microsoft or macintosh

[Geek-Squad]

Which is better? I know Macintosh can't get viruses or anything So im going with macintosh any other opinions?

[-pops-]

It isn't true that a Mac computer can't get viruses.

The reason that they have fewer viruses is because virus writers are all very egotistical and want to show their "talents" to as many people, and cause as much mayhem, as possible. Writing a virus for a much lesser used operating system, whether that be Mac, Linux or any other of the Windows alternatives is not going to achieve their ambitions of worldwide fame and notoriety.

After that, it comes down to versatility, and to some extent, style and fashion. With a Mac computer you are more or less stuck with what you initially paid your money for. The opportunities to modify/alter/extend/improve a Mac computer are limited, to say the least. If you want something on your desk that has style over any substance or capability, then a Mac is the machine to go for. If you want something that is fast, capable of almost infinite enlargement, within the bounds of technology, then go for something else.

[andsome]

I have NO intention of even considering change. I am quite happy thanks.

[Thos]

It isn't true that a Mac computer can't get viruses.

The reason that they have fewer viruses is because virus writers are all very egotistical and want to show their "talents" to as many people, and cause as much mayhem, as possible. Writing a virus for a much lesser used operating system, whether that be Mac, Linux or any other of the Windows alternatives is not going to achieve their ambitions of worldwide fame and notoriety.

After that, it comes down to versatility, and to some extent, style and fashion. With a Mac computer you are more or less stuck with what you initially paid your money for. The opportunities to modify/alter/extend/improve a Mac computer are limited, to say the least. If you want something on your desk that has style over any substance or capability, then a Mac is the machine to go for. If you want something that is fast, capable of almost infinite enlargement, within the bounds of technology, then go for something else.

As usual, pops puts the arguments neatly and succinctly.

I am a user of limited ability and Windows suits me admirably. With proper protection of firewall, antivirus and antimalware kept up-to date and backed up regularly users should be safe.

Thos.

[Mr. H]

Which is better? I know Macintosh can't get viruses or anything So im going with macintosh any other opinions?

Hmmm... Nothing like a controversial first post to introduce oneself (talking about me, of course).

Now, you need to bear in mind that you've posted this in a Windows forum. So you are bound to get a heavily Windows-biased response. I would suggest that if you really are considering switching, that you post a similar question somewhere like the AppleInsider forums to balance things out.

Before I continue, let me say that I use both platforms. I have a self-built PC running Windows 2000, and a nearly five year old G4 PowerBook running OS X 10.3 "Panther", I also use XP all day at work. I don't think that "MACS RULE ALL OK!!"; Macs are the best option for some people, Windows the best for others.

It isn't true that a Mac computer can't get viruses.

That really depends upon what you mean. Firstly, the press nowadays annoyingly use "virus" as a catch-all term, when they should not. They should use "malware" as the catch-all, as Viruses, Worms, and Trojans are all distinct from one another. The vast majority of Windows Malware are worms, there are hardly any Viruses any more, on any platform.

It depends how you interpret "can't get a virus". There are no OS X Viruses (on the strict definition of virus), so you can't get one now, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to write an OS X virus, so you could get one in the future.

There was one "almost worm" for OS X iChat, but that couldn't self-propagate so nothing really happenened.

Trojans you can get on any platform, as they are just "social engineering", whereby the writer tricks the user into thinking the program is something they want, but all it really does is something unpleasant. Interestingly, there don't really seem to be many of those for OS X either. It's probably the notoriety thing.

With a Mac computer you are more or less stuck with what you initially paid your money for. The opportunities to modify/alter/extend/improve a Mac computer are limited, to say the least.

That is really quite an outrageous slur, and a simply massive over-statement of the facts. Yes the choice in terms of hardware and software is much more limited than Windows, but there is still a very large number of native applications, and an awful lot of hardware is cross-platform these days.

If you want something on your desk that has style over any substance or capability, then a Mac is the machine to go for.

Hmmm... I'm going to use the MacBook to refute this particularly childish comment.

The $1099 MacBook not only costs the same as a similarly configured Dell Inspiron E1405 (1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo processor, 512 MB RAM, 60 gig 5400 rpm HDD, DVD/CD-RW combo drive, 1280 x 800 resolution display, $1087), it has in addition:

DVI video out as opposed to just VGA out

Digital optical and analogue electrical audio I/O (as opposed to just electrical I/O)

Powered Firewire port (6 pin port as opposed to 4 pin)

MagSafe (can't tell you the number of times my laptop has almost crashed onto the floor as a result of me tripping over the cable, magsafe avoids such calamaties)

Significantly smaller, sleeker and a touch lighter.

OS X 10.4 (why wait for Vista when you can have it now?)

iLife included (video editing (iMovie), DVD authoring (iDVD), music creation/editing (Garageband), Photo editing (iPhoto), music listening/management (iTunes), Web authoring and blogging (iWeb))

So, I fail to see how this machine lacks "substance" or "capability".

It all comes down to what you actually want to do with your computer. If there's like 10 applications that you regularly use that aren't available or don't have equivalents on OS X, there's not much point getting a Mac (although now that they run Windows natively, it's still worth checking out because you might prefer the hardware).

In conclusion Geek-Squad, I strongly recommend that you check out a Mac. It might work for you, it might not.

[Dorian]

Soon macs will be PC's at the rate they are going !!! Already they have pinched the intel chips and have been trying out boot camp - putting windows xp on them.... I wonder what next

[cozofdeath]

WINDOWS! Frankly because I have never used a mac for much. Sorry I'm biased I guess. I agree with pops on his explaination and when theres more suppost for mac x86, maybe then I'll have more of a look at it.

[pieman]

None. Linux is better than both.

But to keep on the topic.... I vote for Mac. Easy to use, stable, rare to get adware, virus, spyware and being hacked into. Just the prices for them suck and the lack of games for the system.

[scuzzman]

None. Linux is better than both.

But to keep on the topic.... I vote for Mac. Easy to use, stable, rare to get adware, virus, spyware and being hacked into. Just the prices for them suck and the lack of games for the system.

Took the words clean outta my mouth (which is a feat considering your a good number of states away :) ).