Survey - How many plan on switching to a Mac in the next 18 months

_CreeD_

art wrote:

That's completely and utterly untrue. The Mac is more secure because it is built on a secure UNIX platform, it has nothing to do with user base etc. Where was this "proved"? Can you link?

I hate this speculative nonsense from people,. what's the point in peddling complete untruths about a platform. Who benefits in the end? The user? NO.

Its not speculative, it was from a number of independant and reputable security reports last year. Google for them, I couldn't be bothered with a response based on your own presumption that you are correct and anything that states otherwise has to be BS - that attitude makes going to the effort of proving it to you a waste of my time. Google or not, believe it or not, I don't really care, the facts stand on their own regardless.

Edit: Oh and I didn't "Leg it off" Art. It may surprise you but posting on these things is not the be all and end all of everyone's lives. Neither the topic, or your opinions, are worth expending more than a bit of quick browsing time. Dedicate yourself to this bit of text if you want but to presume people are retreating because they couldn't be arsed to reply to you faster is a wee bit pretentious...don't you think? .

art

_CreeD_ wrote:

Its not speculative, it was from a number of independant and reputable security reports last year. Google for them, I couldn't be bothered with a response based on your own presumption that you are correct and anything that states otherwise has to be BS - that attitude makes going to the effort of proving it to you a waste of my time. Google or not, believe it or not, I don't really care, the facts stand on their own regardless.

Edit: Oh and I didn't "Leg it off" Art. It may surprise you but posting on these things is not the be all and end all of everyone's lives. Neither the topic, or your opinions, are worth expending more than a bit of quick browsing time. Dedicate yourself to this bit of text if you want but to presume people are retreating because they couldn't be arsed to reply to you faster is a wee bit pretentious...don't you think? .

Bizarre post. To illustrate...

Beans. Heinz Beans, Bachelor Beans, whatever. It has been proven that eating Beans makes you stupid. I can't be arsed backing this up right now, or providing any kind of linkage. Its up to everyone else to go google for the evidence that I cannot present. However, my non-backed up, unsubstantiated claim is fact. Apparently. So listen up people, STAY AWAY FROM BEANS!! If you don't believe me, you're talking bull****.

rogue-entity

I said probably.
There are a few downsides to apple macs. First they are really expensive. If I could get a Mac lappie that could also run SuSE 10 as a dual-boot, provide the ability to scan for wireless networks and use the same nice tools that I can find for windows such as PowerArchiver (massivly better then Winzip and far nicer then WinRAR). There are other issues to resolve, but I think I would be very happy with a PowerBook.

snappieT

Getting an iBook from Santa (via Apple Education Store), guess that counts!

Capt'n Midnight

art wrote:

And why wait for features that are available now anyhow? Plus, nine versions of Vista? What are MS at with that?

No they are all the same apart from the license (and 0.1% of the code)

Slightly off topic - if Apple release OSX for the PC would anyone be interested or would people change ?

Stephen

I think they'd do some great business with OSX for generic PC hardware, but I can't see them actually letting that happen

seamus

Stephen wrote:

I think they'd do some great business with OSX for generic PC hardware, but I can't see them actually letting that happen

It's more work for Apple. If you remember when the XP source code was released, it was noted that there were significant chunks of code dedicated to legacy support and getting poorly-written hardware drivers to work.

If apple control the hardware and software, then these types of problems don't pop up - and it makes support easier too.

art

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

No they are all the same apart from the license (and 0.1% of the code)

I think you are mistaken there mate - the new graphic style bells and whistles 3D stuff is not on all versions, the "home" basic versions don't get that stuff I know. I think the Home/Basic version is going to be missing a few new things actually but can't remember the detail now exactly off-hand. There's networking features only available in certain editions too. And DVD authoring only comes with certain editions. Plus much of the multi-media or "entertainment" type support is out of what are termed "business" editions.... So there will be a fair difference between editions in the end (at least from the end users perspective), assuming they keep to this path

Capt'n Midnight

art wrote:

I think you are mistaken there mate - the new graphic style bells and whistles 3D stuff is not on all versions

I meant that there is one code base and ( apart from compiling for other platforms embedded XP? ) there only a tiny amount of difference apart from the bits they leave out for marketing reasons. And there are no technical reasons why they can't ship the same version for all , just marketing ones.

Always loved the way that Apple don't charge extra when you add more than 10 clients to a server, whereas M$ charge more for each client.

halenger

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Slightly off topic - if Apple release OSX for the PC would anyone be interested or would people change ?

Bit off topic indeed but I think I'd be quite tempted to switch personally. I'm still not fully used to OS-X but loving it non-the-less.

Dual-boot it, obviously, for any non-OS-X available games that I'm unlikely to be tempted to play. There would be at least one good thing about Windows in that situation, since I wouldn't use it regularly it'd be a lot cleaner and faster. :P