[coastie65]

Ok. That thing just turned up in my box :

[WinTard]

I totally prefer to assemble my systems from parts. For the educational value, and fun of it. Warranty? The best warranty is the one that is never used... I think that is a good reason your next computer should be a PC. (Not to mention the cost savings, plus performance enhancements...) :D

[Cyborg2012]

Good choice * (edited for personal attack) ...sorry WinTard

This message was edited to remove a personal attack that is against Community Standards. Please refer to the Community Standards (http://forums.pcworld.com/docs/DOC-1000).

Message was edited by: smax013

[Cyborg2012]

I like your Bill gates joke but not the ideas

[Foxylady48180]

Haven't see any GOOD reasons to buy a PC. I know there are some but don't see them. So, as a dummy I'll start. 1/ They are more versitile. 2/ Much wider range of software available from multiple suppliers. 3/Greater selection of manufacturers and prices. That's three; I can't speak to components because I don't know what is available in the "other " choice. However since they say "how needs games" I suspect there are some other reasons there, too. I think the builders should stay away from that end as most BUY their computers. But since they know computers from the inside out (literally), they probably have some really great reasons.

[TechieXP]

Most people who by computers don't understand what the hardware is. But they have come to understand numbers. And they know bigger numbers means more performance. The asumption I guess could be, the faster a computer is the more you expect to pay for it.

Not all people who build computers know a whole bunch about how to put together options to make the computer have good value. When I go to Microcenter here in Chicago, I listen to the questions people ask. Basically the floor guy helps them pick and understand the components. Even if they don't know what memory does...they do know 4GB is bigger than 2GB...they know 2.4GHz is is faster than 2.0Ghz and when it comes to drive space...they don't know what a GB is...but they know 500GB is bigger than 250GB. The other guys that do know, know what combinations of certain hardware will give you certain performance. Certain brand have better lonegevity. Like someone said...Apple would never put a Western Digital drive into a Mac. Bec they aren't as good as say maybe Hitachi. WD and Seagate/Maxtor build some pretty decent drives. but they don't coast a whole lot. Seagate does make expensive drives...,but Hitachi also makes consumer priced models. I have found in my personal expereince they last about as long as any other. I had a Hitachi drive I bought for my laptop..and it failed with 2 years. I bought a WD and it was still wprking when I sold the system.

Intel makes the best CPU...some people would say AMD does. Intel cost more...AMD in many cases performs a bit better...but Intel has a well known track record. They also know MSFT works directly with Intel so they make sure the Windows platform can sqeeze as much performance from chips and take advantage of its features. Example...MSFT had to come up with a patch for Denial of Service attack in the OS. Now is is right on the processor.

They can explain why a CPU with HT can perform faster then to separate chips running side by side. The benefits of memory speed...and on and on.
A person who has proven experience in building...can truly tell you what you are buying when you buy retail. That is why it is a good idea to talk to your IT guy and ask for an UNBIASED opinion of what system may fit you. You will surely get a better answer then you would from a floor person at Best Buy or Wal-Mart. Most people think it is ok to buy a computer from Wal-Mart...I don't. IMHO...anytime you need to buy electronic hardware of any type, you should go to an outlet that specializes in that product. Where possible buy direct. It is expect that company you buy from knows their own hardware. This tends to be the downside of CSR's who work for Dell and others. They don't know anymore than you know and are simply looking at a list of known problems and see if they can identify what yours could be.

That is a benefit Apple has is by limiting the configurations...you can eliminate many problems. I just think Apple went to far with it.
That is why netbooks have taken off because many retail based system are still moe computer then they really need. Gamers like power bec they are looking to push system to limits we usually won't. And gamers usually know hardware very well...just like an IT guy understands power too.

With a Mac you'll probably never learn about the hardware, because you are less likely to open the case and change anything out. Or you won't be able to. But most don't have time for that anyway...but PC gives you the option to be creative in ways no other computer can. Customization is what makes x86 so awesome. And that is why Windows does do well. Bec you can customize every feature. And even if you don't want to do it...u simply don't.

[rkinne01]

The WinRetard crack is way out of line, you owe the lady an apology.

[WinTard]

Cyborg2012 said:

Good choice WinRetard ...sorry WinTard

Lol! I specifically chose that nickname! Since lots of zealots bless me with the Tard term... Here's a sample of my ReTarded ideas...

~~~~~~~~~~
He who laughs most, learns best.
~ John Cleese

He who laughs, lasts!
~ Mary Pettibone Poole

Laughter is the closest distance between two people.
Victor Borge (1909 - 2000)

There is little success where there is little laughter.
~ Andrew Carnegie, 1835-1919, American Industrialist and Philanthropist

If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane.
~ Jimmy Buffett

Laughter is the tonic, the relief, the surcease for pain.
~ Charlie Chaplin

Always laugh when you can. It is cheap medicine.
~ Lord Byron

We cannot really love anybody with whom we never laugh.
~ Agnes Repplier (1855 - 1950)

The more you find out about the world, the more opportunities there are to laugh at it.
~ Bill Nye

Laughter is by definition healthy.
~ Doris Lessing

Laugh at yourself first, before anyone else can.
~ Elsa Maxwell

You cannot be mad at somebody who makes you laugh - it's as simple as that.
~ Jay Leno (1950 - )

[WinTard]

My dear friend rkinne01, thank you for your thoughtful post. I appreciate it, and it makes my day. Thank you! :x

Please do not worry about my sensibilities, I am tough as nails, with a thick armor-plate rhinoceros like skin, yet with a heart, child-like.

I never let anything get to me, unless I choose to allow it. ;)

~~~~~~~~~~
He who angers you conquers you.
~ Elizabeth Kenny

[smax013]

rkinne01 said:

The WinRetard crack is way out of line, you owe the lady an apology.

It has been dealt with. If you find any similar such personal attacks, please report them with the Abuse links.

[TechieXP]

Here is something I think you all should read. This was sent to me by our head IT guy.
The USAF (United States Air Force) went to Microsoft and asked them to give them a more secure version of Windows XP to use. According to the article, Microsoft states that what they implemented were features that already exist in ALL SKU's of XP. However many features were laxed because these feature would make Windows a bit harder for consumers to use. However MSFT has provided publicly teh actual work they did and you are welcome to download the info and try the features yourself on your own desktop. I am sure since most NT versions of Windows are very similar, I can't see how Vista or Windows 7 wouldn't be able to use many of the setting that were provided.

http://www.schneier....re_version.html

Anyone who says Windows is teh least secure, simply just doesn't know how to use what features are there to protect you. If MSFT is saying they laxed on a few things to make it easier to use...it surely means they could fix Windows to be basically fool proof. But at what cost? Maybe to usability.

I still feel..out of all the OS' on the market...the people who would the important data to protect which is our own government...and they use Windows. Not Linux, not OSX...they use Windows. if Windows was so easy to get into, why hasn't our own governement been compromised. If what MSFT is saying is true...then Windows is certainly more secure then what we may have been lead to believe. Mac OS has been out longer than Windows, yet I don't know any government agencies that use Macs. Could it be because they can't lock it down to protect the data that would surely get compromised. Security through obcurity. Windows is used buy businesses who do work that if teh data was compromised they have a lot more to lose. A government agency, a bank would surely have more to loose then a person using a Mac at home to publish a book or music and video.

I say check out the data for yourself and see what MSFT did for them that could increase you own security on Windows.

[WinTard]

:x What an excellent post my dear friend TechieXP!
Thank you for the information and links. I shall pick-and-choose the best of these hardening procedures to add to my repertoire.

[Nanchatte]

@TechieXP

Right...

Just playing Devil's advocate here...

you stated:

>the people who would the important data to protect which is our own government...and they use Window

Gary McKinnon stated:

>govt. computers are basically wide open targets.

He was found out because he got lazy and used a remote client on a desktop in the open without freezing the local framebuffer first hence people wondering by spotted the moving cursor.

How many are not lazy and don't get spotted.

You also stated that u don't know a govt. that uses Macs.... you're right. You clearly don't.

I'll close on this gem:

>the people who would the important data to protect which is our own government...and they use Windows.

It's so true it hurts.

OMGWAAGTD.

[TechieXP]

Thank you very much and you're so welcome.
I was just thinking too. When it comes to Windows usage, many try to compare Windows at work to Windows at home. Even though is is teh same software, IT pros use tools to implement features we wouldn't use. When people bash MSFT for so many versions of Windows they aren't thinking of these things. Example...Windows XP Professional was designed for business because it contains teh features that are needed to secure networks that people at home don't need EVER. However there are more users of XP Pro vs XP Home. Just because they boot and look the same doesn't mean they are. I too feel MSFT could just create a single package with everything and let you choose teh options you need. But in fact this would probably fail. Why should I charge you 399.99 for Vista Ultimate/Enterprise when $150.00 of cost in the extra features are features you aren't going to use. That is why we made you a $199.99 package that simply contains teh features you tend to use most. That is called smarts. OSX is a bad comparison...i looked at the stupid youtube video and how Steve was bashing Vista for having confusing version and ISX simply has it all. Well if OSX had it all then why do you have to install Windows on a Mac so that it gets whats missing? Even the latest verison of OSX doesn't offfer what Vista does.

Many will find Blu-Ray and HDMI support mediocre if they don't need of use. I don't have Blu-Ray either as I have no interest, but I do use HDMI and I like having my PC hooked to a 42" screen. It is never the point of whether it is important to a gropu of consumers...it is what is important to me. As long as I need it...and I see others with it, why can't I have it too? Eve as adults we still carry kid based thinking. You ever notice how even as adults we don't want something until we see someone else with it? Or say we can't have that?

You can't put a price on choice.
Sarcasm - the reason OSX has everything a Mac user needs...is maybe because they don't need much. OSX..has less hardware, less software, doesn't play games, doesn't work well in the majority of Enterprise businesses (however its gotten better) and the list goes on.

Also Businesses don't run those cheesy 3rd party applications like many users at homw who can't afford teh expeinsive better quality stuff. But a lot of us can and do well to learn from where we work. The reasons teh computer at work seldom crashes, is because they are using quality hardware, with quality software, and they make sure you can't install BS onto their PC. If you did the same at home you would expereince teh same benefits. OSX basically does that for you. Apple does use top-notched software. But just as another users said..if you go an install crappy @$$ software on a Mac it will be riddled with the same problems as a Windows based PC. And that is a fact...same for Linux and any other OS.

And unlike what Evildave said...99% of the applications I ran on Windows XP worked fine in Vista and they work in WIndows 7 as well. Because I don't run crappy software on my system...EVER! The only problem I had was with Adobe CS3. It worked in Vista, but soe aspects of Flash didn't work properly unless I turned of Aero Glass. That is what cause many programs to fail in Vista. As long as you has a 32bit program in XP, that had no 16bit code they would work. Even Office 2000 which does contain 16bit code worked...as long as you were using at least Service Pack 2.

As Smax said...everyones level of understand of Windows is different...many don't know what CPU or RAM or FSB and many other terms. All thay know is I can click this icon and this application should open. They can't understand why it may not nd what they did that broke it. All they know is they need it fix and some need planty of hand holding. But Windows is simple enough that after you hold their hands...you can let go at some point. With Linux you may as well be chained to your help...and with OSX...well you can simply install Windows on a Mac...problem solved.

[TechieXP]

Yes...I stated I dpn't personally know any gov't agencies that use Macs. I didn't say there weren't any.
When it comes to business, desktop workstations are usually pulling data from a server. Based on this list, it doesn't appear Apple operating system ever had a server version until now:

2.1 Mac OS X Server 10.6 (Snow Leopard Server)
2.2 Mac OS X Server 10.5 (Leopard Server)
2.3 Mac OS X Server 10.4 (Tiger Server)
2.4 Mac OS X Server 10.3 (Panther Server)
2.5 Mac OS X Server 10.2 (Jaguar Server)
2.6 Mac OS X Server 10.1 (Puma Server)
2.7 Mac OS X Server 10.0 (Cheetah Server)
2.8 Mac OS X Server 1.0 (Rhapsody)

Which means the only options for a server would be Unix, Solaris and yes Windows. And Unix and Windows seem to be the first choices as they are platforms that are more open to the tolerences businesses can work with. Also if teh above is true then Apple would be new at the server mareket and would need to learn how to lock down data...and they have learned as we do have a Mac Pro here running Tiger Server and I have learned how to use many of its features. Another learning curve over working with Windows Server which is easier in many respects, equal in others and no cmparison in some as OSX Server doesn't support everything. Example...even though A Mac can work with dat from MSFT SQL, it works easier if that data can be used with Excel and thus Excel on Mac is sufficient. However MSFT Access is designed to work with more data that SQL transaltes much easier...unless I can compile the data to work in MySQL which usually isn't an issue...it atkes more time to configure a Mac to use teh same data. And the cost and time associated with trying to make things work...vs just using a silution that already works is just simple apples to oranges as you say.

An MCSA certified technician can walk into any company and make at least 60k...i'm not certified yet I can perfrom teh same work...I make about 10k less. However we have 2 other IT who also aren't MCSA certfied however they are Linux Pros and they both make 80k...they have to make more because they have to do more because the job and tasks are not as easy and they take more time an skill.

That is why a copmpany that has an IT staff and that person has to work with technology past Windows gets paid more. Unix and Linux and other softwares require more knowledge...while most features of Windows can be made to work by a less knowledgeable person. And I proved that as fact in a class I attended locally. We as all 30 class member to implement features of Windows Server 2003 without any or limited prior knowledge. All of them were able to implement the follwoing features with NO help...IIS, FTP, SMTP, DC (domain controller) DHCP and DNS. With just a limited amount of coaching...they installed an configured Exchange. and Active Directory. SQL and ISA took a bit more coaching, but many were able to perform the basic installation of the servers...and we were able to do all of that in one class in one day.

Those test they show online...where the ghacker was able to hack a Mac in less than 2 minutes and after HOURS made a successful attack on WIndows...however it wasn't a direct one...he used teh Flash installer attack...as he couldn't directly attack the OS proves Windows is more secure. He said it is simply harder too directly Attack Windows latest 3 OS's versiosn others like OSX. Since all the lastest version of Windows aren't built on NT where these are heavily being used on huge network along with Unix, WIndows has to be just as secure...bec why would they use it. People didn't pick Windows because it was only option...as Unix has been around for years and even MSFT made a version using teh build from Bell Labs...and Windows does work with Unix...an it has builtin Unix tools that can easily be added in the components. Which is funny when people say Windows is nothing like Unix. Why? The onlu difference is Windows has a GUI vs Unix which has a CLI. If you reember DOS was simply a CLI just like Unix...When MSFT forst made Windows it ran on top of the CLI. That is no longer needed. Windows no longer boots a DOS shell. It simply has a DOS Integrater inside for those who still like doing it that way. And truth be told...you can boot Windows without a GUI and use it like Linux/Unix if you wanted to. However MSFT had teh skill to totally eliminate the need for the CLI and allows users to use Windows totally and completely with even using it. That is progress...and that is why Windows has a registry and has DLL hell. They can be hell, but they work ore to your benefit then not.

I want you to download Windows Server, Unix Server, Solaris and OSX and see which ones you could implement the simple stuff like email and a webserver and see for yourself which one is easier. I taught myself and am proud to say it. You don't need to be certfied...just smart. A piece of paper simply gets you paid better. Thats it.

[TechieXP]

And I was trying to put All of the latest version of Windows ARE NT...before I get bashed...I was rushing and didn't correct my typos.

[TechieXP]

Why ypur next PC should be a Windows based PC: As said by a Mac User who seems to be honest - http://lifeis-fullstop.blogspot.com/

Life IS. Full Stop.
?and we can't do anything about it, so, accept it as a comedy?
Apple's 17 " Mac Book Pro - what is the REAL deal here...



It is always a good idea not to rush with evaluations immediately after the release, so let's see what we've got here a couple of months post release of the 'new" Mac Book Pro.
First, for busy shoppers, in brief: the Mac Book Pro flogged as 'new' is not new, just polished up version of the stalled old piece.
It is an ordinary (very ordinary, mind you!) contraption, steady positioned in the grey straits of similar products.
And, yes, it is overpriced, as usual basking on old , faded glory. Don't bother. Full stop.

Now some details for seasoned computer users with more time on their hands.

They (from Apple Inc's marketing office) say the latest Mac Book Pro has much faster chip - 2.66Mhz
How faster? Well the previous Mac Book Pro model's chip is 2,5Mhz
It means the chip in the current unit is about 5% faster, that's all! But gullible punters never do maths, they just buy, don't they!

Further on, the body is made of what they call 'Precision aluminum. The new gold standard.'
One may wonder Is there any computer body made of non-precision aluminum and what is this new gold standard.
Well all this is marketese as usual.

The truth is that the body of Mac Book Pro is made using well known technology which makes production costs much lower. This may mean lower retail price, but as we know it is against the Apple's practice which, to put it politely, is about hype, keeping the price high and grabbing the money now. Instead of selling at lower price Apple Inc. realises higher profit. Simple as that.
This is not the only area where lower production costs are used for increase of profit margins. Very high increase, mind you!
Here are another examples:
If you want to buy Mac Book Pro with solid state drive instead of the obsolete motorised hard drive you have to pay extra 300 dollars at least. The reality is that solid state drive is much, much cheaper because Apple is doing bulk buy and any insider knows that when you bulk buy , say, 100,000 units the price per unit drops immensely. Result - almost all of your several hundred dollars are pure profit for Apple. Easy money!
The story with conventional 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard drive is the same, except that 5400-rpm HD bought bulk are even cheaper because are obsolete. Also, Apple has stored enormous amount of them and needs to sell them.
Want 7200-rpm HD - pay more, the same old trick.

That long life battery capable able of up to 8 hrs. web browsing and so on.
The key word here is 'up'. Translated from marketing lingo into plain English it means 'may go for under 8 hrs at best but don't count on it'.

To get even near 8 hrs. you have to set the laptop in a way that renders it practically un - useable. Here is what the small (the very small!) print on Apple site says: 'The wireless productivity test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing various websites and editing text in a word processing document with display brightness set to 50%.
We tried these settings, the 8 hr. lasting battery blurb is just another piece of spin. Advise to everyone - don't bother.

Evaluating whether the Apple 's 17 " Mac Book Pro is worth taking seriously in both technical and price-wise sense is easy.

1. Negatives. Here are some (but not all):

Software - strong and continuous tendency amongst software makers to stay away from Apple. Just go to a dozen software websites and shall see the familiar picture - majority of them offer Windows only stuff.
Also check how many of those electronic gadgetsappliances in the nearest store are truly Mac compatible.
Just one example - Cannon printers' software for Mac can perform only part of the tasks available for Windows machines. Disappointing picture but manufactures just do not take Apple seriously enough to invest in making their products fully Mac compatible.

The video card NVIDIA GeForce 9400M - not good enough for nowadays. Period

The ridiculous battery arrangement, i.e., hard to replace, need to be done in a repair shop for extra payment?
In contrast, see how easy is to remove/replace the battery of, say, Sony Vaio laptop and others.
The same for RAM chips. It is cheaper (i.e. profitable for Apple) to manufacture laptop body for Mac Book Pro as it is now but it puts hidden expenses (RAM, Battery replacement) on the user. Bad.

Windows compatibility is cute but makes little sense to use it when one has to spend even more money for Vista.
Inside info - selling the Mac Book Pro with Vista in the box sitting next to OSX disks at no extra charge is entirely possible from financial point of view but Apple has rejected the idea. No surprise here.

The current price $ 2,799 is arrogantly high and if one still wishes to buy a relatively decent 17 " Mac Book Pro
the extra costs will push price higher still. The old, money making "buy optional" trick!
For example:

Solid state drive. No need to explain why it is better, regardless of its smaller capacity in Gb. One pointer - think battery energy saved.
However for a 126GB solid state drive, you pay extra $300.

Eliminating the nasty and potentially harmful for the eyes glare of the screen.
Buy an antiglare screen protector, pay extra $50

Broadband is still not universally available everywhere, except in as they say Sth. Korea and Japan. So, for an external dial-up modem, pay extra $50.
Be warned - this modem is notoriously buggy and unreliable. There are many complaints on Apple's website about it but links to full text are mostly broken (by accident? )
It is a big issue this modem and be very aware that you may end up with a laptop with your dangling external modem unable to connect.

The software. Perhaps you want a decent word processing program (not half baked TextEdit ) like in old times when Apple Works was mandatory and free. Now for iWork you pay extra $50.

So, to have a reasonably equipped Mac Book Pro one has to fork out at least extra $500 making the final price $3300!

Mind you, this is a conservative calculation not including the extra cash you have to pay if need to replace a battery.

2. Positives:

OSX is still superior to any of the ridiculous shambles Microsoft call operational systems. Superior so far. However with the strong tendency amongst the Apple's software employees to bloat OSX with useless widgets/schmidgets and other so called improvements it is not sure for how long this superiority will remain.
Being optimistic, we are convinced that there is no chance Microsoft will make its operational system any better any time in near or distant future.
Yes, RAM 4Gb is relatively OK .


So, to sum it up, is 17 " Mac Book Pro's price fair? No.

It is a very ordinary machine, with plenty of possibilities for hardware troubles and the usual for all Mac computers software limitations.
The real, true price is no more than $800.

For a machine properly configured (see above)
real price is no more than $900.

Essential points to remember here are:

1. For Apple Inc. computer manufacturing is definitely a side show of no importance. No real research and development there, just make-up and gloss-over.
Only the marketing spin based on the ancient glory days is to be maintained together with ridiculous prise kept high in order to create false impression of superiority of the products (another old trick).

2. Future of Apple Co is set to be in flogging stuff like iPhones , iPods and similar gadgets. Reason - they are easy to make, deliver high profit margins and can keep the company alive for reasonable long period of time.

3. Apple Co is in a deep stagnation.

See, it's simple, folks!
And for those who still want to buy Mac Book Pro (or any other computer made by Apple) knowing the current way of thinking ( or lack of) in the company -you do it at your own risk.
In plain English, there is a lot of hot air in Cupertino. Hot air, complacence and one too many salary collectors whose main activity is to look busy. Got the idea?

Actually Mac Book Pro is a good laptop for the year 2001. However now is 2009


Simon Stone
Mac User for over 20 years

Whether he is a true Mac user or not, he still makes factual points that make a very good argument.
THis just proves what we all say. Macs aren't better then a Windows based PC. Period. Only the OSX makes a difference. When it comes to Windows vs OSX, both have their benefits...however dollar per dollar Windows offers more.

I already stated before Aluminum is much cheaper to produce then plastic...soda in a can cost less than one in a bottle. PERIOD. Aluminum biodegrades..plastic doesn't. Aluminum like any other metal only gets as hot as teh heat source applied to it. Which means a laptop made with it, can get just as hot as a plastic one. There is no way I'd spend $2700 to run Windows...unless I needed too..and for $2700 I can buy or build 2 machines that would exceed any specs on any Mac...its simple math...macs aren't better..they are simply just expensive.

By the way 87 and 93 when it comes to gas is teh same stuff...the only different is if your car need better exceleration you need the higher octane...it will work in any car. But unless you needed this benefit or your car simply REQUIRES it...why spend teh extra money if you don't have too. THis is exactly what you are doing if you choose to buy a Mac over a Windows based PC. You're simply spending oney for someything you don't need (unless your job requires it) and there are presently none. Anything a Mac can do a Windows PC can do PERIOD and do it cheaper. This has and is for 40 years...I don't see it changing.
When people consider cost...they only are considering the initial purchase. As this guy states...they way Apple builds their hardware it makes you dependant on them for everything.

Iphone...user can't replace the battery...even a blackberry has a replaceable drive solution and battery. Cheesy prepay phones record video, iphone doesn't. Ipod/touch...non-user replacible battery and crappy workmanship all dressed up. Read the history online to see how much Apple has spent to repair or replace ALL generation of ipod and you'd be surprised.And Iphone uses teh crappiest network..

[smax013]

TechieXP said:

By the way 87 and 93 when it comes to gas is teh same stuff...the only different is if your car need better exceleration you need the higher octane...it will work in any car.

Simple not true. It is true for many/most cars...for most cars, 87 octane fuel is all that is needed (and actually higher octane gas can be the poorer choice). But, 87 octane will not "work" in any car (it might actually cause the car to drive, but doing so could cause poorer performance or maybe even damage). Some cars require the higher octane to provide the needed resistance to detenotion in the higher compression engines (detonation/explosion in the combustion chamber = less power and worse fuel efficiency...i.e. bad...and that is the best case scenario) to get the engine operate at peak levels. This is due to such engines operating at higher compression levels...it is the higher compression levels that produce more power, NOT the octane level...the octane level merely means that fuel will combust properly at the higher compression level of the combustion chamber.

And generally speaking, higher octane in typical cars will get you nada...zippola...other than a higher bill at the pump. Unless you can cause your engine's operating compression level to increase, going to a higher octane will gain you nothing except a lighter wallet.

[smax013]

To me, watching a debate over which OS is more secure is kind of like watching two guys debate "whose is bigger".

The reality is that ANY OS can be hacked...just as any car can be stolen or any house broken into.

The point is to "harden" the target and make it a less desireable target than the one next to it.

This can include adding features that technically make it harder to break into. In that regard, there are a lot things that the Mac OS (and I suspect Linux as well) do by default that Windows XP does not (Vista does some such stuff, but some of those things are easy to turn off and because they annoy end users who are not used to such things because XP did not have such things, those features end up getting turned off...UAC anyone). And there are some things that Windows does that are better than the Mac OS or Linux.

To me (and this is mainly opinion, but there is some acedotal evidence), the main problem for Windows is its market share. Face it...if I am a hacker/malware writer, I have a MUCH higher chance of "scoring" in the Windows world as there are MANY, MANY more targets and my odds of finding an unprotected or under protected target are extremely good. Thus, most in this "field" find it more rewarding to attack Windows.

And I would argue the same thing when it comes to these "sponsored" hacker contests. After all, when you have the likes of Steve Jobs talking "smack" about how secure the Mac OS is, how does it NOT make sense that there will be people out there who want to "shut him up", not to mention all the Windows world who will want to gleefully point to how the Mac was hacked first and fastest.

In the end, the question of how secure an OS is comes down to a ratio of relative hardness of the target to level of fame/reward. Unless the reward/fame is REALLY high, most people are going to look for the soft and easy and plentiful target. And right now, that is largely Windows.

[TechieXP]

u misread or i mistyped. I was saying teh 93 would work in any car.Whether you get 87,89 or 93...unless you car needs 93 there is no benefit to paying more. And higher octane gas actually burn faster which means it won't last as long as the lesser grades. And as you stated...unless you actually must have teh higher...it makes no sense to spend more. And that is teh same for a Mac vs PC. The hardware as with gas is identical. And just like gas differences in brands do matter. And yes better brands cost more...thus Amoco and Shell cost more...However...disguising teh product just so you can charge more doesn't change what it is. PC's don't disguise anything bec we all know any price can be looked up. And we can see about how much OEM's are marking up the prices.

If what that guy said is correct...and a Macbook is worth about less just say $1000 or so...then teh rest as he said is pure profit nd that is why apple has such a high profit margin. Which is what I said in another post. Since one Mac can cost as much as 2 systems spec'd almost identical...even single Mac sales could count as 2 sales...just from cost. Its a ripoff...just like gas compnaies charging 4.00 a gallon when gas wasn't in a shortage.

Its price gauging. It may be legal...but it is orrally wrong. Just like I wouldn't support a company that uses sweat shops to make clothes and shoes...i won't support a company that purposely over-charge it customers mererl for profit and provide no benefit over lesser cost products.

But it is ok to treat yourself to something special..and there are lots of options that still get you more.