Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This notion that if Apple supported more hardware, that the quality would drop, is a huge fallacy. Unless of course Apple really isn't that good.

Why?

Because Linux supports a HUGE number of different hardware specs. And it's rock solid, running many many important servers/machines. Linux supports far more hardware than OSX ever has and at this rate ever will. OSX could be opened up and quality maintained. Apple just doesn't want too because they like their shiny aluminum cases. Nothing else on the inside is superior. All of their parts are outsourced, and I'm sure plenty of stuff is done on the cheap to increase their massive margins. Building your own machine from quality parts is far cheaper, and you'll get a far superior machine. So many macheads just DON'T get this. They swear by the fact that their "Apple hardware" is superior but it's all the same stuff! It's really mind boggling. Then you throw in the superiority complex at the same time, and you get the laughable posts seen here.

I'd really love to be able to install OSX on my own hardware. Or just get a better desktop machine as has been stated over and over and over by so many people. I really don't understand why Apple thinks the mac mini, the imac and the mac pro constitute an acceptable computer line. Without the iPhone and iPod their current offerings would sink them, period.

Just for the record I use the iPhone, and also a macbook and mac mini. And of course I have a quad core PC running windows 7 with 8 gigs of ram, and a gtx 260. It cost me nothing compared to an imac even, but I can only run windows or linux with it. *sigh*

Wake up Apple...please?

I understand your point but all Macs excluding Mac Pro uses laptop parts which are costs way more than similar desktop part.

OS X is the thing why Macs are so expensive and as I've said before, OS X worths over 500€ for me, I'd never pay same price for Windows machine...

I just installed Windows 7 RC to my iMac and I have to say, it's far behind. OS X is so much quicker and it always responds without errors. It's so ****ing stable! Of course that's my opinion and my experience. OS X is just perfect for me
 
I understand your point but all Macs excluding Mac Pro uses laptop parts which are costs way more than similar desktop part.

OS X is the thing why Macs are so expensive and as I've said before, OS X worths over 500€ for me, I'd never pay same price for Windows machine...

I just installed Windows 7 RC to my iMac and I have to say, it's far behind. OS X is so much quicker and it always responds without errors. It's so ****ing stable! Of course that's my opinion and my experience. OS X is just perfect for me

Ok well...for ME windows 7 is way way faster. But then again I am using it on my desktop. :) Also, Apple's dock is a travesty compared to the new W7 taskbar. The functionality of that thing is amazing. I am guessing quite a few people will prefer it over OSX. And where is my AVCHD support Apple? How come I can open raw MTS files in Windows Media Player and they look GORGEOUS, but they really don't work at all in OSX? I have to transcode everything? What a disaster. Especially after they tell everyone usb cameras are the future! Ok so...can I not use my new usb camera with it?? (I am not the only one to mention this "little" problem).

Also, why should we be FORCED to pay more for parts that perform worse? So that the imac can be a little slimmer? So that we can use a mac mini that is half the size it needs to be? Or maybe even a quarter of the size? It's stupid.

Don't get me wrong. I like OSX a LOT. But I use both and need both, and am comfortable with both. That's why it's easy for me to see what needs fixing on both sides. OSX is ahead of the game in some ways, and Apple as a whole is still way behind in others. A lot of the Apple guys like to brag about 8% marketshare or whatever but...I mean really? Is that really good? Yes they are extremely profitable, but since Steve Jobs said money wasn't really important to him, shouldn't he be trying to make things easier for a wider audience of people, or is it all just double talk? What is really important to Apple? Is it the money? That's what all signs point too. There should be more to a business than just wanting to make an obscene profit on willing suspects...
 
Ok well...for ME windows 7 is way way faster. But then again I am using it on my desktop. :) Also, Apple's dock is a travesty compared to the new W7 taskbar. The functionality of that thing is amazing. I am guessing quite a few people will prefer it over OSX. And where is my AVCHD support Apple? How come I can open raw MTS files in Windows Media Player and they look GORGEOUS, but they really don't work at all in OSX? I have to transcode everything? What a disaster. Especially after they tell everyone usb cameras are the future! Ok so...can I not use my new usb camera with it?? (I am not the only one to mention this "little" problem).

Also, why should we be FORCED to pay more for parts that perform worse? So that the imac can be a little slimmer? So that we can use a mac mini that is half the size it needs to be? Or maybe even a quarter of the size? It's stupid.

Don't get me wrong. I like OSX a LOT. But I use both and need both, and am comfortable with both. That's why it's easy for me to see what needs fixing on both sides. OSX is ahead of the game in some ways, and Apple as a whole is still way behind in others. A lot of the Apple guys like to brag about 8% marketshare or whatever but...I mean really? Is that really good? Yes they are extremely profitable, but since Steve Jobs said money wasn't really important to him, shouldn't he be trying to make things easier for a wider audience of people, or is it all just double talk? What is really important to Apple? Is it the money? That's what all signs point too. There should be more to a business than just wanting to make an obscene profit on willing suspects...

One thing, software sells hardware...

Do you really need that power that Apple can't offer? I've been as a salesman in two computer stores and most of the people were normal middle-age people who wanted a computer for netsurfing, e-mails and for Office. Usually they all were looking at 1200€ PC laptops with 32-bit Vista and 4GB RAM etc. I always went to talk with 'em and asked what are their computer needs. All they needed was computer for very light tasks. Then I asked why you are looking at high-end gaming notebook while your needs are so low. Everyone said that they want it to be fast. Luckily, both shops had Macs too, so I asked have they used a Mac before and half of 'em had, everyone found it very nice but wanted to learn more. So I took 'em to "Mac side" and showed 'em some key features in OS X. 2 out of 3 bought a Mac and all responses from those people what I've got have been amazing. Of course I was honest and told 'em that Macs costs more and are not as powerful as same priced PC but I also told that OS X is way better than Windows for their needs, no viruses, no crashing...

Sorry for this long off topic post but I had to :)
 
One thing, software sells hardware...

Do you really need that power that Apple can't offer? I've been as a salesman in two computer stores and most of the people were normal middle-age people who wanted a computer for netsurfing, e-mails and for Office. Usually they all were looking at 1200€ PC laptops with 32-bit Vista and 4GB RAM etc. I always went to talk with 'em and asked what are their computer needs. All they needed was computer for very light tasks. Then I asked why you are looking at high-end gaming notebook while your needs are so low. Everyone said that they want it to be fast. Luckily, both shops had Macs too, so I asked have they used a Mac before and half of 'em had, everyone found it very nice but wanted to learn more. So I took 'em to "Mac side" and showed 'em some key features in OS X. 2 out of 3 bought a Mac and all responses from those people what I've got have been amazing. Of course I was honest and told 'em that Macs costs more and are not as powerful as same priced PC but I also told that OS X is way better than Windows for their needs, no viruses, no crashing...

Sorry for this long off topic post but I had to :)

Well the "you dont need the power" argument is kind of misguided IMO. Shouldn't people just buy a netbook if all they want to do is surf the net and email? They certainly don't need a mac for that.

But I do a lot of software dev work, web dev, HD video editing etc etc. My quad core PC is great. My macs are crap (for that kinda work).
 
Well the "you dont need the power" argument is kind of misguided IMO. Shouldn't people just buy a netbook if all they want to do is surf the net and email? They certainly don't need a mac for that.

But I do a lot of software dev work, web dev, HD video editing etc etc. My quad core PC is great. My macs are crap (for that kinda work).

Windows 7 is still a joke compared to OSX. You can't be serious? are you. I own both and Windows 7 while better than Vista, the simplicity of OSX and well.....' it just works'. There not even comparable. Don't kid yourself.

It still has "permissions' issues, administrator issues, hardware issues. It still gets viruses, spyware, trojans, malware etc and the list goes on. You still have to put software to "fix' software. Some hardware is not recognized 'at all without the proper drivers, none of which Windows provides.

Windows 7 is still a joke no matter how you look at it. I don't care if you have a 16 core processor and three graphics cards in one box, hardware is only as good as the software that runs that hardware. How often do you have to update 'drivers' and get "updates' to fix problems only to find out that the 'fixes' actually causes more problems or makes them worse.

I gave my Dell to my four year old, she even gets frustrated with it. I have a Wifi card installed and you have to 'restart' the computer for the WiFi to connect, there is a 'driver' issue with Windows 7 I was told by a microsoft rep. And that rep happens to be my brother in law, and yes he has a Mac.

I consider Windows to be a 'virus', it breaks everything it touches, and frustrates every user to ever use it. You're no exception.


You know of what I speak of. Everyone here does.
 
They have the mini, they have the Mac Pro, why can't they just pop out an "in the middle"?

They don't need to.

What most people don't understand with this recurring topic is that a "Technology Gap" and a "Market Gap" are NOT the same things.


Only 10 months? My G5 has been running 24/7 since new (late 2005), only being reset for software updates..

24/7 since late 2003. And a problem with easy upgradability is that it makes it far too easy to continue to "nickel and dime" spending of money on incremental upgrades for longer than its really smart to do so. The trap that one can fall into is that its "Only $100" for this or that instead of the cost of a full new system.


Well the "you dont need the power" argument is kind of misguided IMO.

Consider the alternative: you're effectively saying that we always should spend an extra $1000 on a computer.

And why is this justified?

Apparently, its because there's the off chance that we might suddenly decide to start editing HD videos next week. But how likely is that to occur when one doesn't even own an HD video camera to go create content? :rolleyes:

From a Pareto Principle perspective, most people don't need the amount of CPU power that's available today, because most common tasks don't need it.

And for many, it wouldn't surprise me if their system's most significant performance bottleneck isn't inside their computer hardware at all, but is instead the bandwidth limits of their internet connection.

Something for you to think about the next time that you're waiting on a download to complete on your speedy computer.


-hh
 
24/7 since late 2003. And a problem with easy upgradability is that it makes it far too easy to continue to "nickel and dime" spending of money on incremental upgrades for longer than its really smart to do so. The trap that one can fall into is that its "Only $100" for this or that instead of the cost of a full new system.

Consider the alternative: you're effectively saying that we always should spend an extra $1000 on a computer.

And why is this justified?

From a Pareto Principle perspective, most people don't need the amount of CPU power that's available today, because most common tasks don't need it.

-hh

I absolutely agree. Back in my windows days I kept computers for years upon years and continued to upgrade incrementally. This left me with a bastardized computer that had multiple hardware conflict issues and ran much less efficiently than if I had just started from scratch from time to time.

On the other hand I still have my powerbook g4 12" that I finally did a clean install of 10.5.6 on and it works better than it ever has and is perfect for writing and web surfing. I've never done a thing to it other than add another gig of ram and replace the battery once

I am equally sick of people complaining about Apple's choices for processor speed in the iMac. The problem is that our economy functions off of the bigger and newer is better principle and so we feel like we have to have more power all the time (I just had a Back to the Future flashback there) regardless of whether we actually use it or not.

It's just like the bitching most people do about not having Quad Core iMacs available, as if they use tons of multi threaded apps when in reality they are 1) running ichat, 2) running safari, 3) playing online games, 4) downloading and watching porn.....none of which require Quad Cores

At the end of the day though I know there are hobbyists who do use pro level apps but don't get compensated for their work and find the cost of a Mac Pro to be daunting and would love to have an "in between" at a lower cost without buying a mini or an iMac.

The problem is that this market share is relatively small, and as such Apple currently sees no reason to go after it. This does NOT fit in their business plan, and likely will not EVER.

Mini = switchers (i use it for an HTPC and i know its great for this purpose but Apple could care less about this usage at this time)

Apple Tv = HTPC users to encourage usage of the Itunes store

iMac = most households in America, big screen, low profile overall as there is no tower or desktop unit

Mac Pro = Pro Level workstation that has the power for people that use software that regularly costs close or over $1k just for the programs

Whew, sorry for the length post :) its just crazy that we keep having this same discussion over and over again
 
Yeah I don't think we are closer except there is some talk that Apple wants to provide cheaper Macs.

But I also don't think most of the market cares about a tower.

I adapted to the Apple version of upgrading. I sell my old computer and buy a new one instead of upgrading piecemeal like I did in the pcworld.
 
Yeah I don't think we are closer except there is some talk that Apple wants to provide cheaper Macs.

Except that talk isn't new. Its been a recurring theme for literally years.

But I also don't think most of the market cares about a tower.

Considering that over 50% of the US PC Market is buying laptops ... not any more particularly 'upgradable' than an iMac ... the majority of the market is voting with their wallet to say:

(a) upgradability isn't their #1 priority

(b) "Power" isn't their #1 priority either (since laptops run on mobile CPUs).


I adapted to the Apple version of upgrading. I sell my old computer and buy a new one instead of upgrading piecemeal like I did in the pcworld.

It is quite surprising how well prices of certain products hold up - - the residual value of a G4 mini is actually better than my G5 PowerMac. Again, this says something regarding what consumers are putting value on, and it is the product's size, and not its convenience of hardware upgrades or raw power.


-hh
 
It is quite surprising how well prices of certain products hold up

I noticed when the guy who was selling his mac mini gave it to his kid at the last minute how much of a bargain it was. People are selling 1.83Ghz 2008 Mac Mini's on eBay for nearly £400 and Apple were selling them off brand new when the new models came out for £325!

I've given up on buying a newer model and just bought a dual CPU board pulled from an Dual 800Mhz G4 to boost it up a bit, only cost me £30 and it's made a dramatic difference to the audio apps I use and made my system generally snappier too.

I'm just going to save for a mac pro and hope there's something worth buying as much as the 4 core model they used to sell. Add the cost of an airport card to the 2009 model and it's nearly £2,000 for a system with limited RAM expansion.

It used to be £1,459 for a system that's about 80% of the speed and you can pick up a full 32Gb of DIMMS on eBay for about £600 to fit in it!

People are charging £1,200 on eBay for an older Mac Pro system with 2 dual core 3Ghz CPUs and less RAM expansion. It seems a bit wrong to me that these older systems aren't going for about £1,000 at most considering they're age. Now the Mac Pro's are extortionately priced, it just gives people more reason to keep the used prices high.
 
It still has "permissions' issues, administrator issues, hardware issues. It still gets viruses, spyware, trojans, malware etc and the list goes on. You still have to put software to "fix' software. Some hardware is not recognized 'at all without the proper drivers, none of which Windows provides.

I could understand some of these issues occuring, mainly drivers and hardware issues, only if you have old hardware. Even from Build 7000 to the RC build I've had 0 issues with Win 7, on install it installed every hardware driver I needed, from my graphics card, to my motherboard, even to my WLAN card.

I did however also install the RC on a 6 year old system, and I had to search for a few drivers.

As for your argument about spyware, virus's etc, ya its a no brainer it's still going to get it, mainly because most of the world uses windows, and if you're making a virus, wouldn't you want to target the biggest userbase? I can gurantee you if OSX and Windows flipped and OSX was the OS that most people in the world used, it would have the same virus and spyware issues, don't kid yourself now.

Windows 7 is still a joke no matter how you look at it. I don't care if you have a 16 core processor and three graphics cards in one box, hardware is only as good as the software that runs that hardware. How often do you have to update 'drivers' and get "updates' to fix problems only to find out that the 'fixes' actually causes more problems or makes them worse.

So far on my system I've had 0 issues pretty much, and I use my Win 7 system for everything, from decoding to gaming. The only small issue Ive expierenced so far is I cant alt-tab while playing Fallout 3, omg I might as well install tihs now!!! /sarcasm
I gave my Dell to my four year old

Wow, that explains everything, maybe try installing Win 7 on somthing other than a dinosaur dell perhaps?
 
Yeah I don't think we are closer except there is some talk that Apple wants to provide cheaper Macs.

But I also don't think most of the market cares about a tower.

I adapted to the Apple version of upgrading. I sell my old computer and buy a new one instead of upgrading piecemeal like I did in the pcworld.

In my opinion the mid tower Apple line up is gone for good! if you consider what most people are using their computers for these days a mid range desktop would be crazy unless you are a video professional doing heavy duty rendering etc.

No one! I mean no one is carting a huge box out of the store anymore with a desktop Its an era that has come and gone.

How many cores do you need to check your Facebook account and chat on Twitter? the mid range is dead forever and not needed by the general public anymore.

Pro users will continue to buy the Apple and Windows based work stations depending on the platform they are using.
 
In my opinion the mid tower Apple line up is gone for good! if you consider what most people are using their computers for these days a mid range desktop would be crazy unless you are a video professional doing heavy duty rendering etc.

No one! I mean no one is carting a huge box out of the store anymore with a desktop Its an era that has come and gone.

How many cores do you need to check your Facebook account and chat on Twitter? the mid range is dead forever and not needed by the general public anymore.

Pro users will continue to buy the Apple and Windows based work stations depending on the platform they are using.

I use Pro Tools LE + various plug-in effects and software synths. The more cores, the more power, eliminating the need to sub-mix as often, if at all. My system was pinned with only 1 CPU, I have a lot more breathing room with the dual upgrade I just added.

I have 3 hard drives in my system. I need a minimum of 2 drives, 1 for the OS and 1 to record to. I have a 3rd for backup.

I would love a mid-range tower. There's plenty of people with hobbies that need power, or mid sized businesses who'd need more than the iMac but less than a £2K tower system.

Apple could still sell a 4 core Harpertown Mac Pro for £1,299 using the 8 slot motherboard and a 2.4Ghz CPU, then move all the Nehalm Mac Pros up to 12 slots for interleaving (including the 4 core model) to differentiate them from the entry level and at least appear to justify the additional cost.

A system such as that would suit a lot of people and isn't un-realistic spec wise, or more to the point, cost wise given how long Apple have being using basically the same case and motherboard design with only changes in CPU and bus speed etc...
 
I use Pro Tools LE + various plug-in effects and software synths. The more cores, the more power, eliminating the need to sub-mix as often, if at all. My system was pinned with only 1 CPU, I have a lot more breathing room with the dual upgrade I just added.

I have 3 hard drives in my system. I need a minimum of 2 drives, 1 for the OS and 1 to record to. I have a 3rd for backup.

I would love a mid-range tower. There's plenty of people with hobbies that need power, or mid sized businesses who'd need more than the iMac but less than a £2K tower system.

Apple could still sell a 4 core Harpertown Mac Pro for £1,299 using the 8 slot motherboard and a 2.4Ghz CPU, then move all the Nehalm Mac Pros up to 12 slots for interleaving (including the 4 core model) to differentiate them from the entry level and at least appear to justify the additional cost.

A system such as that would suit a lot of people and isn't un-realistic spec wise, or more to the point, cost wise given how long Apple have being using basically the same case and motherboard design with only changes in CPU and bus speed etc...

I just don't think that Apple sees this as a viable market, there's just not enough customers for them to go after

doesn't mean things won't change but I highly doubt it

what would be nice is a hot-swappable NAS from Apple and that I do see as a possibility as people continue to grow the libraries of data that they have
 
Apple would lose many Mac Pro customers

IMO if Apple offered an expandable mid-tower, with a single quad core processor, they would lose many Mac Pro customers and all that sweet revenue.

Don't forget, after Apple sucks your wallet dry then they start syphoning your soul out of your body.
:D
 
I could understand some of these issues occuring, mainly drivers and hardware issues, only if you have old hardware. Even from Build 7000 to the RC build I've had 0 issues with Win 7, on install it installed every hardware driver I needed, from my graphics card, to my motherboard, even to my WLAN card.

I did however also install the RC on a 6 year old system, and I had to search for a few drivers.

As for your argument about spyware, virus's etc, ya its a no brainer it's still going to get it, mainly because most of the world uses windows, and if you're making a virus, wouldn't you want to target the biggest userbase? I can gurantee you if OSX and Windows flipped and OSX was the OS that most people in the world used, it would have the same virus and spyware issues, don't kid yourself now.



So far on my system I've had 0 issues pretty much, and I use my Win 7 system for everything, from decoding to gaming. The only small issue Ive expierenced so far is I cant alt-tab while playing Fallout 3, omg I might as well install tihs now!!! /sarcasm


Wow, that explains everything, maybe try installing Win 7 on somthing other than a dinosaur dell perhaps?


You assume a lot. Who said my daughters computer was old? Where did you hear this? Certainly not from me.

I bought the computer last July. It is a Dell Inspiron 531 Dual-Core machine. Plenty fast enough. Not even a year old.

It would shut down after being on for about 20 minutes, the BSOD. It would not connect to the internet, it would not recognize my being logged in as a Admin. It would prompt me to log on as a Admin, even thought I was already logged on as one.

You barking up the wrong tree here. Your not going to a hassle free machine with a OS that was designed to work with multiple hardware manufactures, there will always be headaches. As with the other Windows machines I have used over the years, Windows 7 is no different, it has it's shares of problems.

More than OSX, that is a fact. For the simple fact that OSX is better designed, more powerful and more importantly runs on hardware that it is designed to run on.

You're all happy now since you have no issues, .....yet. Does that even tell you something, that your happy you don't have problems? Think about that for a moment.

And the argument that OSX is not as widespread and it's marketshare protects it is nonsense. You, don't kid youself, as it seems you already have. Like I said you're barking up the wrong tree and it seems the jokes on you.

There is only one reason and one reason alone as to why there have been no known viruses to date for Mac OS X... because it is amongst the most inherently secure commercially-available operating systems on the market.

Can you say"UNIX". Look it up. You will get my meaning. Here I will help you.

"Unix operating systems are widely used in both servers and workstations"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix

Microsoft vs UNIX.

http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/security/uw.html


The whole "security through obscurity" argument is nothing but a cop-out for those who either can't understand why or simply refuse to admit that the Mac is a very secure platform.

Apple is enjoying its largest market share since the 1980s... there are millions and millions of Macs in service and on the web, so it's hardly obscure. If one honestly thinks that it's simply not "worth it" to try and exploit damn near 1/10th of a pie that's as big as the computer market, then they're delusional.

Even if that remotely held the tiniest bit of water, then how does one explain the fact that the Classic Mac OS had several (relatively speaking) well known viruses/attacks, especially when their market share was much lower in those days?

Even more telling is the existence of hundreds of different kinds of malware out there which are written for linux... Linux is used by what - 1% of the market?

The argument that there's nothing worthwhile to be found on Macs does stack up well either. It is fairly common knowledge that Mac users, on average have both higher incomes and higher disposable incomes, especially due to their perception as nothing more than a high-end "luxury" item. Mac users store financial information on their computers just like everyone else... So if one of every ten computers is owned by someone who may very well have higher than average assets, then how is that not an attractive target?

The current Mac OS must be the "holy grail" of hackers, et al. It is impossible to fathom that untold numbers of hackers simply give the Mac a free pass and leave it and its users to their own devices totally unscathed.

OS X has been on the market now for 8 years... In terms of computers that's eons, yet nothing has gotten out into the wild - even despite the fact that there have been full-fledged contests held to exploit the system.

I'm not so naive to think that there might never be any kind of malicious code released to exploit the Mac, but neither am I so naive to think that there hasn't been countless numbers of people out there who have tried unsuccessfully to do so over almost an entire decade's time.
 
I could understand some of these issues occuring, mainly drivers and hardware issues, only if you have old hardware. Even from Build 7000 to the RC build I've had 0 issues with Win 7, on install it installed every hardware driver I needed, from my graphics card, to my motherboard, even to my WLAN card.

I did however also install the RC on a 6 year old system, and I had to search for a few drivers.

As for your argument about spyware, virus's etc, ya its a no brainer it's still going to get it, mainly because most of the world uses windows, and if you're making a virus, wouldn't you want to target the biggest userbase? I can gurantee you if OSX and Windows flipped and OSX was the OS that most people in the world used, it would have the same virus and spyware issues, don't kid yourself now.



So far on my system I've had 0 issues pretty much, and I use my Win 7 system for everything, from decoding to gaming. The only small issue Ive expierenced so far is I cant alt-tab while playing Fallout 3, omg I might as well install tihs now!!! /sarcasm


Wow, that explains everything, maybe try installing Win 7 on somthing other than a dinosaur dell perhaps?


You assume a lot. Who said my daughters computer was old? Where did you hear this? Certainly not from me.

I bought the computer last July. It is a Dell Inspiron 531 Dual-Core machine. Plenty fast enough. Not even a year old.

It would shut down after being on for about 20 minutes, the BSOD. It would not connect to the internet, it would not recognize my being logged in as a Admin. It would prompt me to log on as a Admin, even thought I was already logged on as one.

You barking up the wrong tree here. Your not going to a hassle free machine with a OS that was designed to work with multiple hardware manufactures, there will always be headaches. As with the other Windows machines I have used over the years, Windows is no different, it has it's shares of problems.

More than OSX, that is a fact. For the simple fact that OSX is better designed, more powerful and more importantly runs on hardware that it is designed to run on.

You're all happy now since you have no issues, .....yet. Does that even tell you something, that your happy you don't have problems? Think about that for a moment.

And the argument that OSX is not as widespread and it's marketshare protects it is nonsense. You, don't kid youself, as it seems you already have. Like I said you're barking up the wrong tree and it seems the jokes on you.

There is only one reason and one reason alone as to why there have been no known viruses to date for Mac OS X... because it is amongst the most inherently secure commercially-available operating systems on the market.

Can you say"UNIX". Look it up. You will get my meaning. Here I will help you.

"Unix operating systems are widely used in both servers and workstations"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix

Microsoft vs UNIX.

http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/security/uw.html


The whole "security through obscurity" argument is nothing but a cop-out for those who either can't understand why or simply refuse to admit that the Mac is a very secure platform.

Apple is enjoying its largest market share since the 1980s... there are millions and millions of Macs in service and on the web, so it's hardly obscure. If one honestly thinks that it's simply not "worth it" to try and exploit damn near 1/10th of a pie that's as big as the computer market, then they're delusional.

Even if that remotely held the tiniest bit of water, then how does one explain the fact that the Classic Mac OS had several (relatively speaking) well known viruses/attacks, especially when their market share was much lower in those days?

Even more telling is the existence of hundreds of different kinds of malware out there which are written for linux... Linux is used by what - 1% of the market?

The argument that there's nothing worthwhile to be found on Macs does stack up well either. It is fairly common knowledge that Mac users, on average have both higher incomes and higher disposable incomes, especially due to their perception as nothing more than a high-end "luxury" item. Mac users store financial information on their computers just like everyone else... So if one of every ten computers is owned by someone who may very well have higher than average assets, then how is that not an attractive target?

The current Mac OS must be the "holy grail" of hackers, et al. It is impossible to fathom that untold numbers of hackers simply give the Mac a free pass and leave it and its users to their own devices totally unscathed.

OS X has been on the market now for almost 8 years... In terms of computers that's eons, yet nothing has gotten out into the wild - even despite the fact that there have been full-fledged contests held to exploit the system.

I'm not so naive to think that there might never be any kind of malicious code released to exploit the Mac, but neither am I so naive to think that there hasn't been countless numbers of people out there who have tried unsuccessfully to do so over almost an entire decade's time.
 
I had about £1200 to spend on a new machine. Mac Pro's start at £1899. I dont want an iMac as I already have 2 LCD screens I am perfectly happy with. I have gone with a Mac Mini for now (£649) and its a great little machine but it just doesn't quite have the power I want. I would love to have spent that extra £550 on a machine with a quad core processor, a bit more ram and the space to put a couple of 1tb drives in.

I love the fact that because some people don't want one they argue so vehemently against Apple releasing one as though it would signal the end of the world. I don't particularly want an iPod Touch or a Macbook, doesn't mean I don't think Apple should make them!
 
I had about £1200 to spend on a new machine. Mac Pro's start at £1899. I dont want an iMac as I already have 2 LCD screens I am perfectly happy with. I have gone with a Mac Mini for now (£649) and its a great little machine but it just doesn't quite have the power I want. I would love to have spent that extra £550 on a machine with a quad core processor, a bit more ram and the space to put a couple of 1tb drives in.

I love the fact that because some people don't want one they argue so vehemently against Apple releasing one as though it would signal the end of the world. I don't particularly want an iPod Touch or a Macbook, doesn't mean I don't think Apple should make them!

I totally agree with you there.

I've tried (and failed) to find definate retail prices for previous macs to show that apple always had an entry level system, be it a mini-tower or desktop for about that price but all the sites that are supposed to have that kind of information just have pages and pages of specs or they list the retail price of the entire range as $2,400 with nothing to differentiate between one model and the other.

I wish there was a way of simply obtaining this information for the Power Mac range from G3 to G5 and the Xeon systems after that:-

Retail prices on release date

Geekbench Score

I've looked on the Apple site, everymac, lowendmac, google, all over the place and it's just pages of specs and no definite prices.

It would soon show, at least in US$ that the price of macs has being ramping up slowly over the years and apple have gradually killed the entry level desktop market all together with the introduction of a slightly higher end iMac with a dated, 2 core laptop CPU.

It would also show the performance curve from one range to the next, relative the retail price
 
I am running a brand new iMac with the Radeon 4850 under both Win7 and OS X. I have to disagree with the folks here who are drooling about how wonderful Win 7 is.

It's a bit step up from Vista, but it's still Windows and has all of the Windows problems. I figured that I needed anti-virus software on it since it's a Windows PC and you will get pwnd just going online with the damn thing if you aren't loaded for bear.

So I loaded AVG anti-virus on and it completely killed the performance on the machine in gaming. Not only that but it borked the firmware on the PRAM so badly on the iMac that I had to reset it.

OS X has its own problems and idiosyncrasies but they are a joke compared to the problems one has to put up with in Windows Land.

In the past two months two of my friends have dumped Windows for Mac (both bought Mac Minis).

At the end of the day most users will trade super powerful hardware performance for OS experience. At least that's the trend with Apple increasing their market share over the past few years.
 
I am running a brand new iMac with the Radeon 4850 under both Win7 and OS X. I have to disagree with the folks here who are drooling about how wonderful Win 7 is.

It's a bit step up from Vista, but it's still Windows and has all of the Windows problems. I figured that I needed anti-virus software on it since it's a Windows PC and you will get pwnd just going online with the damn thing if you aren't loaded for bear.

So I loaded AVG anti-virus on and it completely killed the performance on the machine in gaming. Not only that but it borked the firmware on the PRAM so badly on the iMac that I had to reset it.

OS X has its own problems and idiosyncrasies but they are a joke compared to the problems one has to put up with in Windows Land.

In the past two months two of my friends have dumped Windows for Mac (both bought Mac Minis).

At the end of the day most users will trade super powerful hardware performance for OS experience. At least that's the trend with Apple increasing their market share over the past few years.

I 100% agree with you. I installed Win7 few days ago and I've had 3 crashes and multiple times of single app crashes.
 
I have to disagree with the folks here who are drooling about how wonderful Win 7 is.

Agreed - I don't get the hype. I've been using the beta and frankly it's nothing special. But I read nothing but adulation in the press and in user comments. Perhaps Windows people are gushing about it only because Vista sucked so bad? Or just more infamous Microsoft astroturfing at work?

I suppose when you're used to eating dog food, ground beef tastes like filet mignon. ;)
 
The whole "security through obscurity" argument is nothing but a cop-out for those who either can't understand why or simply refuse to admit that the Mac is a very secure platform.

The debate rages whether Mac is by nature more secure or only more secure because of its small market share. Bottom line: who cares? Facts are facts: Macs don't have to deal with the spyware and viruses that plague the Windows world. I don't care what the reason is, I only care that it is so. I don't spend my time cleaning spyware off my friends' and relatives' Windows-based computers any more. I'm tired of that gig. I tell them to get a Mac and I'll start helping them out again.

Guess what: they are. :p
 
the reality of the matter is, you won't come across any virii on windows if you take care of a couple of basic principles; don't use IE, don't use outlook, do windows updates and you're already 99% safe. I don't need a virus scanner on my windows pc at all. Never have, never will.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.