 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
PC vs. Mac
 |
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 0
Newbie Poster
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by hughv 
My experience suggests that Macs are more reliable hardware-wise, but, more importantly, they aren't susceptible to the Spyware/viruses that plague Windows users. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend a Mac to a new, casual user for this reason alone.
Other than that, the big difference is the sheer amount of software available to Windows users.
2) The casual user definitely does not want a mac, for reason of cost, the laughable amount of good software available, and the absolute lack of hardware-upgradibility.
Unless they want a unix os that is user friendly?
I will agree that the hardware is more "reliable". One vendor, one common machine. Yeah, that type of control can definitely spell coherency in support, manufacturing, and end-result of actually using said hardware, but at what cost?
Last edited by NightCrawler03X; Jan 25th, 2009 at 7:34 am.
apple HW is actually of quite good build quality
In terms of construction is the sort of standard you get with higher end PCs like the sony VAIO.
In terms of construction is the sort of standard you get with higher end PCs like the sony VAIO.
If i am helpful, please give me reputation points.
I didn't suggest that hardware is susceptible to malware-don't know where you got that from.
First you say the hardware is "the same", then you say it's "more reliable". That confuses me.
A "Casual User" , to me, is your typical email-using web surfer who doesn't do much more than write the occasional document or upload a few photos. These people will save money in the long run by not having to deal with AV and Malware apps/infestations that can be so time-consuming and expensive to maintain.
Your suggestion that " Windows is actually quite secure, without any security apps, if you configure it correctly (and have an ounce of common sense))" is so laughable that I don't know where to start. I deal with many quite clever people that don't have the time to deal with Windows multiple, well-documented vulnerabilities;people who think that a PC should just work, the way a Mac (Or a Linux box) does without having to become a security expert.
I'm a long-time, experienced windows user, and not a mac fanboy by any means, and I believe that many people would be better off with a Mac.
First you say the hardware is "the same", then you say it's "more reliable". That confuses me.
A "Casual User" , to me, is your typical email-using web surfer who doesn't do much more than write the occasional document or upload a few photos. These people will save money in the long run by not having to deal with AV and Malware apps/infestations that can be so time-consuming and expensive to maintain.
Your suggestion that " Windows is actually quite secure, without any security apps, if you configure it correctly (and have an ounce of common sense))" is so laughable that I don't know where to start. I deal with many quite clever people that don't have the time to deal with Windows multiple, well-documented vulnerabilities;people who think that a PC should just work, the way a Mac (Or a Linux box) does without having to become a security expert.
I'm a long-time, experienced windows user, and not a mac fanboy by any means, and I believe that many people would be better off with a Mac.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by NightCrawler03X
1) It's the software that is more resiliant to malware, not the hardware (the hardware that Windows would run on isn't susceptible to malware, it's the OS; but then again, Windows is actually quite secure, without any security apps, if you configure it correctly (and have an ounce of common sense)). Considering that the hardware in a "mac" is practically the SAME as in an ordinary PC... I'm just not connecting the dots here, in regards to what you are saying.
2) The casual user definitely does not want a mac, for reason of cost, the laughable amount of good software available, and the absolute lack of hardware-upgradibility.
Unless they want a unix os that is user friendly?
I will agree that the hardware is more "reliable". One vendor, one common machine. Yeah, that type of control can definitely spell coherency in support, manufacturing, and end-result of actually using said hardware, but at what cost?
BS, PH, CIB
|
Similar Threads
- Senior Mac Java Developer - Virtual Office (Software Development Job Offers)
- Can't get multimedia keys to work on mac keyboard (Apple Hardware)
- Buying a new mac (OS X)
- Quick Mac Installation (OS X)
Other Threads in the Geeks' Lounge Forum
- Previous Thread: Interesting Old Clips about the net
- Next Thread: The UNITED States of America
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
You need to join our community in order to build your list of favorite forums. You can visit the forum index for a listing of all forums.
Related Forum Features
Latest Geeks' Lounge Posts
- Today's Posts
- Unanswered Threads
advice amazon apple article bear beard beijing bot chat clocks code cognitive_disorder comedy console consoles convert daniweb development disk dlc ebook election facebook feed financialcrisis fun future games gaming garbage google grandtheftauto gta gtaiv halo3 happiness hardware information internet java kids knife language larnyx library life linux love lynx mad madden mars merger microsoft murder netbook neuropathology news nintendo obama opinion os outlook pain parentalcontrol parenting planning playstation population ps3 ps4 python research school search sims software softwaredevelopment sony source space starteam stocks study subversion time tinfoil_hat usarmy videogames walmart wave wii windows windows>all windows_wins world worldofwarcraft www xbox xbox360
