Windows has poor security compared to mac (The point all macfags will try to make) But if updated often enough, And with anti virus programs, You wont get virus's.
Macs are a candy coated idiot proof version of a PC. Those who know nothing of computers will think "Oh yay a mac, It's pretty, It cant get virus's, It's perfect for me, It's hip". Yet windows is just in general more powerful. There are a HANDFULL of things you cant do on macs that can be done on windows. And im not talking about these little stupid asthetic things like a pretty download box. Mac is for those who want to surf the web, Download music and edit pictures. Can you do too much more than that? nope. Windows has OPTIONS. Sure it might not be as safe as a mac, But you dont need safe if you're skilled.
tl;dr - Give a skilled hacker something running windows, the possibilitys are endless. Give them a mac and they cant do shit.
The hierarchy of operating systems runs Plan 9 > Linux > FooBSD > OS X > FreeDOS > Windows > OS 9. Arguing about which is best for ``hackers'' when UNIX and its derivatives are explicitly designed to be what amounts to a C IDE is silly.
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-17 7:52
>>5
Did you ever try to compile *any* library with cygwin? It's the cancer! For example try to compile FTGL (http://ftgl.wiki.sourceforge.net/).
>>11 didn't have a CLI
Then you should have written one, or used one of several 3rd party CLIs that were available. That is, if you really even need one or are just a humongous faggot who doesn't know how to use AppleScript.
A/UX is the only ... wasn't shit
A/UX is just OS X without three metric tons of gloss and brushed aluminum graphics. Plus, X windows is pig disgusting anyway, why would you want to have to deal with that shit working on Apple's hardware when you could just use *nix on different hardware
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-17 13:29
>>13
Mac OS 9 lacks protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking. I think you'll agree that these deficiencies make it technically inferior, since all other major OSes had had those features already for quite some time (relative to the speed of progress of computing.)
>>14
Since he doesn't even know what a CLI is for, I'm going to guess that you're talking to either a brick wall or a troll.
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-17 14:04
A/UX is just OS X without three metric tons of gloss and brushed aluminum graphics. Plus, X windows is pig disgusting anyway, why would you want to have to deal with that shit working on Apple's hardware when you could just use *nix on different hardware
A/UX has the system 7 GUI on top of unix. you don't have to deal with X unless you want to, and to use X all you have to do is start the X server.
OS X looks like shit compared to system 7, and manages to be less responsive on a machine with a 2GHz processor than A/UX on a machine with a 33MHz processor.
>>1
Macs are those who aren't too poor to afford them. This clearly doesn't include you, since you're obviously too dumb to get a job making real money.
>>20
Don't you know you're supposed to pretend Apple computers aren't more expensive than the equivalent in off-brand hardware anymore?
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-17 22:35
>>21
If that's true (I don't care enough to research it), who the fuck needs a computer with the exact specifications of the Apple machines? All of those comparisons are flawed because they find a PC with very similar specifications in order to try to be "fair" - but they don't actually represent consumers' real preferences at all.
I use only Macs (since I'm not poor), and I don't use lots of the hardware. I don't use wifi or the webcam on my iMac or the FireWire ports and DVD drives on any of my Macs.
the worst thing about macs is the shamefully low resolutions of the displays. well, except for the ridiculously high prices and the insufferable homosexual hipsters.
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-17 22:54
>>23
Mac laptops often have higher resolution screens that most mass-market consumer/retail systems. For example, 1440x900 at 15.4" or 1920x1200 at 17" is uncommon in most laptops sold in stores, but are the standards on MacBook Pros.
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-17 22:57
>>24
that's pitiful compared to the 1920x1200 15.4" screen on my dell leptop.
>>25
Good for you.
If only there was some computer manufacturer that made computers that you like; perhaps one headquartered in Texas and with complex just-in-time supply chain / manufacturing that makes it profitable to sell a large number of computer systems at a low markup with a wide variety of customer-specified configurations.
>>27
it's just that you'd think that if apple wanted to keep up their reputation of making good machines for graphic design, they'd have better displays.
>>28
Apple wants to keep their reputation of being a successful company. And somehow, they remain profitable even though their products disappoint people like >>23 (who probably couldn't afford a Mac anyway)
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-17 23:45
Anybody who says macs are Unix are idiots.
Windows could be officially registered as Unix if they wanted; that's because they're actually compliant with the standards! hahaha.
All that's required is a large sum of cash.
Of course, the open group wouldn't allow Windows to be registered; simply because it expose Unix® as the scam that it truly is.
Mac users == gullible idiots.
If you want Unix, use BSD.
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-17 23:47
Anybody who buys pre assembled computers does not belong here.
I don't care if it's from CrApple Inc, or Dell.
GTFO and go back to kindergarten. You are disgraceful.
>>30
Mac OS X is certified UNIX. It requires actually being compliant with the Single UNIX Specification / POSIX. Windows NT is not. GNU/Linux is definitely not POSIX compliant.
None of the current BSD systems are UNIX. If you want to be a UNIX purist by lineage, you should advocate for a SVR4-derived system like Solaris...
>>31
Assembling computers is a trivial job for machines. It's not something to be proud of.
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-18 0:04
>>33
Windows IS compliant.
There are many compliant interfaces that you can download and install.
>>33
Computers aren't assembled by machines, they're assembled by Chinese people.
It's also not a matter of being proud, it's a matter of being pathetic if you get someone else to do it for you.
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-18 0:07
To all Mac users: Everybody is laughing at you behind your back.
This is fact.
>>31
This is the best thing I've heard since the people who prefer Debian over Ubantu just because Debian doesn't have any default conf files out of the box.
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-18 0:21
>>34
Have you read your Single UNIX Specification1 today? Obviously not. Cygwin and SFU/SUA (and GNU/Linux, for that matter) simply do not meet the specifications.
>>34
There are better things I can do with my time than research, buy, and put together computer parts - like programming, something that creates much more value than assembling factory-made parts.
This thread is pretty /g/ quality.
My position on this:
Buying Macs is stupid, and like most things Apple makes, it's a very good scam.
Installing OS X is excusable. Some people like the GUI and it's still BSD-based, altough the kernel updates lag behind compared to other BSD's. Sometimes vulnerabilities go for many months unpatched.
In Windows NT you can run POSIX-compliant applications through compatibility layers, like free open-source ones, or Microsoft's own UNIX compatibility subsystem (not installed by default).
Regarding OP's claim about viruses, there are a lot of malware on Windows, because it's the most popular desktop OS. There are some malware for various *nix'es as well, but the quantity is much smaller, and they're much less spread. They can be prevented on either OS by keeping your services and clients up to date (don't get owned), and isolating the environment enough that if you do get owned, they can't do any damage (user permissions/ filesystem permissions, virtualization, chrooting, and so on). On OS X, one could take some older vulnerabilities that Apple hasn't fixed yet and exploit those, but it seems few people are interested in exploiting Mac boxes, because they're a minority and it usually isn't worth the extra effort. OS X users can enjoy the fake safety feeling one enjoys by not having a popular OS, but they'd be no more safer in a targetted attack, or maybe a OS X-only attack.
PS: "Security software" and antiviruses that OP mentioned are obviously useless and only a preventive measure against known/seen-before malware. They can't protect one from a targetted attack, or a 0-day one.
This thread is pretty /g/ quality.
My position on this:
Buying Macs is stupid, and like most things Apple makes, it's a very good scam.
Installing OS X is excusable. Some people like the GUI and it's still BSD-based, altough the kernel updates lag behind compared to other BSD's. Sometimes vulnerabilities go for many months unpatched.
In Windows NT you can run POSIX-compliant applications through compatibility layers, like free open-source ones, or Microsoft's own UNIX compatibility subsystem (not installed by default).
Regarding OP's claim about viruses, there are a lot of malware on Windows, because it's the most popular desktop OS. There are some malware for various *nix'es as well, but the quantity is much smaller, and they're much less spread. They can be prevented on either OS by keeping your services and clients up to date (don't get owned), and isolating the environment enough that if you do get owned, they can't do any damage (user permissions/ filesystem permissions, virtualization, chrooting, and so on). On OS X, one could take some older vulnerabilities that Apple hasn't fixed yet and exploit those, but it seems few people are interested in exploiting Mac boxes, because they're a minority and it usually isn't worth the extra effort. OS X users can enjoy the fake safety feeling one enjoys by not having a popular OS, but they'd be no more safer in a targetted attack, or maybe a OS X-only attack.
PS: "Security software" and antiviruses that OP mentioned are obviously useless and only a preventive measure against known/seen-before malware. They can't protect one from a targetted attack, or a 0-day one.
Have you read your Single UNIX Specification1 today? Obviously not. Cygwin and SFU/SUA (and GNU/Linux, for that matter) simply do not meet the specifications.
neither does OS X.
>>40
OS X is certified UNIX. This means it is compliant with the Single UNIX Specification, specifically, version 3 (SUSv3 / UNIX03 / POSIX.1-2001)
>>38
The kernel is way ahead of other BSDs in that it supports modern hardware (e.g. Macs) with working audio and graphics.
And Windows NT can run some operating systems written for something kind of like POSIX, but neither SFU/SUA nor Cygwin are POSIX comliant. (Cygwin has a lot of GNU nastiness)
>>45
Of course I understand what is Cygwin. Cygwin calls itself "Linux-like", uses GCC, and uses GNU newlib (which is missing some POSIX and implements some GNU extensions). This is not POSIX compliant.
Nothing wrong with not being POSIX compliant, except it makes porting applications compatible if they are designed for using POSIX.
When developing for unixlike systems, I read manpages from BSD and SVR4 derived UNIX systems along with the SUS specifications, and then I compare to GNU. Otherwise, it's easy to write software that only works on glibc/Linux.
>>50
Cygwin stands for Cygwin, your GNU for Windows. It is a port of GNU for Windows. It was completely GNU and is probably currently the same (I don't know as I don't use Windows or Cygwin). It is as POSIX compatible as GNU is POSIX compatible.
RMS has stated before that he doesn't particularly care about GNU's adherence to POSIX, only that he's interested in taking the good bits of POSIX and making non-standard extensions when necessary.
>>52
Cygwin is a Red Hat project, and uses newlib instead of glibc. This makes Cygwin a bit different than a GNU system with GNU libc (glibc). (newlib is not a GNU project and seems to be BSD licensed afaict)
>>53
There's always MinGW, which actually aims to be GNU for Windows (unlike Cygwin), bit it also uses newlib. Does anything actually provide glibc for Windows? - and if so, why?