PC vs Mac
- Thread starter 1nspire
- Start date
I didn't care for it, mainly because:
1) I've seen it and variants of it til my eyes could bleed.
2) Most of the arguments are from 5-10 years ago.
Here's three reasons I prefer mac over windows in 2010
1) unix based / terminal
2) the actual computers body styles, layouts, keyboards, trackpads, etc.
3) user interface
The rest really makes no difference to me...windows, mac, linux...especially since I don't game.
1) unix based / terminal
2) the actual computers body styles, layouts, keyboards, trackpads, etc.
3) user interface
The rest really makes no difference to me...windows, mac, linux...especially since I don't game.
#1 and #3 would be my main reason, especially since when I'm dealing with vPS and such, most of the tools like ssh and such are already built into the terminal. Also if I for whatever reason need to use windows, say Internet explorer or something I can use vmware, or I can reboot into Windows 7. But I'm more attached to the software side of things than I am the hardware side. That is to say if I had OSX running flawlessly on a windows-intended PC, I would definitely consider a PC for purchase if I had to buy again, just so as long as I could still run OSX.
uhh,err,wat?
i won't speak for linux desktop (as every "desktop" distro is very different about what it includes "out of box"), but most "server" distros i know of come with __nothing__ installed "right out of the box", except like kernel + bash + ssh. this is security at it's finest. the root of all insecurity is unwanted installed programs, especially crapware that comes with your PC, or any software that opens a port (unless you specifically asked it to), or anything with a "default config" (because the hackers already know what that default config says, and if they can exploit it). this is why OEM windows < "clean" windows < mac < linux for security, in my opinion.
for example, i've got a clean server i just booted with nothing installed at all, except what came "in the box", and the only open port is 22 (password authentication disabled, pubkey only). try cracking into THAT.
That's another thing that irks me, someone trying to invalidate my statement by removing the part that makes it valid. It's not a fair comparison to compare a Desktop OS (OSX, Windows, etc) to a Server Distribution. Most people who build servers know what they're doing. So you didn't actually invalidate anything I said.
PS: I do the same thing you do , pub-key, no password authenication, except I don't use the standard port 22. Also with only your SSH port open, it makes a pretty useless webserver.
lol @ "irks you" ... not trying to "invalidate" anything you said dude, just trying to clarify the points -- i felt it was inaccurate to say, at any point, regardless of what you followed up with, that "linux is not any more secure out of the box". that's one of the best parts about linux, if you don't like "the box" you can try a different one.That's another thing that irks me, someone trying to invalidate my statement by removing the part that makes it valid. It's not a fair comparison to compare a Desktop OS (OSX, Windows, etc) to a Server Distribution. Most people who build servers know what they're doing. So you didn't actually invalidate anything I said.
PS: I do the same thing you do , pub-key, no password authenication, except I don't use the standard port 22. Also with only your SSH port open, it makes a pretty useless webserver.
and, fwiw, if you wanna talk about desktops, most linux distros still come with less "default crap" and "open ports" than osx 10.6 -- bonjour, for example, is chatty as hell, and exploited regularly. you can't get more stripped down and secure than "just ssh". besides, i setup dozens of servers every month, but only reinstalled a desktop OS twice in the past 12 months, so isn't out-of-box-security for server distros a candidate for argument in this discussion?
p.s. that server is scraping, not serving ... i only need webservers on ~30% of my systems
lol @ "irks you" ... not trying to "invalidate" anything you said dude, just trying to clarify the points -- i felt it was inaccurate to say, at any point, regardless of what you followed up with, that "linux is not any more secure out of the box". that's one of the best parts about linux, if you don't like "the box" you can try a different one.
and, fwiw, if you wanna talk about desktops, most linux distros still come with less "default crap" and "open ports" than osx 10.6 -- bonjour, for example, is chatty as hell, and exploited regularly. you can't get more stripped down and secure than "just ssh". besides, i setup dozens of servers every month, but only reinstalled a desktop OS twice in the past 12 months, so isn't out-of-box-security for server distros a candidate for argument in this discussion?
p.s. that server is scraping, not serving ... i only need webservers on ~30% of my systems
My Point was that most people who don't know computers, OSX is the most secure out of the three while still being very accessible to technology-challenged end users. So most people who would customize their system, it really wouldn't matter if it was windows, osx, or linux, since someone who knows what they are doing can secure most systems themselves.
... is there even really a point to this? Most of the impacts on end users are virus/trojans or phishing scams, and wouldn't matter if you had a PC full of open ports (as if you're behind a router too, its kind of a natural firewall to begin with, least for incoming crap). Alot of scams and phishing attempts are platform independent, and most can be thwarted by common sense and not your OS.
i mostly agree with all of that.
nope, just idly chatting while i hack away at cleaning up someone's ugly PHP. wasn't looking to argue, honestly just making conversation during a long long day of work.SNIP said:
Personally I wouldn't use anything other than Windows, because I don't have the fucking time to learn the new stuff and Windows gets the job done fast.
But after cleaning a friend's PC after he had a run-in with CyberDefender I start to think that completely locked down solutions like iPhone a way to go for a person who can't tell a file from scroll-bar
But after cleaning a friend's PC after he had a run-in with CyberDefender I start to think that completely locked down solutions like iPhone a way to go for a person who can't tell a file from scroll-bar
How do you know if something gets the job done fast in comparison to anything else if you haven't tried? Personally I find administering my sites from terminal much faster than getting puTTY to work on windows. Just to name a small example. To each their own I guess.
What's so difficult about puTTY on Windows? I placed it on my taskbar right next to SQLyog. Click on it once, select the server I want to administer and go. My file manager has puTTy built in for SSH support of my FTP sessions. I can do most of my file manipulation for my site tweaks from helper apps within my file manager (DOpus). Unless I'm missing a great 3rd party alternative, Finder is quite the piece of shit on the Mac. Also I've yet to find a decent alternative to SQLyog on the Mac side for administering databases. Hence the need for virtualization, I suppose.
I'm not looking for something that is the fastest or even faster. I'm content that the stuff on windows is fast and good enough.
I've had some experience with trying to get stuff working on linux and decided that "free" is not worth the effort.
Don't know about MacOS - hardly used it. but since I'm an addicted gamer I doubt that Mac will keep me happy with the latest games
By itself not really difficult but little things add up.
... you know a lot of stuff that works for *nix can be compiled on the OSX side right... ?
1) You can run windows on a mac.
2) There are plenty of games on the mac, and even more now that Valve has officially moved into the OSX platform.
But of course, for serious gaming hardware, custom built PC seems to be the way to go.