences between Windows and Linux, go here.

Man, it felt weird posting that in a Mac forum.


----------



## NJSteve

Macs and PCs are both computers but with different histories. Primarily, the difference between the two is the Operating System and Processors.

Macs are based on the Unix operating system which was originally developed at Bell Labs (now part of Lucent) in the late 60s (1969 to 1971). The Unix OS was designed from the beginning to be a fault-tolerant, multi-threated and multi-task capable OS for AT&T (the original phone company) to run on its CO (central office phone switches) boxes (Do you remember the little red brick buildings in your neighborhoods? Those were the CO phone the neighborhood phone network). That's a SHORT history of UNIX.

From this original unix os general public license was developed, and unix evolved into the different major branches of unix: AT&T's Unix, IBM's AIX, HP's UX, SCO's version, and Sun's Solaris.

PCs developed a bit later from a combination of three companies who desired to bring computing to the masses. Microsoft, Intel and IBM. Ibm produced the first PC in 1981 with the OS by Microsoft (DOS), and the cpu by Intel.

Apple also came out popularly around this time but the Apple 2e series hit the market in 1983/4 - but it also ran DOS. Later versions evolved to run Apple's Unix OS.

In short, Macs ARE generally faster and stabler than celeron based home PCs. Macs are also A LOT more expensive than PCs, which is why can't outsell PCs.
Macs originally developed a closed standard of sales: PCs evolved into the OPEN-standards that we see today: Many brands of PCs, and white boxes (PC clones).

Apple refused to open its hardware standards like Intel, IBM. In fact, one of the earliest brands of PCs was Compaq.

Like I said the short history. However, John Dvorak (www.eweek.com) has written an excellent article about how he predicts the demise of Apple!


----------



## MSM Hobbes

NJSteve... welcome to TSG, and esp. to this thread.  Found your history mostly right on the mark, but... your assessment that "Macs are also A LOT more expensive than PCs, which is why can't outsell PCs" is, again, totally bogus. Please see the posts above yours here; and also maybe visit a few sites I've mentioned. Also, the part where you state that "Apple refused to open its hardware standards like Intel, IBM." is a tad misleading. Its more of a difference of philosophy, not that they "refused", as if that is some terrible negative aspect... its not. Apple more or less decided that they wanted to control both the hard and software - and by such, they've created, in many ways, a superiour overall product. But! I got the biggest laugh when you quote John Dvorak... PLEASE!!! :rooleyes: John is so anti-Apple it's sad. And to predict the demise of Apple is laughable to boot... Please don't let me think that you are just trolling on this subject. I would rather have some more honest and truthful debate and point-of-views on this subject, not BS spewed by the likes of Dvorak, etal. Thanks!


----------



## ejspin

So what I'm to understand is that, aside from the price, Apple is basically superior
And that security is better on the mac because the majority use PC's. So if Apple were to become the majority that would mean more viruses?


----------



## MSM Hobbes

ejspin said:


> So what I'm to understand is that, aside from the price, Apple is basically superior
> And that security is better on the mac because the majority use PC's. So if Apple were to become the majority that would mean more viruses?


Well, lets back up some... have you checked out the links provided above? And really considered the pros and cons given in the posts thus far? If so, I hope then that it could be seen that PC's are better on some fronts, whereas Mac's are better on others. There is NO perfect machine. However...  yes, I would hazard to say that overall, considering everything, that yes, an Apple is "better". And again, the price differential is NOT that much, and sometimes is even in Apple's favour - IF apples are indeed compared to apples, as far as quality of the components, bundled software, etc are considered between both platforms.  Now, you do bring up a good point, one that MSY and others have also mentioned: one of the biggest reasons why MS products are more vulnerable is due to that they are the big dog, and if you were gonna create malware, would you really "waste" your time on a platform that has <10% of the market share, and even less of a percentage of the "regular" computer user? But, keep in mind that IE is also probably the biggest open door that malware creeps have against the PC user. And the probs w/ MS itself are NOT inherent in OSX, due to as pointed out above, its a much more robust OS. Lastly, another small point is that most Apple users would not stand for such crud - remember that Apple folks, while small in numbers, are VERY loyal, vocal, knowledgable, and supportive of their machines, and will do a lot to protect themselves.  Sorry, for the long-winded ramble, am on conf call, so had to type something to stay awake...


----------



## MSM Hobbes

Oh, here is an article that I had read last fall, but had forgot about til tonight. Some good points, but also please read many of the comments [such as 181, 187, 188, 192, 202, and 209  ]. Overall, not bad of a review, as he goes into some details and gives examples of his experience and the capabilities, but he did write about a model that was already off the market for a few months, and had some misperceptions at times, due to I guess his unfamiliarity w/ the machine. Anyhow, here ya go, and recall that the review is also ~3 months old too:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232&p=1


----------



## carbcycle

I dont want to come on here with my first post and cause a flaming war so let me just give you my own opinion on this debate. 

I came from a Microsoft environment, from DOS 4 through to Windows XP. I loved the products Microsoft brought out and to some extent still do, their office package is excellent  even though they do keep adding more useless features than you could ever use!

However, while studying for a degree I started to come in contact with Linux, Sun Sparcs and Macs. After using these different operating systems I started to favour the Macs. I would walk all the way to the top floor of our learning resource centre, walking past thousands of PCs just to use the Macs. But why? These Macs were running Mac OS 9 and not overly stable compared to Windows 2000 yet I found working on them easier. The interface metaphors that the GUI provided matched my way of thinking, and I found it a much more productive environment to work in.

As time went on I wiped my PC at home and created 3 partitions, one running Suse Linux, another running BeOS and one running Windows XP. I was interested in how other OS performed against Windows and with Linux now being fairly simple to use and offering a WIMP environment, I thought why not. I wanted to see if I could survive in a Windows-less world. Dont ask me about BeOS, it was a nice idea but it wasnt a great OS - would have been nice to see it continue though and get some more publicity.

Anyway, I found I could use Linux for 90% of my tasks, private stuff like surfing the web, checking mail, letters, spreadsheets etc and also my University work. This type of work meant I was coding in C++ using UNIX system calls etc and of course Linux made this happen. So the other 10% you ask? Visual Studio &#9786; for my final year project I was writing a .NET web application/windows app running on IIS and of course needed a Windows box for this.

Half way though my last year of University I had the chance to purchase an Apple Mac with 30% off. My buddy at the time was working for Apple &#9786; So I went for it! I purchased an Apple Powerbook 12. I have to say it is an awesome piece of kit and does everything I need it to do. I love Mac OS X and the way its GUI works suits me down to the ground. It hardly crashes and I have never shut the thing down for.hold on let me check.26 days as the sleep function just works great. Its built on UNIX and so is very robust and secure and is designed to be run, not rebooted every few hours like a Windows box.

If I can bring you to the present day, I work for a company administrating over 2,000 Windows clients on 2 Windows domains. I.E  I work with Windows every single day and I must say, I love coming back home and using my Mac.because.wellit just works. 

Hope this helps; it is just my take on what happened with me. Im not saying Macs are better that Windows but in MY situation the Apple Mac suited me better. 
There are going to be programs and games you just cant get for a Mac, so have a little sniff around if you decide to go for a Mac.

Only other thing I have to add is, well, Apple stuff looks GOOOOD. You buy into a little bit of class with an Apple. &#9786;

Later.


----------



## I Fix 4 U

I'm not going to reread over the whole thing, but i find there little differences in any OS. All are easy to master within a year and they are all used for similar tasks. Whether that ranges from gaming (more than likely windows), productivity (mac), stability and custimizability (linux), servers and security (solaris) and any other things together, you can still get the other tasks done in any of the operating systems. If you are up to just doing email and web browsing, as well as word processing and office, i wouldn't notice the difference between any OS. If you are going into graphics like photoshop or flash, i use windows but the best bet is mac. I just gave something very brief but i could go on for hours on subjects like this. Whatever you feel is right, price, and fits your liking etc, choose that one.  :up:


----------



## MSM Hobbes

carbcycle :up:, great informative post. thanks!

Reminds me - when at college, our computer lab was in basement of the Met., Ceramic, Geology, and Geol Eng building. PC's in one part, Mac's in smaller section. Being ignorant at the time regarding anything besides PC's [learned on a Radio Shack trash 80, err... TRS-80 ], I joined all the other PC'ers in snickering at those Apple fruits that shuffled by our "superiour" computers - heck, there was more of us, had to be better, right?!?!  Well, one afternoon, after a few hours struggling to get something to work right on a PC, a good friend of mine just about dragged me by the ear into the Mac side. Long story not too much shorter, in just a few moments, like 1/2 hour or so, I had learnt the application on the Mac, AND got the project completed too in that time. From that day on, one of my missions was to then learn more about these machines. Of course, many games of Mortal Pong [I think that's what it was called...] were also required to really learn the way these computers worked, but alas, I forced myself...  Anyhow, since then, I've been an Apple convert. 

iXneonXi, for the most part, yeap,,, but.. but... but...


----------



## zoombini

This post crops up every few months or so and always ends up being a 10 pager.....

With re to the whole cost issue, it's worth noting that the Apple MacExpo conference takes place 2morow in America. It will outline Apple's vision for the year ahead. There are strong rumours circulating that the keynote speech (delivered by CEO Steve Jobs) will include details about a low-cost Mac. The working title of this project is Q88 - a name likely to change.

Its rumoured to be a bare-bones system (and without a monitor) roughly in the £250-400 bracket. This would represent a huge risk for apple, who have traditionally marketed to business users and not the consumer stronghold. I think they are aiming to target the Ipod-owning users currently using outdated Microsoft products (ipod will only run on 2000/XP). Should be interesting.

I think the Apple Insider website gives more gossip.


----------



## zoombini

Ahh......Ive just read the previous topic by MSM Hobbes......I thought I was the first with the scoop!


----------



## MSM Hobbes

Z... :up: 

Yea,,, the "headless mac".


----------



## I Fix 4 U

Ejspin. If you haven't bought a computer yet i'd say go with a windows because the computers themselves usually cost less and you get more, you just have to try harder to get windows running well, as OSX does rather fine. Heck, I'd buy a computer at the lowest price possible and put linux in it if it were a business environment. I could get a perfectly fine computer for the business environment and it would prolly only end up costing $350.


----------



## ejspin

Hey thanks for your help everyone. Does anyone know how that conference went? What's all this about a "headless mac"?


----------



## I Fix 4 U

IDK how the conference went, i'm not the major mac follower, though i wish i could be one, but i think the headless mac is a mac w/o a display, making it smaller and less expensive, and lighter. You'd have to supply a screen such as a monitor or somthin else.


----------



## MSM Hobbes

The conference, MWSF - Macworld San Francisco - is still going on, its this week, 10-14 Jan. For info: http://www.ilenesmachine.com/partylist.shtml [the official site is: www.macworld.com site, but its just crawwwwwwwwling ]. Yes, the headless mac is a mac w/o a monitor. See the rumours thread for more info.


----------



## kenneth2k1

I want to just add a couple of sentences to the mac vs. pc thing:

If you are considering buying a Mac, don't believe anyone if they tell you that macs don't have problems... I deal with macs everyday and have ran into a couple that have had kernel panics, and more than a few that get regular unexpected errors.


----------



## linskyjack

Apple has such a small portion of the computer market that virus writers don't even waste their time---Also, I think that the Unix base of Apple is a little toughter to hack. If the tables were reveresed then Apple would be the computer of choice for virus writers.


----------



## I Fix 4 U

Yah, but macs still have system bugs, and can still get viruses, just lesser chances. Oh, and they can be hacked. _ ANYTHING can be hacked _


----------



## MSM Hobbes

As said earlier in another post/thread, these are machines. Machines are designed by humans. We ain't perfect [well, some are more perfecter than others, but that's another thread... ], and these machines are gonna fail. There is just too many potentials for conflicts, etc. to happen. Nevertheless, a Mac, IMHO, is built to a higher standard, and is backed by a better company, and with a better support system, and the OS is, to many peoples, friendlier and usually more stable. And, jack is correct in all three of his statements above. :up:


----------



## I Fix 4 U

mac stuff:
http://www.kevinrose.com/
(mac rumors etc)


----------



## MSM Hobbes

An article that may interest some considering acquiring an Apple:
http://www.billingsgazette.com/inde...dnews/2004/12/21/build/technology/40-imac.inc

G5 iMac worth switch from PCs

By MIKE WENDLAND
Knight Ridder News

If a new desktop computer is the object of your holiday hopes this season, look no further than the new G5 iMac from Apple. I said it when I first tested it and I'll say it again after two months of use: This is the finest personal computer I've ever used, hands down. Nothing comes close. If you have ever thought of switching from a Windows-based PC to a Mac, this is the deal-clincher. It is a stunning machine to look at and to use.

You won't find anything more stylish in appearance. All the innards of the computer-including the power supply-are built into the monitor, which comes as either a 17-inch or 20-inch flat panel. That means the entire computer is about 2 inches thick, contained in an acrylic rectangular-shaped case with rounded corners.

The CD or DVD drive is recessed into the right side. USB and FireWire ports, external speaker and microphone jacks and the on-off switch are on the back, with the whole shebang adjustably mounted on a piece of anodized aluminum. I like this machine a lot. And because Macs - for a variety of reasons - are as close to immune to viruses and worms as you can get, the new G5 is my top recommendation for anyone considering a new computer this year. It seems as if it's just hanging there, suspended in space.

The G5 iMac comes with Apple's iLife suite of software for handling digital pictures, editing video, burning DVDs, playing music and managing and synchronizing an address book, a calendar and e-mail. The GarageBand music composition application is also included, as is the 2004 edition of the World Book encyclopedia and the popular Quicken 2004 money management software. And all of those applications zip right along, thanks to a speedy 1.6 or 1.8 GHz PowerPC G5 processor.

But besides the sheer beauty of the thing, the most brilliant thing Apple has done is to make the G5 iMac affordable. The 17-inch, 1.6 GHz model starts at $1,299. For that price you get an 80 GB hard drive and a DVD and CD player that can also record CDs. The 20-inch version begins at $1,899. It has the faster 1.8 GHz processor, a 160 GB hard drive and Apple's SuperDrive that plays and records DVDs and CDs.

My one complaint has to do with the standard 256 MB of memory. Apple is clearly cutting costs. That *256 MB really should be 512 MB at a minimum*, especially if you plan to do a lot of heavy lifting like video editing with the Apple iMovie software. You can upgrade to 512 MB by forking over $75 more, but skimping on memory seems pretty classless for what otherwise is a very classy machine.

An older article by the same writer: http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwend16_20030116.htm
Apple's looks, functions convert this PC devotee

January 16, 2003

BY MIKE WENDLAND
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

I'm a switcher. My main personal computer system is now an Apple Macintosh. It began innocently enough. Over a period of several months after Apple's new OS X Jaguar operating system was released last year, I tested a variety of iBooks, iMacs and G4s. I was playing with fire.

As I wrote about an amazingly full-featured tiny $999 iBook for a fall laptop review, I realized that I had slowly become very attracted to these machines. When it came time to send the review unit back, there was a very real sense of loss.

By early December, I was so lovelorn that there was no stopping me. I drove to the Apple Store at the Somerset Collection in Troy and came home with a new dual-processor 1 GB G4 Power Mac system with 1 GB of memory and a 17-inch flat-screen monitor. Six months to pay, same as cash. My five-month-old Dell Dimension 8200 system got pushed aside like a jilted lover. What's caused this lifestyle change? I'm a sucker for a pretty interface -- and the way the Mac looks and feels and operates simply seduced me.

*Frankly, it's not as fast as my Windows machine. But what my Mac lacks in speed it makes up for in elegance. The Mac just doesn't feel like a machine. It's clean and crisp and tactile.* I have also become a huge fan of Office OS X, the Mac version of Microsoft's popular suite of productivity programs. For example, Entourage, the Mac version of Outlook, is so much better at handling e-mail and filtering out spam and junk messages that I now cringe when going back to Outlook, as I had to on a recent trip.

Mac Office spreadsheets, Word documents and PowerPoints all read files from the Windows versions, and vice versa. In fact, every program I used on my PC has a Mac equivalent. Often, the Mac version has improved features. I've dumped Microsoft's Internet Explorer in favor of Apple's just-released Mac-only Safari Web browser. Safari is the fastest, easiest-to-use browser I have ever tried. It has an ingenious way of keeping bookmarks right on the taskbar.

I use the Mac a lot for digital video editing. iMovie, the free program that comes with all Macs, is so simple you hardly need to read the instructions, and yet it produces work that's very close to broadcast quality. I've used several DVD-burning programs on PCs. I found them troublesome and needlessly complicated. Mac's iDVD let me easily produce a family Christmas DVD of old photos that made me proud.

There are several other "i" applications on the Mac, built around managing digital pictures and music and synchronizing files. They're so intuitive and useful that I actually look forward to working with them.

I'll still use my PC, and I really do like Windows XP and my Dell. *But I love my Mac* -- though it does pose a unique problem for me. For years on radio and in my NBC News Channel reports, I've been known as PC Mike.

So I'll explain that PC really stands for Personal Computer. For indeed, my new love for my Mac is very personal.


----------



## kenneth2k1

I really have to question what this guy is doing that his "new dual-processor 1 GB G4 Power Mac system with 1 GB of memory" is not as fast as his PC. Unless he wrote the article on _Opposite Day_ 

Agreed the OSX interface is much more smooth than windows, but he seems more intent on appealing to people's "style" rather than what you really want to get a Mac for: doing more than just word processing and gaming.


----------



## MSM Hobbes

Yea, does sound opposite, but, all I can say is that based on his article he's supposedly using "the Mac a lot for digital video editing." But, his Mac should trump the PC in spades especially for that application. In any case, he doesn't go into the details [as many "tech writers for the common person" really should do more] of why one is slower, better, faster, different, etc. - just a generic overview. At the least, it gets the Mac some positive PR into the general public's eye and mind. :up:


----------



## linskyjack

I had an Apple 2 when it first came out (it was actually branded by Honeywell---) Then I had a bunch of different Macs---I switched over to PC's because there wasn't enough software written for Mac--that is still the case. For instance, in my profession, video editing, I primarily have two choices to run on a Mac--5-6 to run on a PC. Up until Windows XP Pro I did have plenty of computer freezes etc. Since Windows XP Pro, I cant remember the last time I had a freeze or any problem whatsoever. By the way, pretty much any graphics program that runs on the Mac, runs on the PC---I run Photoshop CS, After Effects, Avid, etc---------

To me, I can build the machine I want and switch and swipe components at will---I will never go back to Mac, although I might try the el-cheapo one that just came out to familiarize myself with FCP.


----------



## slarti

ejspin said:


> It is very frustrating to use a mac but people tell me the security is better


It's not that frustrating, just different. I think that XP is fustrating because things are moved around, but if I ever get a copy I know that I'll like it better than 98/2k.

I got used to using Mac X just like I'm used to using 98/2k. I do all my work on Mac X or *nix. I play games on Windows.

I think it HAS to come down to preference. I've been lucky enough to get a hold of six or seven computers and I run different OSs on them, 3 macs, 2 Linux, 1 2k and 1 98. I chose OS X. I run it on a 7 year old G3 that I got used. It runs (512RAM 266Ghz Processor), better than my (1GBRAM, 1.8 GHZ) PC. That's running 98 though and I know that XP would do much better.

This is a religious debate. both have drawbacks.


----------



## Deathblow

My favorite comparison of OS's.

http://www.webaugur.com/bibliotheca/field_stock/os-airlines.html


----------



## Maverick83

Deathblow said:


> My favorite comparison of OS's.
> 
> http://www.webaugur.com/bibliotheca/field_stock/os-airlines.html


Excellent link there.


----------



## MSM Hobbes

slarti - as to the religious debate aspect... :up:

deathblow -  link!

Some other humour ones I've in my favourites:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north313.html
http://www.tobp.com/humor/systems.shtml [as a beer drinker, this is really good! ]
http://bbspot.com/News/2003/01/os_quiz.php [ok then,,, first time I took this while back, I was a Palm OS; now I'm an Windoze 98!  Of course, I answered the questions the 2nd time just a tad more different... ]

If Operating Systems Drove Your Car
http://www.chez.com/jjl/humour/OSCar.htm
MS-DOS: You get in the car and try to remember where you put the keys.

WINDOWS: You get in the car and drive to the store very slowly, because attached to the back of the car is a freight train.

MAC SYSTEM 7: You get in the car to go to the store and the car drives you to church.

UNIX: You get in the car and type GREP STORE. After reaching 2000 mph en route, you arrive at the barber's shop.

WINDOWS NT: You get in the car and write a letter that says 'go to the store'. Then you get out of the car and nail the letter to the dashboard.

TALIGENT/PINK: You walk to the store with Ricardo Montalban who tells you how wonderful it will be when he can fly you to the store in his Learjet.

OS/2: After fuelling up with 6000 gallons of gas you get in the car and drive to the store with a motorcycle escort and a marching band in procession. Halfway there, the car blows up, killing everyone in town.

S/36 SSP: You get in the car and drive to the store. Halfway there you run out of gas. While walking the rest of the way you are run over by kids on mopeds.

AS/400: An attendant kicks you into the car and then drives you to the store where you watch everyone else buy filets mignon.

This one is more up-to-date... 
http://www.geocities.com/athens/forum/6116/store.html


----------



## MSM Hobbes

For a fair comparison between an Apple [Mac mini] and a Windows-based PC [Dell], check out: http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/01/miniapplesandoranges/index.php :up:


----------



## Deathblow

heh, Fair review...on Macworld.


----------



## MSM Hobbes

Deathblow said:


> heh, Fair review...on Macworld.


Fair, yea, I know...


----------



## MSM Hobbes

Ok, here is another comparison:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2005/0111_dt0600.html?

Many other comparisons are found in this site too.

USA Today also discussed the Apple: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-01-21-apple-usat_x.htm


----------



## Deadwood724

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but I haven't see it yet. One of the biggest reasons we use the Macs on our job is the scriptable OS. We have so many automated processes going on that have saved us tons and tons of man-hours. Just wanted to add that point.


----------



## I Fix 4 U

I really wouldn't know, but you can script in windows too, i'm guessing macs its easier.


----------



## smash

if your rich mac is good
if your not pc is good
it really depends what you want to use it for


----------



## kenneth2k1

smash said:


> if your rich mac is good
> if your not pc is good
> it really depends what you want to use it for


What are you trying to say? I ain't rich and I have a mac.


----------



## ejspin

Only rich people deserve to use macs, and if a poor person even so much as looks at one then a laser will shoot out of its highly visual screen and kill them. duh


----------



## MSM Hobbes

I think smash is trying to promote the somewhat false notion that an Apple is more expensive than a PC. 

If desire to be serious about such a debate, please read the other posts within this section regarding the true and actual cost of ownership - where not just the price of the box, but the performance, the bundled software, expansion, quality, etc. are all taken into consideration. IMHO, once that is done, there is actually not that much difference between the two formats. And, the Apple can even be cheaper than a PC depending upon the price point you are considering/comparing. 

Now, hopefully, smash is not just trolling, and is only posting such to add fuel to a friendly, honest discussion...


----------



## ejspin

I think apple should look into that whole laser idea though :atent pending!!::


----------



## slarti

smash said:


> if your rich mac is good
> if your not pc is good
> it really depends what you want to use it for


My PC cost more than my Mac and runs worse. If i was rich, I'd have more Macs.


----------



## johnpaul

No one has mentioned this yet, but the Mac doesn't require defragging. On my '98 box, I might run defrag several times a week, depending on what I installed or uninstalled. My XP laptop isn't quite as bad, but defragging is still a chore that must be done periodically.

*JP*


----------



## skooter

johnpaul said:


> No one has mentioned this yet, but the Mac doesn't require defragging. On my '98 box, I might run defrag several times a week, depending on what I installed or uninstalled. My XP laptop isn't quite as bad, but defragging is still a chore that must be done periodically.
> 
> *JP*


Actually they do. Macs use the same file storage hardware as PCs. File fragmentation is inevitable.

_The claim that installations of Mac OS X on HFS+ volumes do not fragment is a myth believed by people who do not have disk optimizers that allow them to see how much fragmentation their disks have. It is an example of ignorance that is not able to be removed by any amount of evidence. I think theologians call that invincible ignorance. It is now a widespread form of the pollution of information space._



> *Why Defrag - By MMT3*
> _
> I do not want to start yet another thread on this subject, which has been discussed extensively here and at the Apple Discussion Forums. The most complete summary of what I have to say about optimization follows:
> 
> MicroMat strongly recommends that you always leave at least 15% of any HFS+ volume as free space. If an HFS+ volume is more than 85% full and is heavily fragmented, any further data added to the volume can result in irreparable damage to the disk directory.
> 
> The first time I heard about the 85% full guideline for HFS+ volumes was shortly after the developer of TechTool Pro determined that there was such a problem and found that it could be reproduced. The corresponding guideline for HFS volumes on hard drives is 70%.
> 
> Many of you are familiar with the fact that Macintosh files can have both a data fork and a resource fork. The locations of the first eight pieces (called extents) of each fork of a Macintosh file are recorded in a part of the disk directory called the Catalog B-Tree. Any additional pieces have their locations recorded in the Extents B-Tree (known within Apple as the Extents Overflow File). These two files make up the major part of the disk directory, and are created when the disk is formatted or initialized. Because they are an inherent part of the volume, these files are also described as logical structures or volume structures. The data that records the location of pieces of files is stored in data structures called nodes within the Catalog B-Tree and Extents B-Tree.
> 
> When a disk is formatted, its sectors are organized into allocation blocks, groups of consecutive sectors. One of the advantages of HFS+ disks is that the allocation blocks can be as small as 4K. This advantage results in less waste of disk space on disks that contain many small files, because each file, no matter how little useful data it contains, occupies at least one allocation block.
> 
> Any ordinary file can grow by an increment as small as one allocation block, but the Catalog B-Tree and Extents B-Tree cannot. If all of their nodes are full, and new entries need to be made in these directory files, then a new piece of Catalog B-Tree or Extents B-Tree must be added to the volume. If these logical structures could grow by one allocation block, they would spend much of the new space keeping track of their own new pieces. The solution to this problem is to require that the Catalog B-Tree and Extents B-Tree grow by an amount of disk space equal to the clump size for these files. In order for the new piece of Catalog B-Tree or Extents B-Tree to work efficiently, it is required to be written to disk space that is not only free, but contiguous (in one piece). If the amount of free contiguous disk space is less than the clump size, and a new piece of Catalog B-Tree or (more likely) Extents B-Tree must be added to the disk, an older piece of Catalog B-Tree or Extents B-Tree is overwritten. The resulting disaster cannot be repaired by any utility.
> 
> While the new piece of the Catalog B-Tree or Extents B-Tree must be written in a single extent, the new extent does not have to be contiguous with the last piece of the file. In fact, MicroMat has seen some disks that shipped from the factory with the Catalog B-Tree in seven extents, with the last one not near the first ones. This is not a problem as long as the disk directory properly records the locations of its own pieces. However, a commercial disk repair utility, when it writes a new disk directory, may require or strongly encourage the user to provide enough free contiguous disk space so that the new Catalog B-Tree and Extents B-Tree can each be in one piece. This seems to be a prudent choice, to create a new directory that is as simple as possible.
> 
> I do not know the relationship between allocation block size and clump size, but on a 2 GB HFS+ volume that has 4K allocation blocks, the clump size is 4 MB, or 1024 allocation blocks. (In this case, the clump size is 1/500 of the capacity of the disk. For a 100 GB disk, that would be 200 MB, if the relationship is linear.) Therefore, if this disk needs to add a new piece of Catalog B-Tree or Extents B-Tree, and the amount of contiguous free disk space is less than 4 MB, irreparable damage results. I supposed one could contrive to make a disk that was less than 85% full, yet had so many small scattered files that the amount of contiguous free disk space was less than the clump size, but I have not heard of that happening. It would probably require considerable effort to contrive.
> 
> Disk optimizers began on the Macintosh in an effort to improve the performance of early hard drives. With todays high-speed drives, the amount of time required to open a file that is in 60 pieces appears to the user to be only slightly greater than the amount of time required to open it if it is one piece. However, the optimizer is now seen to have a purpose more important than performance.
> 
> In addition to ensuring that HFS+ volumes have sufficient free contiguous disk space for the disk directory to grow, disk optimizers are useful because they simplify the disk directory, causing all of the nodes in the Extents B-Tree to be free rather than used. A simplified disk directory is easier to repair or rebuild. One symptom of an excessively complex disk directory is an error messsage from Disk First Aid that the hash table is full. The hash table is created in RAM by Disk First Aid as it attempts to rebuild the disk directory. It is not a file on the disk itself.
> 
> Should you ever require the services of a data recovery firm, please be advised that your bill will be proportional to how badly fragmented your disk is. File recovery is greatly simplified when the pieces (extents) of a file do not require being searched for individually by a person.
> 
> Always make and test a backup before running any disk optimizer. It is prudent to check the volume structures (disk directory) of the disk before running the optimizer, and to perform a surface scan to check for bad blocks before the optimizer begins to move around large amounts of data. A UPS device to ensure a steady supply of electricity for models other than iBooks and PowerBooks is highly recommended.
> *
> The claim that installations of Mac OS X on HFS+ volumes do not fragment is a myth believed by people who do not have disk optimizers that allow them to see how much fragmentation their disks have. It is an example of ignorance that is not able to be removed by any amount of evidence. I think theologians call that invincible ignorance. It is now a widespread form of the pollution of information space.*
> 
> I decided to erase a damaged 9.1 GB HFS+ volume named Cube_Part_3, and to install Mac OS X 10.2.0 on it. After the installer was finished, I repaired the permissions, then restarted under Mac OS 9 so I could use TechTool Pro 3.0.9 to see how many fragmented files there were, and in how many pieces the free space was. There were 146 fragmented files, and the free space was in 519 pieces. Fortunately, one of them made up much of the majority of the free space on the disk.
> 
> After running the 10.2.6 Combo Updater, I repaired the permissions again, then restarted under Mac OS 9 to check the disk. There were 149 fragmented files, and the free space was in 2,454 pieces. Of course, many of these small free space fragments will be able to accomodate the writing of small files in a single extent later, but these figures do show that it might be a good idea to optimize the volume before and after adding the third-party applications. Having the disk completely optimized before you start adding, modifying, and deleting your own documents is worth the small amount of effort it takes.
> 
> I installed Mac OS X 10.3.0 on an external FireWire drive, a LaCie Data Bank. The result was 115 fragmented files, 153 file fragments (file pieces, or extents, beyond the first one), and a free space in 249 pieces.
> 
> Mac OS X Panther adds some automatic file optimization and file relocation features, but they are quite limited, and the optimization affects only files smaller than 20 MB. The most detailed description I have seen of this new feature is the one written by David Badinovac at http://www.macintouch.com/panreader18.html .
> 
> UFS disks attempt to reduce fragmentation by putting all the pieces of a file (still called extents) on the same cylinder. If the cylinder becomes full and new pieces must be added to the files on it, the files fragment. UFS disks use structures call indirect and double-indirect inodes to keep track of the locations of pieces of fragmented files.
> 
> For an inode diagram that includes single and double indirect blocks on UFS disks:
> 
> http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/ext2intro.html
> 
> For a good text description of a UFS disk, see http://www.hicom.net/~shchuang/Unix/unix4.html
> 
> and http://www.isu.edu/departments/comcom/unix/workshop/fstour.html .
> 
> Apple does not recommend using UFS disks unless you are a developer working on software for UNIX platforms. Apples implementation of UFS is said to be relatively slow, and if fsck cannot fix a disk directory error, there is no alternative to reformating the volume and restoring the files from a backup.
> 
> In addition to providing sufficient free contiguous disk space for the growth of the disk directory, there are two other reasons why you should maintain your HFS+ volumes so that they are never more than 85% full:
> 
> 1. Swapfiles must be written to disk space that is both free and contiguous.
> 
> In Jaguar, each swapfile is 80 MB (80,000,000 bytes).
> 
> In Panther, the first two swapfiles are 64 MB, the next is 128 MB, and the next is 256 MB. The one after that is named buy more RAM.
> 
> You can see the swapfiles currently in use by using the Go to Folder menu choice of the Finders Go menu, and typing in the dialog box:
> 
> /private/var/vm
> 
> Swapfiles are created at boot time, and are removed at restart or shutdown.
> 
> 2. The journal file, which has a default size of 8192K, must be in a single piece.
> 
> Revised June 10, 2004
> 
> revision notes:
> 
> 1. Changed number of extents recorded in the Catalog B-Tree and Extents B-Tree from three to eight for each fork of a Macintosh file. (Sorry about the error, the source of which I can no longer reconstruct. It predates my registration here at MacFixIt.) A detailed description of the HFS+ volume format is at http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1150.html .
> 
> 2. Added information about swapfiles requiring free contiguous disk space.
> 
> 3. Added information about the journal file requiring free contiguous disk space.
> 
> 4. Added detail about free contiguous disk space required or strongly encouraged by commercial disk repair utilities when a rebuilt disk directory is written from RAM to the volume.
> 
> 5. Added other minor details and repetitions in the hope that misinterpretation will be minimized.
> 
> 6. Added guideline of 70% for HFS volumes.
> 
> MicroMat Inc
> Makers of TechTool
> _
> http://www.macfixitforums.com/php/s...Forum38&Number=570817&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1


And here's some tools too

http://www.macfixitforums.com/php/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=xutilities&Number=570096


----------



## MSM Hobbes

skooter - thanks, good info. :up:

For some additional info, regarding the Mac OS X compatibility w/ the MS Windows world: http://images.apple.com/macosx/pdf/Panther_Windows_TB_10242003.pdf


----------



## Flashback

slarti said:


> My PC cost more than my Mac and runs worse. If i was rich, I'd have more Macs.


 :up: 

All I can say is my new Mac Mini cost only 599. My 3.2 gig P4 PC costs me 2000.00 + and runs like crap


----------



## MSM Hobbes

For one comparison between latest Mac and PC's, http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html
http://www.barefeats.com/mac2pc.html


----------



## Flashback

Maverick83 said:


> They (Macs) cost about three times more than PC's with the same specs.


Absolutely NOT true  Around 5 years ago this may have been the case, _but not anymore _ :up: In fact it's just the opposite, Macs now cost LESS than a PC with the same specs  I will post an article later tonight which will prove this step by step :up:


----------



## AceDickson

NJSteve said:


> Like I said the short history. However, John Dvorak (www.eweek.com) has written an excellent article about how he predicts the demise of Apple!


John C. Dvorak is a schmuck, IMHO. Take anything he says with a grain of salt.

As for the discussion at hand. I just recently switched to Mac, but will continue
to own and use PCs as well. If it's a matter of one over the other due to money constraints go to a CompUSA or Apple store or reseller and talk to someone. If you head to CompUSA make sure they have an Apple employee working there. I would suggest more an Apple sotore or reseller and talk to one of the Mac specialist. Then make an informed decision.


----------



## MSM Hobbes

Flashback said:


> Absolutely NOT true  Around 5 years ago this may have been the case, _but not anymore _ :up: In fact it's just the opposite, Macs now cost LESS than a PC with the same specs  I will post an article later tonight which will prove this step by step :up:


:up: Especially if you also consider and take into account the bundled software, the quality of the components, and the relative freedom from malware. 

AceDickson, hellow! Would also add that I have been into a couple various Apple stores, and only based upon these three different locations [San Fran, StL, and ATL], if you are a newby in the Apple world, sometimes it seems difficult for the help to relate to what your needs may be. I'm pretty good at appearing dumb, since don't have to act too much at times , but still, I was disappointed for the most part in my interactions, guess since I was expecting a higher level of discussion about what my needs are currently, what they may be in the near future, and what models best fit them. The SanFran one downtown was the worst tho', since every display unit was being utilized by a snot nosed kid, playing games on line or checking email...  Hate to sound negative, but just relaying my own personal experience so that if anyone else that is interested in a Mac is not discouraged by their visit, and maybe has more realistic expectations than I did. 

Oh, as to JCD, :up: on that smuck!  Mossberg [sp?] from the WS Journal is much better.


----------



## Wet Chicken

AceDickson said:


> I just recently switched to Mac, but will continue to own and use PCs as well.


 :up: 

That's the beauty of the Mac Mini, now there is no reason not to own both  Instead of buying Virtual PC for my Mac I decided to keep my 3.2 Gig P4 and run them through a KVM. That way I have the best of both and I didn't have to buy a monitor or keyboard or mouse for the Mac Mini.

Mac = *M*ighty *A*wsome *C*omputer - PC = *P*retty *C*rappy (_you can quote me on that_)  

Here is the link that compares both the budget PC and Mac. Great article. (_thanks to MSM Hobbes for the original link_)


----------



## Flashback

skooter said:


> Actually they do. Macs use the same file storage hardware as PCs. File fragmentation is inevitable.
> 
> _The claim that installations of Mac OS X on HFS+ volumes do not fragment is a myth believed by people who do not have disk optimizers that allow them to see how much fragmentation their disks have. _


The only myths started here are by PC users like yourself skooter. Get your facts straight please.

Fact number one; no one knows Apple computers better than Apple Computer Inc.

Here is what they have to say about defragging a Mac:



> *About optimization and fragmentation*
> 
> Do I need to optimize?
> 
> You probably won't need to optimize at all *if* you use Mac OS X.
> 
> Here's why:
> 
> Hard disk capacity is generally much greater now than a few years ago. With more free space available, the file system doesn't need to fill up every "nook and cranny." Mac OS Extended formatting (HFS Plus) avoids reusing space from deleted files as much as possible, to avoid prematurely filling small areas of recently-freed space.
> 
> Mac OS X 10.2 and later includes delayed allocation for Mac OS X Extended-formatted volumes. This allows a number of small allocations to be combined into a single large allocation in one area of the disk.
> 
> Fragmentation was often caused by continually appending data to existing files, especially with resource forks. _With faster hard drives and better caching, as well as the new application packaging format, many applications simply rewrite the entire file each time. Mac OS X 10.3 Panther can also automatically defragment such slow-growing files. This process is sometimes known as "Hot-File-Adaptive-Clustering."_
> 
> Aggressive read-ahead and write-behind caching means that minor fragmentation has _less effect_ on perceived system performance.
> For these reasons, *there is little benefit to defragmenting.*


Link

Have a nice day


----------



## skooter

Flashback said:


> The only myths started here are by PC users like yourself skooter. Get your facts straight please.


Thanks for your input, but I'm a Mac user. And "the party line" that you're parroting is more marketing-speak than reality - a consistent tactic of Apple to win loyalty over a user base that is largely ignorant of it's product. That's why I provided volumous information that's techinically sound. But you've chosen to ignore this fact in favor of a marketing release from the manufacturer. Information that is disengenuous and purposely misleading.

OS X and HFS still requires occasional defragging. More than anything, the double-speak disclaimer in your quote is about hard drive storage that presumes that their product is running on the latest and greatest systems resources. It's solidly safe to say that most of Apple's market doesn't have the latest and greatest hardware, for varying reasons. Which, of course, means that many systems still run on limited resources with older hardware that requires more frequent maintenance, including periodic defragmentation.


----------



## linskyjack

NO, Apple isn't superior----Apple is an answer----PC's are an answer----

Again----why dont you spend some time on each platform and make your decison? Why listen to fanboys on either side of the issue---There are plenty of places you can go to and play with both machines. 

I have used both and I happen to like PC's. My partner in my video company likes the Macs---Its a matter taste and application.


----------



## VegasACF

The Mac OS _is_ superior. For _some_ things. And Windows is superior for _others_.

It's just a matter of which one is superior in the ways that matter most to you.


----------



## Flashback

skooter said:


> It's solidly safe to say that most of Apple's market doesn't have the latest and greatest hardware, for varying reasons. Which, of course, means that many systems still run on limited resources with older hardware that requires more frequent maintenance, including periodic defragmentation.


Again, get your facts straight  It doesn't matter how old the hardware is. On a Mac that runs on OS X the only thing that matters is that you have 15% or more free space. Your back door theories only apply to Macs that use an OS older than OS X. If you run OS X and have 15% free space on your hard drive then you don't need to defrag. The only exception to that rule would be if you had a small hard drive (_with no free space_) and you used your Mac to make movies 24/7 with LOTS of large files, but I'm guessing that 99.9% of Mac users reading this aren't in the professional movie making business. If they were, then they'd probably be using large hard drives and have more than 15% free space, and then guess what, they wouldn't need to defrag. It has NOTHING to do with hardware. The only simple rule to observe with OS X is to _make sure_ that you have 15% or more free space. But hey, if you want to waste your money on defraging software for the Mac then that's your business. You can get in line and join those who buy anti-virus software for their Macs 

Linskyjack - I love your sig! It's the best one that I've seen in a long while :up:


----------



## skooter

Flashback said:


> Again, get your facts straight  It doesn't matter how old the hardware is. On a Mac that runs on OS X the only thing that matters is that you have 15% or more free space. Your back door theories only apply to Macs that use an OS older than OS X. If you run OS X and have 15% free space on your hard drive then you don't need to defrag....


I'm glad we can, at least, partly agree. Though you're pretty far off base on the assumption that these conditions are produced only with an older OS.

Take for instance, an iMac Indigo DV, that comes standard with a 10gb hard drive. After a fresh OS X install, a few standard softwares, including a productivity suite and an average amount of restored user data, the machine can easily fall well below 15% free hard disk space. In fact that's exactly what I have sitting next to me right now, and it certainly doesn't edit movies to get in that condition. Just common everyday computing.

Another example, a friend of mine has a tower G4 dual 450mHz. He's got less than 15% space, he neither edits movies nor has a lot of large files but can't afford to upgrade. He definitely requires periodic defragging. And although these are but two examples, they are pretty common conditions for the average user. I'm pretty sure many are much worse off.

So for a "back door" theory, as you call it, it's a solid one. And you really helped me prove the point that many Apple systems still on the market, although older but still perfectly serviceable, require periodic defragmentation to stay in peak performance. So thanks!


----------



## Flashback

skooter said:


> an iMac Indigo DV, that comes standard with a 10gb hard drive.


Anyone using a _measly_ 10 gig hard drive today as their main and only hard drive should probably think twice about running OS X to begin with, as it requires roughly one third of that hard drive just to run  Maybe _common sense_ should dictate that instead of spending $40.00 - $80.00 on defragging software that you don't need, that first you should be looking into getting a bigger hard drive  I mean _geesh_... you can pick up a *160* Gig hard drive today for only 39 bucks or less! Then you'd get your 15% free space wouldn't you? And then you wouldn't have to worry about defragging  Apple (_and I_) are not talking about doing this on a G3 dinosaur relic, we're saying that by far the majority of people who use OS X _today_ on a somewhat MODERN Macintosh computer won't have to worry about defraging - ever. Even the Mac mini comes stock with a *80* GB hard drive  For those few who are trying to cram OS X and Photoshop and the kitchen sink onto a tiny 10 Gig iPod-ish sized hard drive - _well DUH_... I guess you should be worried about what's going on in your tiny-weenie little hard drive shouldn't you? 99% of everyone else reading this won't have to worry about any of that. Even someone with a 10 Gig hard drive only needs a little over one and a half megs of free space not to worry about defragging. These days that's not very big 

So to simplify, just look at how much free space you have on your Mac. If you have 15% or more, then save your money and don't waste it on defragging software that you'll never need. If you're using a 10 gig iPod-ish sized hard drive - then use your money instead to buy a bigger hard drive, and then you still won't need worthless defragging software. Either way the average person today who is running OS X won't need to waste their hard earned money on defragging software 99.5 out of 100 times on a Mac. So for that 0.5% of the time that people don't use common sense and/or still try to cram the kitchen sink on only 10 gigs of space, I guess your back door theory works. The rest of us won't have to worry about it - ever. I'll take those odds anytime thank you very much :up:


----------



## linskyjack

Flashback said:


> Again, get your facts straight  It doesn't matter how old the hardware is. On a Mac that runs on OS X the only thing that matters is that you have 15% or more free space. Your back door theories only apply to Macs that use an OS older than OS X. If you run OS X and have 15% free space on your hard drive then you don't need to defrag. The only exception to that rule would be if you had a small hard drive (_with no free space_) and you used your Mac to make movies 24/7 with LOTS of large files, but I'm guessing that 99.9% of Mac users reading this aren't in the professional movie making business. If they were, then they'd probably be using large hard drives and have more than 15% free space, and then guess what, they wouldn't need to defrag. It has NOTHING to do with hardware. The only simple rule to observe with OS X is to _make sure_ that you have 15% or more free space. But hey, if you want to waste your money on defraging software for the Mac then that's your business. You can get in line and join those who buy anti-virus software for their Macs
> 
> Linskyjack - I love your sig! It's the best one that I've seen in a long while :up:


Well I appreciate that---and isn't it the truth!


----------



## VegasACF

I've never noticed my having horns... Perhaps I'm an exception?


----------



## Flashback

linskyjack said:


> ...isn't it the truth!


More than you know


----------



## Hosheen

Yeah, it's true. Dvorak has been predicting the demise of apple for about 20 years now. It's like the old saying, "The world is going to the dogs". All I can say is, the dogs have had a loooonnggg wait!


----------



## linskyjack

VegasACF said:


> I've never noticed my having horns... Perhaps I'm an exception?


I was very specific--this only applies to certain lawyers.


----------



## linskyjack

VegasACF said:


> I've never noticed my having horns... Perhaps I'm an exception?


I stand corrected.


----------

