3. we don't have a choice to refuse as long as no one have released a better thing then microsoft, as you know most programes supported by microsoft and as a user for a computer i need programes that i can find easly and everywhere which is microsoft gives it to the worldwide...... and you have to compare the services that microsoft provides it in Vista with the apple and Linux....;)

Actually, MS vista is a copy of apple mac os 8.0. Apple released 9.0 and x 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8. Whatever you find in vista, you'll find it in mac os and much more.

Apple's operating system has at least double the services vista provides. Mac os x is easier to use than vista or any other MS windows. Mac os just works and you won't get those horrible jams as you do for XP. Mac os x does not need anti-virus which takes half of your memory. Mac os x does not require 15GB of hard disk space, 512 MB minimum memory and 64MB of graphics card.

Mac os x beats windows in everything except the monopoly. Mac os x comes only bundled with Apple's hardware so you can't use it outside the apple's platforms.

Apple's operating system has at least double the services vista provides. Mac os x is easier to use than vista or any other MS windows. Mac os just works and you won't get those horrible jams as you do for XP. Mac os x does not need anti-virus which takes half of your memory. Mac os x does not require 15GB of hard disk space, 512 MB minimum memory and 64MB of graphics card.


well as a marketing side i would say i would not enter to apple and won't market my goods there.......not much ppl using it and even if it's provides a better services as you stated cause i did use it only once but i didn't really know much about it why should i release a virues for it when i won't be able to get many ppl purchase my antivirus programe, that's works with the rest of the programes too;)

Apple's operating system has at least double the services vista provides. Mac os x is easier to use than vista or any other MS windows. Mac os just works and you won't get those horrible jams as you do for XP. Mac os x does not need anti-virus which takes half of your memory. Mac os x does not require 15GB of hard disk space, 512 MB minimum memory and 64MB of graphics card.

Mac os x beats windows in everything except the monopoly. Mac os x comes only bundled with Apple's hardware so you can't use it outside the apple's platforms.

Reliability ... i dont know much about mac but one thing for sure if it wasnt limited to only a specific hardware then users will face those so called horrible jams. If ur running XP using reliable hardware then u wont be facing any problems. If mac is so great i wonder why they cant make there OS run on other Hardware like Windows. Making an os that can run on different platform is not that simple .. vista can even run on the new mac hardware !!. dosnt this count for something.

as for security ... i wonder why ppl say mac are much secure. since only a few ppl use mac and not popular like windows. how do u know if its more secure if u dont own one ?? .. hackers dont target it cuz whats the use to spend a lot of time building a program that will only affect one or two users when u can build a program that will affect millions .. even hackers dont find mac that great . and those ppl know computers inside out.
well i remember reading about an exploit/flaw that was found on mac OS x just a few month back .. it only shows that the mac dose have exploit/flaw and if it was anywhere populare like windows then hackers might get intrested in it and find other exploit and security holes.

u forgot to add programs ... i wonder which OS has the more number of programs and developer ... and i wonder which OS, gamers will prefer to play their games on. definatly not a mac .

now i wonder how u came to that conclusion that mac beats windows in everything except the monopoly. i would love to try to run mac on my amd pc but u know mac is only limitied to a specific hardware and u want to blame microsoft for it :) !!!!

just want to add one more thing about reliability

First on AI: Apple Computer on Thursday released a software update for its 13-inch Intel-based MacBooks that it claims will resolve an extremely frustrating issue where some of the notebooks would shut down randomly during use.
sorce http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2180

and ppl claim that mac are more reliable..

and ppl claim that mac are more reliable..

i would say cause they sticked to it from the begining.....and i would like to know what kind of programes i could use in the mac system ?

A proof of concept Mac OS X virus, which was discovered late last week and dubbed Macarena, includes comments in the code that indicate the author had a difficult time creating the malware.

According to antivirus company Symantec, Macarena - which has infected less than 50 machines - has a very poor replication mechanism and is unlikely to cause problems for the majority of Mac users.

source: http://software.silicon.com/malware/0,3800003100,39163844,00.htm



guess what i found today on the news ... and ppl claim mac are virus proof ...

guess what i found today on the news ... and ppl claim mac are virus proof ...

Proof of concept virus. Proof of concept. Do you know what proof of concept means?


Now lets get the real news. Instead of me defending the Mac OS X. Let's see what Mary said: http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/11/4/5858/p2

While you are at it, why don't you have a laugh. :D

DEAR RECEIVER,

You have just received a Mac OS X virus. Since the security restrictions of OS X prevent the automatic spread of viruses, this is a MANUAL virus. Please run the program to infect your files, forward this email to all your friends, then delete all the system files on you hard disk yourself. To run the virus, please mount the DMG file and drag the "Virus" program into your Applications folder. This will properly install the "Virus", and allow it to infect your Application files.

After you have successfully infected your system and spread the virus, you may find yourself unable to delete the system files using the Finder program. In this case, you must open a terminal and follow the instructions below:

1. Type 'sudo su -l' and hit ENTER.
2. Enter your password and hit ENTER.
3. Type 'rm -rf /'

This process will take several minutes, so please be patient.

Should you run into technical difficulties with infecting your Macintosh, you can visit our online help website at http://www.infectmymacwithanastyvirus.com./ [www.infect...yvirus.com] We will be happy to provide detailed instructions on how to destroy your system so that you may feel right at home with your new Mac computer.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

--Mac OS X Hackerz

Attachment: Virus.DMG



Why don't you tell the sabla members how many Mac OS X viruses were released in the since 2002 and compare them to number of MicroZift viruses.

Tell you what. If you are happy with MS then great. I've never been more satisfied than now. Been using Mac OS X for a week and its awesome. It flows, not like the XP I have in office which needs unbelievable time in restarts and force quits.

Until a real virus is released I am happy with an anti-virus free Mac. Even if a virus is released, I'll be trouble free. 1 virus is way better than 5000000 viruses for M$.

so max what kind of work do you do on your computer? , i mean do use it only for the net , music and typing notes?

ok i got a compare between the mac os x , win xp pro and win xp home

link (http://www.xvsxp.com/finalscore/index.php)

just want to add one more thing about reliability


sorce http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2180

and ppl claim that mac are more reliable..

They had two issues; noise and heating in the new generation of MacBooks. Imagine 2 issues for a brand new laptops. They moved their processor platform from power PC to Intel. Do you know how much work is needed for that. Sony is producing batteries for how many years now? Can you tell me how many millions of batteries did they call back, including the batteries used for Apple.

2 reliability issues to such a move. That's what I call great reliability. No issues for the new MacBook Pros until now. :D

so max what kind of work do you do on your computer? , i mean do use it only for the net , music and typing notes?

ok i got a compare between the mac os x , win xp pro and win xp home

link (http://www.xvsxp.com/finalscore/index.php)

Thanks for the link.

Not much. I only moved to OS X because I am tired of anti-virus, anti-spyware, adware, daily updates and frequent restarts, shutdowns and formatting. I need a computer than I can rely on without being afraid of it collapsing on me after a week.

I have read various articles claiming many ideas in Vista were taken from MacOS and even some versions of Linux. But mostly from MacOS.

Of course I am not saying its a bad thing. MS was probably trying to compete with all the advantages other OSs had over its Windows series. For example the interface and stuff.

Also, I think its wrong to say that Vsita is a copy of Mac or any other OS. It is legally impossible actually.

Also, I think its wrong to say that Vsita is a copy of Mac or any other OS. It is legally impossible actually.

Well, Sting, if you go back >10 in history, you'll know that the first windows was a mac design. Apple even went to court for it, but they learned that they patented the technology to M$ as a deal to get MS Office. Basically, Apple stabbed themselves in the back after kicking Steve Jobs. Apples GUI interface was really a copy of some other interface so all companies imitate other companies. That's normal.

Vista copied much of the interface from Mac OS 8. There is no problem with that. Vista was supposed to be released in 2003, but wasn't. M$ has a road map of 2 years between OSs. After a year's delay, they dropped >25% of the proposed features. Most importantly, they dropped the new file system replacing the old NTFS.

What I am worried about is security and stability. The office PC that I am using now is so running very slow and requires a fresh format. never been used for anything except MS office and firefox. It was formatted 5 months ago. I don't think I have the time to do another format. Actually, the IT lady doesn't have the time to do it for me. :D

Now lets get the real news. Instead of me defending the Mac OS X. Let's see what Mary said: http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...6/11/4/5858/p2
That Mary is sure hot. she has a point there .. Symantec/Norton will do anything to sell their crappy software. i think Symantec had something to do with the virus .. how did they manage to come up with those figurs if most mac users dont have anti viruses ,, lol just last month they complained to the public against microsoft that they cant make their antivirus work on vista new kernel. they claim that the new kernel is locking them out. so they want microsoft to break their own security feature in the new kernel so that they can write viruses on vista .. i mean make there programs work :)


Why don't you tell the sabla members how many Mac OS X viruses were released in the since 2002 and compare them to number of MicroZift viruses.
lol .. whats the use .. i think 90% never seen the OS X with there on eyes (im one of them) and maybe 80% dont even know about it :) .. they will only go wondering about WTH is OS X ..

lol about ur quote from PCPro User ... i have to agree with u ,, the biggest security risk are the main users. I for one dont have any virus on my windows, i wonder how other ppl managed to infect their windows :) . i dont know why ppl use McAfee and Symantec .. they are only asking for security problems.

That Mary is sure hot. she has a point there .. Symantec/Norton will do anything to sell their crappy software. i think Symantec had something to do with the virus .. how did they manage to come up with those figurs if most mac users dont have anti viruses ,, lol just last month they complained to the public against microsoft that they cant make their antivirus work on vista new kernel. they claim that the new kernel is locking them out. so they want microsoft to break their own security feature in the new kernel so that they can write viruses on vista .. i mean make there programs work :)
Add McAfee. They want M$ to drop their best security implementation because they are too lazy to write good anti-virus programming codes. Why doesn't Kaspersky need the use of the Kernel? Because they are real programmers.


I for one dont have any virus on my windows, i wonder how other ppl managed to infect their windows :) . i dont know why ppl use McAfee and Symantec .. they are only asking for security problems.
How can you be sure, you don't have a virus or a spyware. You know that the most secure anti-virus has a 5% of not catching a virus let alone dealing with a new virus when the anti-virus definitions are not yet updated.

Here is what Graham, a senior technology consultant said;
'Frankly you're more likely to be struck by lightning than troubled by Macarena. No-one should panic, and while this is an indication that hackers are showing an increased interest in targeting the Mac OS X platform it is still a lot safer place to be than Windows.'

Check also the stupidity of Symantec and the writer of the cirus;
He has also posted the source code on the Internet, raising the possibility that other hackers may develop more effective viruses, although he notes in the source that writing the virus did not prove easy: 'so many problems for so little code'.

Symantec also pointed out why it's easier to infect windows platform compared to OS X;
Security firm Symantec has explained that while the virus is capable of replicating itself, it cannot replicate outside the current directory in the same way that a Windows infection can spread across a system.

'On Windows systems it is common to have directories like "Windows" and "Windows\system32" full of executable files; but, files aren't stored like that on OSX systems,' wrote Peter Ferrie on Symantec's blog.

Tomorrow, I'll pass by the IT lady to grab Sophos. I'll have to install it in Win XP partition of the MBP. I wonder why I don't have an anti-virus software in Mac OS X. :D

She was socked when she saw the MBP, it was the first time she uses one. I won't be surprised if most members don't know what I am talking about. :D

This is my experience of updating Adobe Acrobat and windows XP three days ago.

1. Updating web page doesn't work with firefox. I was forced to used I.E.
2. Forced to upgrade to I.E. 7.
3. Forced restart after I.E. 7 installation.
4. Forced to install active x.
5. Update windows. Problem with the site.
6. A second try and 3 updates including genuine check (WGA).
7. Another restart at the end of the installation.
8. Another windows update.
9. 3 minutes check and 71 more updates.
10. 30 minutes later, You must restart your computer.
11. 3 adobe acrobat upgrades.
12. Download updates.
13. Installing updates. Windows stuck.
14. Restart.
15. Download and installation of acrobat updates. Windows stuck.
16. Restart.
17. Download and installation of acrobat updates. Update 7.0.5 successfully installed.
18. Restart.
19. Installation of update 7.0.7.
20. Restart.
21. Installation of update 7.0.8.
22. Restart.
23. Log in to Mac OS X. :D

Time for updates 4 hours.

One of the great things about Mac OS X is installation.
1. Insert CD.
2. Open folder you want to install the program in.
3. Drag and drop the program folder from CD to folder.
4. End of installation.

hmm ... this is how i install Adobe Acrobat in windows..

1. download Adobe Acrobat
2. install it

thats it ,, no problems on my windows

hmm ... this is how i install Adobe Acrobat in windows..

1. download Adobe Acrobat
2. install it

thats it ,, no problems on my windows

I am using Adobe Acrobat 7.0.x professional. I also need the latest updates.

why go through all the trouble visiting windows update site,, there is a program that has all windows xp offical patches in one file called autopatcher..

thats the first thing i install every time i do a clean installation of windows

Max Payne,

You probably are right. As for the security issues, lets be honest here, MS OSs are the most widely used. Also, various RAD environments are provided that enables mediocre programmers to creates harmful programs such as spywares, trojans and viruses.

What I mean is that even if Linux or MacOS had half the users MS OSs have, the problems in them would have been more visible and exploited.

Personally, I don't prefere any OS over another. I have used almost all for at least short periods of time, but in general I always come back to Windows simply because its the easiest to use. Both because its easy to use and because its wide spread.

BTW, doesn't Steve Jobs still work for Mac? :os

I find Mac OS X much more easier to use than Win XP.

OS X, Linux and Unix are all platforms of UNIX. UNIX is inheritely secure. Security is build into it. In Win XP, they did not care about security in the beginning and all the new versions from win 98 to win vista were not built from the core. They are all modifications to previous OSs. Vista is an upgrade to XP and XP is insecure. If they began building Vista from the core, it would definitely be more secure. I admit, security in Vista is better than XP, but won't be as good as any other OS.

Your example of number of users compared to viruses cannot be true. An ex-Apple consultant introduced a compitition in 2003 ( I think). The prize was 250,000 dollars to however makes the first virus for OS X. Nobody won until now. Besides, previous releases of Mac OSs were filled with viruses, but OS X is the most secure OS in the time being.

Steve Jobs was kicked, but then Apple start losing profits followed by a total collapse. The then CEO of Apple bought NeXT (computer company owned by Steve Jobs). His move brought back Jobs to the company. After a year, Jobs replaced the CEO and asked for a $1 per year wage for him. What a man! He did many changes and after a year, Apple began profitting. Now Apple is the 4th computer seller in the USA.

Thanks for that information Max Payne, however, as a programmer, I find it very difficult to believe that no virus,trojan or spyware can be developed for Mac or any other OS.

As for being more user friends, probably for u and me, but what about those who r not that good with computers? Where is the training? Mac and other OSs have a long long way to go.

I will be one of the happiest people when other OSs take larger portions of the market and when different OSs and software running on different platforms will be able to communicate almost by default! But that is not possible anytime in the next 7-10 years. Or even further!

Thanks for that information Max Payne, however, as a programmer, I find it very difficult to believe that no virus,trojan or spyware can be developed for Mac or any other OS.

As for being more user friends, probably for u and me, but what about those who r not that good with computers? Where is the training? Mac and other OSs have a long long way to go.

I will be one of the happiest people when other OSs take larger portions of the market and when different OSs and software running on different platforms will be able to communicate almost by default! But that is not possible anytime in the next 7-10 years. Or even further!

How many times do we have to tell you, there are viruses for all OS platforms and their are vulnerabilities.

Training.. TRAINING... Mac OS X flows. You hardly need any training and you will find all the training you need in the web for free.

User friendly, I am still waiting for the 17" macbook pro, but Max showed me how user friendly the Mac OS X is. It's unbelievable.

Larger portion is not possible because you are forced to use windows whether you liked it or not.

This is why I returned back to the thread...

Check this article:
Windows Vista Vs Mac OS X: Start up sound (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2058523,00.asp). Don't forget to listen to "Stranger in Moscow" song.

VISTA: Viruses, Infections, Spyware, Trojans and Adware. It's all in the name.

Actually, MS vista is a copy of apple mac os 8.0. Apple released 9.0 and x 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8. Whatever you find in vista, you'll find it in mac os and much more.

Apple's operating system has at least double the services vista provides. Mac os x is easier to use than vista or any other MS windows. Mac os just works and you won't get those horrible jams as you do for XP. Mac os x does not need anti-virus which takes half of your memory. Mac os x does not require 15GB of hard disk space, 512 MB minimum memory and 64MB of graphics card.

Mac os x beats windows in everything except the monopoly. Mac os x comes only bundled with Apple's hardware so you can't use it outside the apple's platforms.

Not that i'm with or against any of the 2 platforms mentioned here, I enjoy using both at different times and for different tasks. Though I do have a couple of questions:

1. Where can I find Mac OS X 10.5, 10.6 and 10.7?

2. What sort of applications can you run with 512MB Ram on a Mac? Text Edit perhaps!


Thanks

Not that i'm with or against any of the 2 platforms mentioned here, I enjoy using both at different times and for different tasks. Though I do have a couple of questions:

1. Where can I find Mac OS X 10.5, 10.6 and 10.7?

2. What sort of applications can you run with 512MB Ram on a Mac? Text Edit perhaps!


Thanks

1.
Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will be released 1st quarter 2007.
Mac OS X 10.6 and 10.7 are not yet released. Apple's road map states 2 years between each release.

2.
Anything I guess. Expect slower performance for heavy duty programs like photo and video editing. Mac OS X is more lenient on memory than Win XP.

Apple released 9.0 and x 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8. Whatever you find in vista, you'll find it in mac os and much more.

I thought you said "Released" ??


Mac OS X is more lenient on memory than Win XP.

I disagree, Macs are mostly used for DTP, Photo and A/V Editing which require lots of ram. The minimum requirements to run Apple Apreture for example (RAW Photo editing) are 1GB, 2GB for Mac Pro. Now I understand that even Windows will require lots of Ram in order to run such applications, but I assure you that Macs are no better than Windows in terms of memory managment.

I thought you said "Released" ??



I disagree, Macs are mostly used for DTP, Photo and A/V Editing which require lots of ram. The minimum requirements to run Apple Apreture for example (RAW Photo editing) are 1GB, 2GB for Mac Pro. Now I understand that even Windows will require lots of Ram in order to run such applications, but I assure you that Macs are no better than Windows in terms of memory managment.

My bad. Pardon me.

Who talked about apreture. What is apreture? Don't know it, don't use don't need it.

Anything, is like anything for normal users like me not professional programs like apreture and final cut.

You assure me as much as you like, but I am using both (Max MBP) and my Sony Vaio and the MBP most definetly beats the vaio.

Some programs are still run under Rossetta so the performance is still hampred; like office 2004 and adobe, but the native programs made for Intel Macs are very fast indeed.

I'm no expert on Apple. Don't own one, haven't used one since uni 11 years ago. Been using Windows exclusively for the past 10 years and it sucks. Don't tell me it's because of my choice of equipment- I've never been one to buy cheap alternatives. My current laptop isn't even 6 months old. I bought it for 610 rials when average laptop prices had fallen to the sub 400 rial range. It's an HP Centrino 2.0 with 2GB of RAM and an ATI graphic accelerator. It crashes on me on average at least once every two or three days. I never use it for anything heavier than browsing, watching DVDs and iTunes and yet it eats up RAM like nobody's business.

I am seriously considering getting an Apple Macbook to find out for myself if OS X is that much better. I know someone who worked for Microsoft and when he was given an Apple at his new job he told me can't believe how much better it is to use.

It is never easy to switch from something you've been so familiar with to something new. But there are millions of satisfied Apple OS X users out there. It's not like it's a tiny little cult.

I'd switch to Linux if it wasn't such a hassle with a very steep learning curve. The easier alternative is Apple.

PS. I can't believe people actually defend Microsoft on this forum!

PS. I can't believe people actually defend Microsoft on this forum!

Even a hardcore-MS hater would bash another MS-hater if they blatantly mentioned that Mac OS X is thousands time better than MS in all aspects, except marketing.

I do not like MS at all and I really enjoy working on Linux, both on my laptop at home and server at work... but regarding solely owning a non-MS OS based workstation for personal use doesn't really make sense to me. Unless you're a developer/programmer, why invest in something when you know you might have to download/install shit load of plugins et whatnot to get MS-favored softwares to run. I say that because of how MS has a monopoly on the software sector and I, for one, do not want to wait till someone manages to build a Mac plugin for a newly released MS based software/program/app.