DB, you're wrapped up with this single report and, no, I haven't purchased a copy and do not expect to. But you still can't produce a single Mac Versus PC report that shows the latter to be more productive.
Gene Steinberg said:DB, you're wrapped up with this single report and, no, I haven't purchased a copy and do not expect to. But you still can't produce a single Mac Versus PC report that shows the latter to be more productive.
dbtrek said:Alright then, it's settled . .. winner for best OS is MS Windows. Thanks for chiming in, it was a good debate.
On to other things . . . I was able to get Slackware 9.0 running on the laptop AND with a little tweaking I was even able to get it to recognize my iPod. By 'a little tweaking' I mean I spent 90 minutes trying to get everything configured properly . . . but hey, it works!
For the record, it took less than a minute to get it the iPod working on Windows XP/Vista.
. . . just sayin'.
-DBTrek
Gene Steinberg said:The following article, not from a Mac or PC-biased source, checks total cost of ownership issues.
Read it and weep:
http://www.cio.com/article/127050/Eight_Financial_Reasons_Why_You_Should_Use_Mac_OS/1
Gene Steinberg said:I'm so happy you're not impressed. Now impress me with contrary information, if you have any. And, no, sales figures don't mean anything in this discussion.
dbtrek said:Gene Steinberg said:I'm so happy you're not impressed. Now impress me with contrary information, if you have any. And, no, sales figures don't mean anything in this discussion.
Hmmmm . . . when it comes to impressing you with Windows I have a feeling you're gonna be a tough customer. Especially since the argument I've already presented is nigh flawless.
Give me a few days to search around and I'll see if I can find anything that might persuade you.
-DBTrek
Rick Deckard said:Microsoft make an operating system for the masses - it works in the way that Microsoft want it to work, rather than the end user. It's for 'casual' users who spend 10 minutes-a-day surfing the web or writing a letter.
Serious users should look elsewhere.
dbtrek said:Rick Deckard said:Microsoft make an operating system for the masses - it works in the way that Microsoft want it to work, rather than the end user. It's for 'casual' users who spend 10 minutes-a-day surfing the web or writing a letter.
Serious users should look elsewhere.
We agree there. I spend about 30% of my time on this ancient laptop I've recently ressurrected using Slackware 9.0 (Pentium II, 64MB RAM). Linux is great for people who have the time to invest in learning about computers. However, the general public isn't interested in tackling the learning curve involved in with maintaining a Linux box. They just want to turn their machine on, browse the web, play some video games, and fire off a few emails.
In this respect Windows and Mac OS make more sense for the average user. Consumers are then faced with which of these two competing OS's to use, and overwhelmingly they choose the vastly superior Windows OS.
I say that tongue in cheek, of course. I think the benefits to using Windows vs. Mac OS are obvious, but I'm in the process of putting together yet another argument demonstrating why.
-DBTrek
dbtrek said:However, the general public isn't interested in tackling the learning curve involved in with maintaining a Linux box. They just want to turn their machine on, browse the web, play some video games, and fire off a few emails.
Rick Deckard said:dbtrek said:However, the general public isn't interested in tackling the learning curve involved in with maintaining a Linux box. They just want to turn their machine on, browse the web, play some video games, and fire off a few emails.
Absolutely - my folks have just bought a new box with Vista pre-installed - they should stick with that because they barely know how run anything other than a browser. I'd never recommend Linux to people in that position.
Also, the choice was made for them - they got a respectably specced machine for £50 UK (~$100 USD) as long as they subscribe to a particular broadband package, so in that case there is no competition.
Gene Steinberg said:This, of course, is a great reason for buying a Mac as opposed to the PC. The Mac is more reliable at basic tasks, easier to master, and isn't inundated by the ever-present malware threats that exist on the Windows platform.
One reason why Apple's sales growth is three times that of the PC industry at large is because more and more Windows users are realizing they were sold a bill of goods and they are beginning to rebel. Meanwhile, all the major analysts regard the Vista reception as tepid.
Rick Deckard said:Gene Steinberg said:This, of course, is a great reason for buying a Mac as opposed to the PC. The Mac is more reliable at basic tasks, easier to master, and isn't inundated by the ever-present malware threats that exist on the Windows platform.
One reason why Apple's sales growth is three times that of the PC industry at large is because more and more Windows users are realizing they were sold a bill of goods and they are beginning to rebel. Meanwhile, all the major analysts regard the Vista reception as tepid.
I don't disagree with you Gene, but the reality for people in my parents position is that the cheapest option is the superior one - to people with their level of computer knowledge, buying a new computer/OS combo is the same as buying a new washing machine. They neither know or care to know the pro's and con's of one OS over another. As long as they can look surf the web and send the odd email, they're happy.
For me, Linux will always be superior to both Windows and Macs because it's *free and open source* and therefore within *everyone's budget*. It makes available perfectly adequate (and legally obtained) software to *everyone* on the planet with access to a computer and allows them the *freedom* to use and modify it in any way they wish.
Computing for all is the way to go.
Gene Steinberg said:Works fine until the first bout of malware strikes your Windows box, and you realize you failed to renew your subscription for prevention software
Rick Deckard said:Gene Steinberg said:Works fine until the first bout of malware strikes your Windows box, and you realize you failed to renew your subscription for prevention software
Well, I have to say that in all the years that I've been using Windoze (since 3.1 first come out) I have not had a single case of a virus or malware and I have never paid for anti-virus/firewall applications - I use AVG anti-virus (free edition) and both Zonealarm firewall (free edition) and Commodo Pro Firewall (freeware).
I use Firefox, with the NoScript and Adblock plugins - all freeware.
I also use Ad-aware (personal edition, also free) and Spybot-search-and-destroy, also free. Neither of these have ever detected anything more dangerous than a tracking-cookie - which is what they're designed to do.
I agree that Windows is not the most secure OS and at the same time is the biggest target for virus writers - but in the end, if you take the right precautions, you can keep nasty processes from getting on your system in the first place.
Gene Steinberg said:The point being that you have to have all that stuff in place, free or paid, to get protection from things that don't strike Macs.