[danlong]

Originally Posted by Bryan

yes, a windows installation on a mac is just as vulnerable to viruses and malware as a windows installation on a PC. the problem there is in the software not the hardware.

So the real OP should have been Mac OS versus Windows OS and leave the PC to the liberals (oops different subject )

So will the Mac OS run on AMD architecture or is Mac at early Microsoft Intel/IBM hardware stage? Microsoft (and hardware vendors), early on, had to overcome the PC DOS/Intel built in color table and other exclusive features (the color table was built into the chip) , and now we have Microsoft. Hmmm, does history repeat itself or what

[Gustin]

Well, the Mac OS will only (legally) run on Mac hardware. There have been people who have hacked it to install on homebuilt computers, but that is in violation of the EULA, and is ridiculously frustrating (I tried to do it). i don't think the hacked versions support AMD either though.

But the OPs question was whether Macs were expensive compared to "PC"s (Windows PCs specifically), not whose OS was better.... had that been the case, this thread would've been shut down right away. As you can only get the Mac OS with Apple hardware, the only way to compare them would be to take a prebuilt computer from a company like HP, Dell, or whatever that matched the specs of a Mac and compare the prices.

[ApparentlyNothing]

I'm still trying to figure out what the heck a "SuperMac" was.

[danlong]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

I'm still trying to figure out what the heck a "SuperMac" was.

Ah, that goes back about 8 to 9 years. The Macs had beefed up to some, I think, G4 or G6 chip or whatever. All I knew in particular was it was substantially faster on computations than it's counter parts, and that's what I needed. Being on Mac was a forced issue.

As far as superior hardware, hopefully they've improved from as late as 6 years ago, where each model had it's own little quirks. For my business providing filtered dialup I had one guy on a Mac laptop who couldn't get logged in. It took me 6 hours (much of it waiting on hold with Apple) to find out he couldn't use "77//username" to log in because for that model laptop the "//" was reserved for the system. I to this day don't know what a text username had to do with sysOP .

The Mac OS EULA requires only MAc hardware?? Sounds like a good reason not to Mac just for that., but then that's why I'm going for all Linux myself

[Cam42]

Originally Posted by RipVanWinkle

I think that macs are overpriced COMPARED to what you get with a PC,

I have a PC, but that doesn't mean I don't want a mac

agreed

[Soap]

I download NOTHING on my Windows XP side of my Mac...that's about as safe as I can get.

McAfee...in my experienced opionion...is the thing that destroys most PC's. I bet those virus creators are feeling a little jipped that they couldn't make money doing the same thing.

[danlong]

Originally Posted by SoapbarII

I download NOTHING on my Windows XP side of my Mac...that's about as safe as I can get.

McAfee...in my experienced opionion...is the thing that destroys most PC's. I bet those virus creators are feeling a little jipped that they couldn't make money doing the same thing.

Good plan, but, Actually, just not downloading is not quite true. XP and Vista are vulnerable to brute force attacks if you keep your box turned on and plugged into your DSL, or worse cable. At least when windows used Winsock there was a separation.

And, yes, especially the early days of virusware Central Point used to charge a quarterly fee for updates. And coincidently, EVERY TIME, after the upgrade they'd locate a virus on your machine.I was convinced that, like today's faux spyware, they put their own virus on just to have something to keep you convinced there is a threat out there.

[tht00]

Originally Posted by danlong

Good plan, but, Actually, just not downloading is not quite true. XP and Vista are vulnerable to brute force attacks if you keep your box turned on and plugged into your DSL, or worse cable. At least when windows used Winsock there was a separation.

Linux is just as susceptible (probably more so) to brute force attacks.


For Linux at least -- disable SSH when you don't need it, stay behind a firewall, and setup iptables.