# Mac Vs. Non-Mac



## pjk (Aug 14, 2007)

So who here uses a Mac? Laptop or desktop? Why?

I use an iMac Intel Core 2 Duo.


----------



## CorwinShiu (Aug 14, 2007)

I use a "non-mac".  

Why? Well it's just that my parents got me one. As a freeloader, i don't have the right to complain. I don't have a preference, as i only use a computer for the internet, Jnet, and to type up reports. What are the pros and cons for a mac?


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 15, 2007)

Pros for a Mac: You can run OsX on it as the operating system. That's really the only difference.
Cons for a Mac: You are really restricted to the models Apple offers, there is no do-it-yourself Mac.


----------



## tim (Aug 19, 2007)

I use a Macbook Pro. And it just works (sounds like a commercial ).

The cons of a Macbook Pro: Only two USB slots and it becomes a way too hot.
The pros: You can run Mac OS X and any other operating system on it natively (thanks to intel processors)


----------



## HelloiamChow (Aug 19, 2007)

I use a PC. It works fine. Though the monitor kinda takes up 4/5ths of my desk. Anyone know where I can get a cheap flatscreen monitor?


----------



## deKeijzer (Aug 20, 2007)

I`m a non-mac user, an ubuntu user even. Linux is great .
Nah, I`m nog gonna rant about linux, but the best things I like about linux apply to macs as well I think. It`s a more secure OS becaus eof the non-mainstreaminess . And when I move my mouse to the botten left corner I get all the active windows tiled next to each other


----------



## tim (Aug 20, 2007)

deKeijzer said:


> And when I move my mouse to the botten left corner I get all the active windows tiled next to each other



I get all windows within the active application at the bottom left corner. The bottom right corner is for all active windows . It's a really useful feature, if you're sick of switching through more than 10 windows with alt+tab .


----------



## I dream of rubik's cubes (Aug 22, 2007)

On a non-mac, built it myself, and bought a nice fake sony case. I use an iPod and iTunes though, because I've tried loads of the alternatives, but the iPod is (I'm sorry) the best.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 23, 2007)

I like the iPod although it is definately not the best, but.....

I hate iTunes because it is huge/buggy/slow and most of all: It shouldn't be necessary. Every other MP3/Video player I have used simply supports Drag/Drop from every OS. The iPod supports Drag/Drop, but then the files aren't considered media, they are considered storage-files. And storage-files cannot be played 

iPod: Pretty good hardware, crappy software.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Aug 23, 2007)

iTunes is my preferred audio player. What do you use?

On topic: Hate Macs, their 'sleek' look bothers me. -.-


----------



## I dream of rubik's cubes (Aug 23, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> I like the iPod although it is definately not the best, but.....
> 
> I hate iTunes because it is huge/buggy/slow and most of all: It shouldn't be necessary. Every other MP3/Video player I have used simply supports Drag/Drop from every OS. The iPod supports Drag/Drop, but then the files aren't considered media, they are considered storage-files. And storage-files cannot be played
> 
> iPod: Pretty good hardware, crappy software.


True, very true. Since I get most of my videos from youtube, I've got a program that converts it into the correct format, which I then add to a folder that is part of my iTunes library. Sony's media center and WMP are the other library programs I've tried, but I prefer iTunes.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 23, 2007)

Windows Media Player (Vista's built-in) is the program I use for all "regular" formats
VLC is the program I use for all other formats


----------



## deKeijzer (Aug 24, 2007)

In linux I use AmaroK, just simply because it`s the bestest music program ever . In fact, it is one of the reasons I use Linux .


----------



## ExoCorsair (Aug 26, 2007)

On a slightly off-topic note, I hear there's a new iPod model going to be announced on Sept. 5th!

But really, who doesn't have one that wants one already...? =/


----------



## wddglr (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm a graphic designer. so i go more for mac. More secure, and you can ever have a smooth operational system with a little bit of ram. 1GB in vista = 5MB in OS X. lol
And installing applications in OS X is as simple as drag and drop. Hardly need to reboot. For me, it's a great system. But that doesn't mean i forget my good old PC. dual boot Vista, and Ubuntu, it's my computer where i store most of my files, and it's mostly the family server.

Overall, i love both.


----------



## tim (Jun 24, 2008)

wddglr said:


> I'm a graphic designer. so i go more for mac.


That's not a proper reason. Photoshop (and other graphic programms) is (are) also available for Windows.


wddglr said:


> ... with a little bit of ram. 1GB in vista = 5MB in OS X.


Mac OS X needs a lot of RAM, too.


----------



## shelley (Jun 24, 2008)

I'd been dual-booting Windows XP and Ubuntu for over a year, until my old laptop died on me. I got a new one, stripped Vista off it and tried to install my dual boot setup again, but the Windows XP install CD couldn't find a hard drive because it didn't have the proper SATA drivers for the newer hard drives, or something. I can't be bothered to jump through hoops for an operating system I only boot into once a month (probably less) anyway, so I just decided to forget it and go with Ubuntu only.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 24, 2008)

I hate Apple so much. I dual boot XP and Ubuntu.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 24, 2008)

Macbook Pro here too  I have bootcamp and parallels able to run windows for those few needs (like Cube Explorer.............. (need more dots)). Anyway, everything has just worked, like tim said. No issues, no problems, and just awesome everything.


I agree with tim's cons of the macbook pro as well. It gets really, really hot...


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Jun 24, 2008)

Linux user here. I hate windows with a passion. Don't have much experience with Mac, but the limited experience that i DO have tells me that i won't like it either...


----------



## pjk (Jun 24, 2008)

ShadenSmith said:


> I hate Apple so much. I dual boot XP and Ubuntu.


Why? I've found that 90% of the people I talk to that say they hate Macs have never even used one extensively. Please tell me that you have used a Mac consistently for over a year before you tell us how much you hate them.


----------



## deadalnix (Jun 25, 2008)

Too much closed. And expansive. But better than windows


----------



## JBCM627 (Jun 25, 2008)

Never extensively used a Mac, but the UI probably would take a while for me to get used to. I dual boot XP/Ubuntu as well, but normally use XP out of convienience. Although Ubunbu does = awesome on an alienware  I know the majority of the hotkeys for windows as well, something I don't feel like re-learning. Especially the no right-click thing, although newer macs are getting them. Boo ctrl+click... thats only for selecting multiple objects.

Also, XP and Ubuntu I feel don't dumb stuff down _too_ much... so I can get done what I need to easily. Perhaps I haven't played around with Macs enough, but it just seems a lot easier to configure XP, for my personal needs.

Windows also, from what I can tell at least, supports older software made for older operating systems far better than mac OS's, which don't seem to like their own older software. I can run 10-15 year old programs (some great games...) without any problem, something probably not possible on a mac... Windows may be a bit slower, but imho makes up for it by being quite a bit more robust. And if you have a fast enough computer, how fast the OS is doesn't particularly matter... with good enough hardware you generally won't need to worry about it thrashing or anything. Imo hardware just hasn't caught up to Vista completely.

In summary, Unix/Linux > Windows > Mac.
Edit: _a_ Unix Kernel > Windows > Apple bumming off of Unix.


----------



## deadalnix (Jun 25, 2008)

mac is an unix system . . .


----------



## tim (Jun 25, 2008)

JBCM627 said:


> Boo ctrl+click... thats only for selecting multiple objects.


That's what the Apple (nowadays called Command) key is for.



JBCM627 said:


> Perhaps I haven't played around with Macs enough, but it just seems a lot easier to configure XP, for my personal needs.


You didn't.



JBCM627 said:


> I can run 10-15 year old programs (some great games...) without any problem, something probably not possible on a mac...


I had several problems to run really old games on windows. The only chance i had was using DOSBox, which is also available for Mac OS X (not to forget ScummVM).



JBCM627 said:


> Windows may be a bit slower, but imho makes up for it by being quite a bit more robust.


I'm not exactly sure, what you mean by "robust", but i believe, that you're totally wrong here.


----------



## Alex DiTuro (Jun 25, 2008)

I've got an old iMac G3 on my desk with panther running on it. The only problem is that it's an old computer so I can't install Tiger, Panter is as high as it'll go. :[


----------



## JBCM627 (Jun 25, 2008)

tim said:


> That's what the Apple (nowadays called Command) key is for.


Yes I know, I still like 2 buttons though.



tim said:


> You didn't.


I won't argue with this.



tim said:


> I had several problems to run really old games on windows. The only chance i had was using DOSBox, which is also available for Mac OS X (not to forget ScummVM).


I imagine there are _some_ out there, but stuff like Commander Keen 1-3 or Duke Nukem I've had no problem at all with. Wow I just looked that up... those were put out 18 years ago! Man I feel old...



tim said:


> JBCM627 said:
> 
> 
> > Windows may be a bit slower, but imho makes up for it by being quite a bit more robust.
> ...


 By robust here, I mean still supports deprecated/older commands/code... although, this can be a bad thing too... for example, (although this isn't particularly OS related) IE 7 still supports use of DOM element ID's as variables in javascript (as in, no need for a document.getElementById... whereas FF and other w3c compliant browsers hate this).

Edit: wow, this is a really old thread...


----------



## Hadley4000 (Jun 25, 2008)

I have the black Macbook.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jun 25, 2008)

Eh, Ubuntu 6 on my main computer. >_>


----------



## Flame838 (Jun 25, 2008)

Dell desktop I just used it all the time so I'm used to the flat screen acer monitor with this dell keyboard. Takes up about 1/4 out of my desk and rest is basically much my cubes.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 25, 2008)

pjk said:


> ShadenSmith said:
> 
> 
> > I hate Apple so much. I dual boot XP and Ubuntu.
> ...




I've used them quite a bit in school previously, and with friends as well. I hate them because of the over-simplistic feel to them. I think they're great for a new computer user, or someone who doesn't need to do any serious work on them (aside from editing work, which I will agree that Macs blow PC's away in that category).

I hate the company itself because of it's anti-capitalistic attitude. Apple controls the hardware for their machines. This guarantees compatibility, which is good, but it does not promote a competitive market. I prefer to stray away from monopolies. I generally only use XP for .NET programming anyway.


----------



## pjk (Jun 25, 2008)

ShadenSmith said:


> pjk said:
> 
> 
> > ShadenSmith said:
> ...


I think they are great for new computer users, as well as advanced. Why do you say "for people who don't need to do any serious work"? What type of serious work are you referring to?



ShadenSmith said:


> I hate the company itself because of it's anti-capitalistic attitude.


I don't see them that way at all.



ShadenSmith said:


> Apple controls the hardware for their machines. This guarantees compatibility, which is good, but it does not promote a competitive market. I prefer to stray away from monopolies. I generally only use XP for .NET programming anyway.


Doesn't Windows do the exact same thing? I try to avoid monopolies as well, but I don't see how Apple is/is becoming a monopoly.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 25, 2008)

pjk said:


> What type of serious work are you referring to?



A professional environment. Other than editing, you'll find Windows in most professional environments. 



pjk said:


> I don't see them that way at all.


I would consider their reluctancy to promote a competitive marketplace through control of hardware to be anti-capitalistic and a characteristic of a monopoly.


----------



## wddglr (Jun 25, 2008)

tim said:


> wddglr said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a graphic designer. so i go more for mac.
> ...


Yes that is true, but i just feel more, comfortable with using os x instead.



tim said:


> wddglr said:
> 
> 
> > ... with a little bit of ram. 1GB in vista = 5MB in OS X.
> ...



Yes, it sure does. i was just comparing an 2 year old machine with vista ultimate installed with 1.5 gb RAM, with a 9 year old power mac g4 with 385 mb of RAM.


----------



## alltooamorous (Jun 25, 2008)

In a gamer's eyes, Windows>Mac. I wouldn't mind having a Mac for video editting, but I find no other use for a Mac. So I'm not gonna bust out a large amount of money for .. something I don't need? I like building my computers anyway.


----------



## pjk (Jun 25, 2008)

ShadenSmith said:


> pjk said:
> 
> 
> > What type of serious work are you referring to?
> ...


Well that is right now.... in 5 years, I bet that won't be the case. I know tons of professionals switching over.



> pjk said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see them that way at all.
> ...


How are they controlling hardware anymore than Windows is? And how are they reluctant to promote a competitive marketplace? Is Windows not reluctant to create a competitive marketplace?


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 25, 2008)

pjk said:


> How are they controlling hardware anymore than Windows is? And how are they reluctant to promote a competitive marketplace? Is Windows not reluctant to create a competitive marketplace?




When you buy a Mac, you're stuck with hardware manufactured by Mac. When you buy a PC, you can switch out hardware from other companies. This promotes competition.


----------



## pjk (Jun 25, 2008)

True. I don't see anything wrong with that though. Yes, a typical PC using generic hardware, so it is easy to replace. But if you are buying a computer to replace parts, why not just build it from scratch? Or, if you just want a computer that works, buy a Mac with the specs you like.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 25, 2008)

What if a part is damaged? I'd like to select the best deal possible when getting a replacement part.


----------



## wddglr (Jun 25, 2008)

that's why there's applecare.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 25, 2008)

But you're still being provided for by a single company. I'd like to have several companies competing to have the best and cheapest product.


----------



## wddglr (Jun 25, 2008)

see the idea apple has in mind is for their systems to be more, together. as in software and hardware. so there's less hassle for the costumer or something. everything provided by the same company, so you have to go to that one company whenever something happens.
In my opinion its better than way. easier. 

^^what i believe the idea is**


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 25, 2008)

There's nothing wrong with that belief, I just believe that good things come when different companies are involved. 

Would our cubes be as good if only Rubik's manufactured them?


----------



## wddglr (Jun 25, 2008)

damn you got me >.< haha.
you're right, you're right. some things do need change and alterations.
but hey, apple's growing, you KNOW there'll be companies that are gonna want in.

**off topic: any one got a demonoid invitation code? :/


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 25, 2008)

Sure there will be. But until then, I'll stick to interchangeable parts with options!


----------



## pjk (Jun 25, 2008)

Applecare, and a warranty.


----------



## JBCM627 (Jun 25, 2008)

pjk said:


> ShadenSmith said:
> 
> 
> > pjk said:
> ...



Yeah, switching over to windows. Many large industries used to use Unix environments; for example, Proctor and Gamble, but are moving to windows. My dad works in mass spectrometry in R&D there, and within the past 5 years they have eliminated all need for Unix-based systems... they run all their machines using windows servers and other windows based machines now. Before around 2003 (arrival of windows server 2003, couple years after XP), the large majority of their computers were Solaris-based.



pjk said:


> > pjk said:
> >
> >
> > > I don't see them that way at all.
> ...


It is rather impossible to argue that windows doesn't have a huge monopoly. But only with their OS. Operating system aside though, there is still much competition for software and hardware for computers that run with windows... which is why a PC with similar hardware specs to a mac costs literally half as much...


----------



## brunson (Jun 25, 2008)

> There's nothing wrong with that belief, I just believe that good things come when different companies are involved.
> 
> Would our cubes be as good if only Rubik's manufactured them?


You say that like apple has no competition, but the compete with all the other computer manufacturers on features, style and reliablility. The only difference is that they also provide an OS that only runs on their computers.


ShadenSmith said:


> Sure there will be. But until then, I'll stick to interchangeable parts with options!


So you don't own a laptop, I take it. I have a Apple laptop, an HP and two Dells. You can upgrade the memory in them, but nothing else "interchangable".


----------



## JBCM627 (Jun 25, 2008)

brunson said:


> So you don't own a laptop, I take it. I have a Apple laptop, an HP and two Dells. You can upgrade the memory in them, but nothing else "interchangable".



If they are PC's, you should be able to upgrade a slew of things and add in even more... sound/graphic/vid cards, more ports, multiple monitors, etc...


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 25, 2008)

He said laptops. There's no way to upgrade laptop parts regardless of manufacture. A full desktop is a different story, but laptops don't usually have the option of generic replacement parts.


----------



## JBCM627 (Jun 25, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> He said laptops. There's no way to upgrade laptop parts regardless of manufacture. A full desktop is a different story, but laptops don't usually have the option of generic replacement parts.



The apple was a laptop, the others weren't specified. For a laptop, you should be able upgrade the hard drive, ram, wireless card, and cd/dvd drive at the very least.




Theron Rabe said:


> Hmm, I hate to make my first post on this website something so negative... but I just can't resist.



Me too, I need to stop posting in here. Ok last post.



Theron Rabe said:


> The Mac OS is also FAR less secure than Windows, and especially Linux (Ubuntu particularly, as tests have shown). I wish I could remember where I read this article, but it was about a security-breaching competition in which a Mac, a PC running Vista, and a PC running Ubuntu were attempted to be hacked. The Mac took 2 minutes. The Vista box took a few days. The Ubuntu machine was never successfully hacked at all. (Just do a search for "pwn 2 own" for more information)


Agree with this as well. People will argue that windows get all the viruses, but thats only because most people are running windows. If 90% computers were running a mac or unix os, 90% of the viruses out there would be for those OS's instead.

And for people say windows has so many problems, same thing... i'd say it has 90% of the problems because 90% of people (and probably 90% of computer-illiterate people using computers) have windows.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 26, 2008)

Theron Rabe said:


> The Mac OS is also FAR less secure than Windows, and especially Linux (Ubuntu particularly, as tests have shown). I wish I could remember where I read this article, but it was about a security-breaching competition in which a Mac, a PC running Vista, and a PC running Ubuntu were attempted to be hacked. The Mac took 2 minutes. The Vista box took a few days. The Ubuntu machine was never successfully hacked at all. (Just do a search for "pwn 2 own" for more information)




You're looking for this.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/032708-gone-in-2-minutes-mac.html

Also, in that hacking contest, I read that the exploit that led to the downfall of the Vista machine was in Adobe Flash, not in Windows itself.


----------



## pjk (Jun 26, 2008)

ShadenSmith said:


> Theron Rabe said:
> 
> 
> > The Mac OS is also FAR less secure than Windows, and especially Linux (Ubuntu particularly, as tests have shown). I wish I could remember where I read this article, but it was about a security-breaching competition in which a Mac, a PC running Vista, and a PC running Ubuntu were attempted to be hacked. The Mac took 2 minutes. The Vista box took a few days. The Ubuntu machine was never successfully hacked at all. (Just do a search for "pwn 2 own" for more information)
> ...


There is no way you can judge Apple's security by simply reading that article. There are countless factors involved with how the hack worked that aren't discussed. All the details they tell you on that article was it was through "the network", and that "you can only take advantage of pre-installed software". That really tells us nothing about how secure an Apple computer is.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 26, 2008)

I'm not saying anything about Apple's security, just providing a previously mentioned article. 

I also agree that the information in that article is not enough to judge. However, I do believe that *nix based systems are more secure than Windows or Mac.


----------



## tim (Jun 26, 2008)

ShadenSmith said:


> However, I do believe that *nix based systems are more secure than Windows or Mac.



It's a good idea to check your posts before submitting .


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 26, 2008)

tim said:


> ShadenSmith said:
> 
> 
> > However, I do believe that *nix based systems are more secure than Windows or Mac.
> ...




?


----------



## SD14 (Jun 26, 2008)

i will settle this for you all mac is for rich ppl who want to have the best hardware for about 6 months, a PC / Linux box is for ppl who want to be able to upgrade there stuff to have the best hardware for as long as they can keep up with the curve


----------



## tim (Jun 26, 2008)

ShadenSmith said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > ShadenSmith said:
> ...



You don't see your mistake? 


Spoiler



Unix, Mac OS X, *cough*


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 26, 2008)

tim said:


> ShadenSmith said:
> 
> 
> > tim said:
> ...




Oh, I know that Mac OSX is based off a Linux system, yes. But I wouldn't consider OSX to be a *nix system. Many things have changed from the original design.


----------



## pjk (Jun 26, 2008)

SD14 said:


> i will settle this for you all mac is for rich ppl who want to have the best hardware for about 6 months, a PC / Linux box is for ppl who want to be able to upgrade there stuff to have the best hardware for as long as they can keep up with the curve


That makes no sense. Mac OSX has Unix under the hood. Linux is a kernel of Unix.


----------



## tim (Jun 26, 2008)

ShadenSmith said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > ShadenSmith said:
> ...



It's not based off a Linux system!


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 26, 2008)

tim said:


> ShadenSmith said:
> 
> 
> > tim said:
> ...



Unix, my bad.


----------



## brunson (Jun 26, 2008)

I'm going to agree and disagree with the debate at the same time. OS X is based on a Mach microkernel running underneath a BSD kernel API. 

The problem with OS X that makes it inherently less secure than a more traditional Unix such as Solaris or Linux is that they took shortcuts to allow user mode applications to have access to ring zero facilities in the kernel. This is why a bug in flash could subvert the entire system. They do this to avoid burdening the user with having to escalate their privileges to do common operations, but at the expense of security. Flash runs on Linux, but it runs in user mode. Hacking flash on my computer would allow you to delete all my personal files, but that's about it. 

The argument that most viruses are written for Windows because most computers run Windows is probably accurate, but probably disingenuous. In this case the most vulnerable target also happens to be the most prolific. Most viruses are written by idiots and script kiddies that couldn't hack into a secure OS if their mother's life depended on it, so they attack the most vulnerable target. On the desktop, Windows is king, but in the web server world, it's pretty neck and neck with Linux. Not many Linux viruses getting into Linux web servers. Windows security is crap, even in Vista.

And, for the record, a) I have been a Unix professional for over 20 years, b) I have written exploits for Mac, Windows and Unix, but just for fun and c) I have never paid a single dollar for anything to Microsoft and, if I can help it, I never will.


----------



## JBCM627 (Jun 26, 2008)

brunson said:


> Most viruses are written by idiots and script kiddies that couldn't hack into a secure OS if their mother's life depended on it, so they attack the most vulnerable target. On the desktop, Windows is king, but in the web server world, it's pretty neck and neck with Linux. Not many Linux viruses getting into Linux web servers. Windows security is crap, even in Vista.



I don't get why people would write viruses (well, and release them too) at all...? Like its just plain mean...


----------



## pjk (Jun 26, 2008)

brunson said:


> I'm going to agree and disagree with the debate at the same time. OS X is based on a Mach microkernel running underneath a BSD kernel API.
> 
> The problem with OS X that makes it inherently less secure than a more traditional Unix such as Solaris or Linux is that they took shortcuts to allow user mode applications to have access to ring zero facilities in the kernel. This is why a bug in flash could subvert the entire system. They do this to avoid burdening the user with having to escalate their privileges to do common operations, but at the expense of security. Flash runs on Linux, but it runs in user mode. Hacking flash on my computer would allow you to delete all my personal files, but that's about it.
> 
> ...


Good information. Eric, if you don't mind me asking, where do you work? Sounds interesting.


----------



## brunson (Jun 26, 2008)

I can tell you in PM, but I'm expressly prohibited from identifying myself as an employee of my company in a public internet forum.  It's mainly to keep my comments off message boards related to our business, but it's applied everywhere.

Of course it's on my resume which is posted on my site. ;-)


----------



## hait2 (Jun 26, 2008)

as an average user (well i'm fairly proficient in pc's in general, but I mean, not in a server context or anything ), imo windows is the best system out there

i say this after extensively having used both mac osx and ubuntu distro of linux.
ubuntu just blows, i don't understand how anyone can support it. maybe when the drivers for the hardware don't suck worse than a black hole or software equivalents start to actually be equivalent then i can consider this system as something more than an annoying part-time hobby.

as for macs, well i don't really have anything against them. they're good. the only reason i put windows above them is the issue of compatibility. thankfully, macs are gaining some market share and the more recent games and software enjoy near-simultaneous releases on both platforms so this is quickly becoming a non-issue

that's my 2c 

oh and this argument about security. for an average user it doesn't matter. i've used a mac for ~2 years, no problems, ubuntu for ~1 year, no problem. windows for like ~8 years, no problems either.

yes there exist hacks that can screw up your windows box but you have to be pretty silly to actually let it happen to you. if that's the case, even linux is not gonna be safe when i tell you that to uninstall your program you should run sudo rm -rf / and you take my word for it.


----------



## immortalcube (Jun 26, 2008)

Mac vs. PC

No OS is 'perfect'. They all have strengths and weaknesses, and it's all about choosing what you need/want. I have used PCs almost exclusively, and will most likely never own a Mac, because there is no reason for me to go out and spend $1000 dollars on a computer that I will have almost no use for. I use XP for my main systems, and have a bootable USB flash drive that runs knoppix.


----------



## pjk (Jul 6, 2008)

I found this kind of funny, but not surprising:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/07/04/german_publisher_drops_12000_pcs_for_mac_more.html


----------

