PDA

View Full Version : Apple or Microsoft?


Pages : [1] 2

XP_GUN
04-10-05, 03:09 PM
Ok my dad well has been thinking about getting a apple computer just for banking and well I dont know if he should go to apple just because we have never had one, and the latest findings that apple is not all secure as they clam it is. I just need to know some info if its better than microsoft and such. :cool:

superklye
04-10-05, 03:23 PM
If your dad is a computer n00b, get him the Mac. They're computers for people who shouldn't use computers.

XP_GUN
04-10-05, 03:42 PM
^ no he nost really a noob with computer. He knows "with windows 95 and kinda with XP" how to run a computer ect and built my first one. He also had a year old Dell laptop which he gave to my sister to us in school. But with todays tech and such I think hes not as computer legit as he use to be. But yeah hes mostly looking for securty stuff like is apple more secure than Microsoft?

Subtestube
04-10-05, 03:44 PM
I agree with superklye - whenever anyone who doesn't know computers and doesn't have any intention of gaming asks me what to get, I say "Get an Apple". They really are just easier to use for people who haven't already got the preconceptions and experience with an MS Windows (Or Linux for that matter) system.

EDIT: Just saw your reply to Superklye. I'd say yes, Apples are more secure, but mainly because they're not the mass market. There're still a lot less of them, so they're a much smaller target. That said, if your Dad is Comp. Literate, just go for whatever you can get a better deal on. Again, I still consider Apples a better bet when no gaming or high level of customisation is required.

jAkUp
04-10-05, 05:05 PM
Get him one with Wndows xp... so you have a better understanding on how to use it, and he will also since he is familiar with it. Also so he can have 2 mouse buttons. haha

retsam
04-10-05, 05:15 PM
Apples are more secure

there moto should say ...security through obsecrity... sorry had to say it

superklye
04-10-05, 05:24 PM
Get him one with Wndows xp... so you have a better understanding on how to use it, and he will also since he is familiar with it. Also so he can have 2 mouse buttons. haha
hahahaha

XP_GUN
04-10-05, 10:54 PM
Hes not all that bad, he has a apple Ipod which I dont have. ;)

1337_Like_ThaT
04-11-05, 02:10 AM
Hes not all that bad, he has a apple Ipod which I dont have. ;)

...And that is the only thing Apple has done right in the past few years :p

six_storm
04-11-05, 11:18 AM
Now I've had every flavor of Windows since MS-DOS, if you really wanna count that. I just recently bought an Apple iBook and I will say that it is easier to use a Mac, period. I do all of my office, school work and Internet surfing on my iBook and all of my gaming on my WinXP rig.

If your dad wants something that runs really smooth and problem free, get a Mac. With my recent Windows problems, I'll never go back to a Windows-based machine for using Office, Photoshop, etc . . .

nIghtorius
04-11-05, 11:26 AM
Now I've had every flavor of Windows since MS-DOS, if you really wanna count that. I just recently bought an Apple iBook and I will say that it is easier to use a Mac, period. I do all of my office, school work and Internet surfing on my iBook and all of my gaming on my WinXP rig.

If your dad wants something that runs really smooth and problem free, get a Mac. With my recent Windows problems, I'll never go back to a Windows-based machine for using Office, Photoshop, etc . . .

weird.. I never had any trouble with XP.. (systems hang or so).. Although I managed get huge crashes with MacOS.. (especially version 9.. but I also managed to crash MacOS-X several times in one day :cool: )

oldsk00l
04-11-05, 11:47 AM
Ok my dad well has been thinking about getting a apple computer just for banking and well I dont know if he should go to apple just because we have never had one, and the latest findings that apple is not all secure as they clam it is. I just need to know some info if its better than microsoft and such. :cool:

Lemme give you the skinny, it is vastly more secure just by nature of the kernel it runs on and the userland software it comes from. The BSD project is VERY security oriented, and OSX follows a LOT of unix philosophy. As far as exploits goes, it's largely open sourced, and they release patches vastly quicker. Your problem areas are going to be buffer over-runs caused by the Carbon layer and on up. The security of the APPLE portion is yet to be decided as it's not yet been taken advantage of. However, at its foundation is something vastly more secure than what is at the foundation of windows. The vulnerabilities come from apps and user interface programs themselves.

Now onto "what should he use" etc??

OSX is better for EVERYTHING in every capacity and method, and implementation, than Windows. Banking, finance, accounting, email, browsing, multimedia, document creation, network browsing, and yes - Office.

I tried out Entourage on our exchange server at work, and it worked beautifully. Lightning fast, and I have about 600mb worth of emails in various folders. It functioned with the EXACT same speed as windows except it was a TON more pleasing to the eye.

There is only one thing that the Mac doesn't do better in every concievable way than windows, and that's gaming. If your dad wants to play Doom3, or pretty much any game past the Voodoo3 days, the Mac is going to SUCK the big one, in addition to that it may also suck sweaty goat testicles that someone accidentally made cheese from the smegma and poisoned 1,000 children that died a slow horrible death in the Congo somewhere......yes...mac gaming IS that bad.

Other than that it's better for everything.

Riptide
04-11-05, 12:05 PM
OSX is better for EVERYTHING in every capacity and method, and implementation, than Windows. Banking, finance, accounting, email, browsing, multimedia, document creation, network browsing, and yes - Office.
Honestly dude I can't contain my skepticism here. You have used the Macintosh and the PC in depth for every last possible application and capacity out there? Qualify that statement please.

W/regard to security that is also VERY debatable post SP2. And there are several threads over on ars I would love to link you to right now but naturally their stupid forums are down ATM. I'll edit later.

*EDIT* Start by reading this.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050204-4588.html
Then read the followup battlefront discussion.
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/153005469631

You cannot possibly tell me, after reading through that thread, that OSX is clearly superior w/regard to Security. If you do, then you didn't read through it. XP post SP2 is actually quite secure.

Apple is hardly lilly white and virginal here.
http://news.com.com/Mac+OS+fix+fails+to+plug+security+hole/2100-1002_3-5220285.html?tag=nefd.top
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=8782
http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1497
http://secunia.com/advisories/13965/
http://secunia.com/advisories/13902/
http://secunia.com/graph/?type=fro&period=all&prod=96
From ars:You don't seriously believe that do you? Of the 41 advisories on Secunia for OS X from 2003-2005, 59% of them are exploitable remotely.
The denial I always see from OSX and Linux users is a staggering display of ignorance.

The good thing with MS is the problems have been acknowledged and a huge variety of steps have been taken to improve things - Obviously a long term project. The sad thing with OSX and Linux is no such acknowledgement has even occured. Yet you only need to look through the security web sites (www.secunia.com) to see how bad the situation really is in those products as well.

oldsk00l
04-11-05, 01:46 PM
Honestly dude I can't contain my skepticism here. You have used the Macintosh and the PC in depth for every last possible application and capacity out there? Qualify that statement please.

W/regard to security that is also VERY debatable post SP2. And there are several threads over on ars I would love to link you to right now but naturally their stupid forums are down ATM. I'll edit later.

*EDIT* Start by reading this.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050204-4588.html
Then read the followup battlefront discussion.
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/153005469631

You cannot possibly tell me, after reading through that thread, that OSX is clearly superior w/regard to Security. If you do, then you didn't read through it. XP post SP2 is actually quite secure.

Apple is hardly lilly white and virginal here.
http://news.com.com/Mac+OS+fix+fails+to+plug+security+hole/2100-1002_3-5220285.html?tag=nefd.top
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=8782
http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1497
http://secunia.com/advisories/13965/
http://secunia.com/advisories/13902/
http://secunia.com/graph/?type=fro&period=all&prod=96
From ars:


The points that hit the nail on the head are subjective usage, and how it's presented. Yes XP post SP2 is mroe secure because it prevents a lot of "bonehead" moments where the user is asked to make sure they want to do something that could allow for malicious things to happen to them. As for its technical merit, I stand by the FACT that the NT5 kernel is getting more and more hacked, and that there is little else MS can do for it. The concept of user mode/kernel is one area I think MS needs to do more rethinking to make the kernel secure.

My point on security is that from the kernel to the application layer OSX is more secure. From that point up, however, it's about usage and the apps you choose to use. imho, the number of 3rd party gtk apps makes Linux quite a bit more vulnerable than your standard fanfare Windows installation with SP2. There are tons of buffer exploits in gtk itself you can attack, and having an nx CPU is not going to help really.

The only reason you don't know about OSX is because there isn't widespread attack on it. When I was reading through that, I was wondering about vulnerabilities in carbon that they haven't discussed, or itunes, iphoto holes we don't know about. In that aspect it's a wash.

As for the every concievable use bit, CLI, and working in an enterprise environment. Functionally, I can find a program to do any task given to a windows machine and do it better on a Mac. Network serving, accessing shares, remote desktop, linux interaction, db access, group email systems, and ESPECIALLY development. I HATE .NET, I HATE ASP.NET, and fortunately so does everyone else in the entire company that I work for. When it comes to development, serving, and workstation, the Mac beats the PC's pants off. Granted, there are a lot of things I'd use Linux over a Mac for any day...I just don't see the purpose of running a Windows PC for any kind of real productivity, testing maybe, but that's it.

oldsk00l
04-11-05, 01:50 PM
I wanted to add something, I am really shooting myself in the foot here.

Why would I want everyone else using a Mac? I happen to like the fact no one wants to make it a target of some godawful trojan/spyware/hack, I also like having a smaller base of users.

In the PC scene, the number of users is literally in the billions, and the signal to noise ratio for maturity is horrible. So, yes, go Windows!!!

Riptide
04-11-05, 02:00 PM
The points that hit the nail on the head are subjective usage, and how it's presented. Yes XP post SP2 is mroe secure because it prevents a lot of "bonehead" moments where the user is asked to make sure they want to do something that could allow for malicious things to happen to them.Why they left the firewall turned off by default in SP1... They were to trusting. People are just to dumb to be bothered with security it would seem so they realized their mistake there and corrected it w/SP2.
As for its technical merit, I stand by the FACT that the NT5 kernel is getting more and more hacked, and that there is little else MS can do for it.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by more and more hacked here. Do you mean exploited by hackers or modified to protect from them?
The only reason you don't know about OSX is because there isn't widespread attack on it. When I was reading through that, I was wondering about vulnerabilities in carbon that they haven't discussed, or itunes, iphoto holes we don't know about. In that aspect it's a wash.
That was really my main point. There probably are a lot of vulnerabilities but because of the fact it's not a huge portion of the market the attackers don't focus on it. Seems like we're on the same page there. If more people switched then this might be more of an issue.
When it comes to development, serving, and workstation, the Mac beats the PC's pants off. Granted, there are a lot of things I'd use Linux over a Mac for any day...I just don't see the purpose of running a Windows PC for any kind of real productivity, testing maybe, but that's it.Since it's going to be way to much to tackle each and every aspect of use you mentioned I'll yield on that for now. Interesting though... If it is so superior in a network/corporate environment then why haven't more companies switched away from MS Exchange and IIS for instance? What is Apple's corporate mail server software and why is it so superior?

Riptide
04-11-05, 02:02 PM
Why would I want everyone else using a Mac? I happen to like the fact no one wants to make it a target of some godawful trojan/spyware/hack, I also like having a smaller base of users.Well you would want them using it presumably because it is (in your opinion) so much better. Why deny them such a quantum leap in usability then? Because part of the reason it seems more secure is due to the lack of user base. More users=more attackers. Kinda selfish of you init? ;) :p

oldsk00l
04-11-05, 02:21 PM
Why they left the firewall turned off by default in SP1... They were to trusting. People are just to dumb to be bothered with security it would seem so they realized their mistake there and corrected it w/SP2.

I can see why MS did it though, there was all this "OH MS's firewall is teh suck" talk going around it was probably marketing/PR to leave it an option rather than mandatory.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by more and more hacked here. Do you mean exploited by hackers or modified to protect from them?
It's getting somewhat old, and yes people are gaining a deeper understanding of how to screw with it. If MS wants to keep their security through obscurity thing going, they need to keep it a moving target or open it up.

That was really my main point. There probably are a lot of vulnerabilities but because of the fact it's not a huge portion of the market the attackers don't focus on it. Seems like we're on the same page there. If more people switched then this might be more of an issue.
We are, I don't dispute that. My main emphasis is that the kernel for OSX is wide open, and should someone find a vulnerability at a kernel level, they can fix it. Whereas on Windows, you could....send MS feedback through a webpage???

Since it's going to be way to much to tackle each and every aspect of use you mentioned I'll yield on that for now. Interesting though... If it is so superior in a network/corporate environment then why haven't more companies switched away from MS Exchange and IIS for instance? What is Apple's corporate mail server software and why is it so superior?

It's a preconception issue, and a support issue. For most companies when you look at buying outside of the MS world it's about finding the staff that can support that infrastructure. Also, some site agreements stipulate that you run specific clients to whatever application it is you want to run, else no tech support if something goes wrong.

Exchange is a prime example, for companies that have a site license they have to have a "Microsoft only" network of systems otherwise they pay out the nose for support tickets. Some companies don't give a ****, some get all paranoid and follow through with it.

As for why so many places use exchange server, I dunno. I'm also not sure if Apple uses some homebrewed system or if they have some massive farm of *nix machines handling all their mail in IMAP.

Riptide
04-11-05, 02:46 PM
I can see why MS did it though, there was all this "OH MS's firewall is teh suck" talk going around it was probably marketing/PR to leave it an option rather than mandatory.
They did it because it broke some programs (surprise) and/or created the occasional inconvenience to Joe Blow user who had to stipulate that x program could get through. Pre-sp2 they were a little less cautious - now they leave it on by default. There hasn't been a major calamity in a while now.
It's getting somewhat old, and yes people are gaining a deeper understanding of how to screw with it. If MS wants to keep their security through obscurity thing going, they need to keep it a moving target or open it up.
How do you know they are gaining a deeper understanding of how to screw with it? It seems more secure now than ever.
We are, I don't dispute that. My main emphasis is that the kernel for OSX is wide open, and should someone find a vulnerability at a kernel level, they can fix it. Whereas on Windows, you could....send MS feedback through a webpage???
This assumes everyone that finds a vulnerability would know how to fix it in the first place. I can see that if you have the know-how to fix it then it would be desirable to have the kernel open so you can indeed do that on your own. If you read through that thread on ars you'll see that the situation is not clear as far as which platform is overall more secure than the other. For purposes of security in general there is a lot going on - you have to consider the whole and not just compartmentalize it like we are here (ie, the kernel). Again if you read through that thread you'll see what I mean. I suppose that I would agree that by being open the kernel for OSX is more secure in that fixes could be applied quicker vs. being dependent on one company.

Say a vulnerability is found tomorrow in the kernel on Apple machines. Who issues the fix? How am I supposed to find out about it, and then apply the fix? The kernel may not be proprietary but you are still dependent on Apple for some security updates and they haven't necessarily been bang on there either.
It's a preconception issue, and a support issue. For most companies when you look at buying outside of the MS world it's about finding the staff that can support that infrastructure. Also, some site agreements stipulate that you run specific clients to whatever application it is you want to run, else no tech support if something goes wrong.
As for the second part, who is to say that situation wouldn't exist much more commonly once the market for OSX based applications were to become much larger? If I go out and code my own mail program (client/server) and sell it, then keep it closed so I can collect $ on licenses and support, that sort of stipulation could easily come into existence. I think part of the reason there is so much open source out there is because of the lack of market - once it gets huge, more $ to be made, you'll see more people "close up" so to speak.
As for why so many places use exchange server, I dunno. I'm also not sure if Apple uses some homebrewed system or if they have some massive farm of *nix machines handling all their mail in IMAP.
Well then how can you say that apple is superior w/regard to e-mail if you don't know why they are sticking with exchange? You mentioned banking. Why are they superior there as well? I'm real curious there since I work @ a bank. ;)

oldsk00l
04-11-05, 03:38 PM
They did it because it broke some programs (surprise) and/or created the occasional inconvenience to Joe Blow user who had to stipulate that x program could get through. Pre-sp2 they were a little less cautious - now they leave it on by default because they have seen what can sometimes happen if people don't use it. And having it on by default appears to have made a difference. There hasn't been a major calamity in a while now.

[QUOTE]How do you know they are gaining a deeper understanding of how to screw with it? It is more secure now than ever.
Look at kernel mode, and user mode. Then compare that to BSD/Linux and the module system that they use. Then look at some of the hacks you can do to NT5. I need not go further.

This assumes everyone that finds a vulnerability would know how to fix it in the first place. If you read through that thread on ars you'll see that the situation is not clear as far as which platform is overall more secure than the other. I can see that if you have the know-how to fix it then it would be desirable to have the kernel open so you can indeed do that on your own. However for purposes of security in general there is a lot going on - you have to consider the whole and not just compartmentalize it like we are here (ie, the kernel). Again if you read through that thread you'll see what I mean.

I give you that one, that yeah they can find behavior that they wouldn't know how to fix it. However, you can go into the kernel and look at the headers and look at the descriptions. Hell, just grep for it, and look for the author's name. Then, send him an email about what's happening. If you get the wrong guy, he'll know what happened anyway. I've found kernel devs to be surprisingly accessible and wanting to fix stuff that's exploitable.

As for the second part, who is to say that situation wouldn't exist much more commonly once the market for OSX based applications were to become much larger? If I go out and code my own mail program (client/server) and sell it, then keep it closed so I can collect $ on licenses and support, that sort of stipulation could easily come into existence. I think part of the reason there is so much open source out there is because of the lack of market - once it gets huge, more $ to be made, you'll see more people "close up" so to speak.

I don't see that with Samba, sendmail, mysql, kmail, evolution, etc etc. Yeah there are businesses like thekompany that "close up" exactly like you said, but usually attention just helps the project and attracts more programmers.

Well then how can you say that apple is superior w/regard to e-mail if you don't know why they are sticking with exchange? You mentioned banking. Why are they superior there as well? I'm real curious there since I work @ a bank. ;)

While I don't like exchange much, a Mac running entourage is a better exchange client than a windows PC on Outlook. That says something right there.

As for banking, OSX is better for personal banking I think. It's all subjective on that front, for a "bank" banking there are plenty of programs like firstedge, robust oracle support in OSX, etc. I know of 3 banks that have reached VERY good results using OSX as a terminal server to thin clients for the tellers and such.

Riptide
04-11-05, 03:45 PM
Look at kernel mode, and user mode. Then compare that to BSD/Linux and the module system that they use. Then look at some of the hacks you can do to NT5. I need not go further.
That might be true and I admit to you that it's all over my head. Simply put though, I haven't seen any major calamities come about in a while now, especially post SP2. So what is it I need to be in fear of again?
I give you that one, that yeah they can find behavior that they wouldn't know how to fix it. However, you can go into the kernel and look at the headers and look at the descriptions. Hell, just grep for it, and look for the author's name.
So you need to know how to "go into the kernel" and look for something now? And Aunt Tillie is going to know how to do that how? Do you see my point?

And while we're at it a lot of users don't have the know-how necessary to even spot a vulnerability in the first place.
I don't see that with Samba, sendmail, mysql, kmail, evolution, etc etc. Yeah there are businesses like thekompany that "close up" exactly like you said, but usually attention just helps the project and attracts more programmers.
We'll see what happens if they ever push MS out of the dominant position in the market. You and I are just speculating here anyway.
While I don't like exchange much, a Mac running entourage is a better exchange client than a windows PC on Outlook. That says something right there.
Why is it better? It looks better and that's it?
As for banking, OSX is better for personal banking I think. It's all subjective on that front, for a "bank" banking there are plenty of programs like firstedge, robust oracle support in OSX, etc. I know of 3 banks that have reached VERY good results using OSX as a terminal server to thin clients for the tellers and such.
What teller software were they using? And it was Mac based?

Riptide
04-12-05, 11:16 AM
*bump*

I just keep finding little gems in that thread over on ars. :D


I'll take that challenge as an IT worker who supports at least 2 dozen separate but vital applications for my company:

- SolidWorks 2005, cad program. No Mac equivalent for this powerful, industry standard application

- Ideas 8m4 - CAD program from late 90s. If MS had decided to create a new OS dependent on hardware like Apple did with OS X, my company would lose $millions in engineering data, or we'd be forced to stick with hardware from 1999!

- Microsoft Exchange: Does Apple even offer an enterprise mail and communications server application? Does this writer expect me to trust SendMail ported to OS X?

- Numerous financial applications, including Equity Edge, Hyperion, Tax Dimensions, American Express Purchase Express, Visa POS, WinteGrate, and other such applications? Financial apps like these have been powering business for a decade or longer, while Apple was still working on sexing up the Finder! What's available in this sector for the mac? Quicken? Microsoft Money?

This user bitches about his IT department sending out multiple emails about viruses and spyware, but he is completely ignorant about what it takes to run an enterprise. Yeah, I guess his graphics guys can run Quark, Illustrator and Photoshop with no problem, but good luck to his IT department when it comes to accounting!

Hahhaa. funny he should choose to attack Microsoft Office, which is MS main cash-cow. MS Office has done more to increase the productivity of office workers than anything since electricity. If you're old enough, think about your white color job in 1990 versus 2005. Or hell, even 1995. It's black and white, night and day. Here's what I use office for:

- Schedule meetings
- Create purchase orders and forward them electronically, saving me massive amounts of time
- Create awesome spreadsheets that present information in less than a second
- Create simple to use databases in Access that automatically port information I input into usable forms and documents

Microsoft deserves kudos for creating such a package. Yeah, Apple has the iPod, the iMac, and the Macintosh, but Microsoft has Office. No one had the vision for enterprise that Microsoft did. Not apple, not IBM, not Wordperfect, no one.

I admit Microsoft has had huge problems with security. God knows they give me headaches. IMO, however, what we as a people have built in the last 10-20 years is as complicated and powerful as any of the manmade wonders of the world. Just 20 years ago, the things we are doing today were un-dreampt of. Of course there are challenges and security problems. We're still infants in this information world. But guess what? The software is getting better, Windows IS getting more secure, and private enterprise is rising to meet the demand.

OH, BTW, I only chose to talk about Enterprise applications because this writer brought up his IT department and said 97% of all windows users could get along just fine with a mac.

Gator
04-12-05, 03:23 PM
PC's have a much wider selection of hardware and software, and at far lower prices than Apple offers. And considering PC media creation software has caught up to Mac pretty much, there simply is no reason to purchase an Apple/Mac anymore.

Get him a PC.

oldsk00l
04-13-05, 01:18 PM
Rip, the guy's commenting about accounting is not really accurate. AccountEdge works quite good on the Mac, and I found out that Barrick Goldstrike uses AccountEdge on their systems for their purchasers.

ALSO, I checked in on those banks, they are using a solution from Siebel, Siebel CRM and it has a Mac client that uses Carbon apparently.

Riptide
04-13-05, 01:30 PM
I have seen the guy's comments regarding CAD echoed frequently in that thread so that much at least appears to be accurate.

Regarding the banks you mentioned, they are actually using OSX on their teller stations then?