changintimes
03-27-2007, 02:56 PM
unfortunately, i am a victim of Windows XP home edition,
i'm thinking of converting to a Mac,
are Macs good for Web Development ??
i'm thinking of converting to a Mac,
are Macs good for Web Development ??
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Macs and Web Development
toicontien
03-27-2007, 03:40 PM
Macs are excellent for web dev. The ONLY reason I haven't switched yet is because I haven't found a satisfactory text editor that's as fast as HTML Kit, and has the same features. Otherwise I'd go buy a Mac right now. The only downside of a Mac is the smaller amount of freeware available. I use quite a bit of freeware in web dev on my XP box.
And just a heads up, XP media edition is almost as buggy and frustrating as ME. I got an HP media center PC and half of the darn thing doesn't work. Hardware, software. Doesn't make a difference. So I'm done ranting. Buy a mac for Web dev if you don't have an affinity for software that's Windows-only. And if you want a media box, buy a mac. They work. Mac updates don't crash your OS the way a few media center updates do. So buy one mac to replace 2 PCs :) And who says Macs are more expensive?
And just a heads up, XP media edition is almost as buggy and frustrating as ME. I got an HP media center PC and half of the darn thing doesn't work. Hardware, software. Doesn't make a difference. So I'm done ranting. Buy a mac for Web dev if you don't have an affinity for software that's Windows-only. And if you want a media box, buy a mac. They work. Mac updates don't crash your OS the way a few media center updates do. So buy one mac to replace 2 PCs :) And who says Macs are more expensive?
wh666-666
03-27-2007, 03:46 PM
Macs are quite good for web development. Even more amazing for graphic editing which is part and parcel of web development. Couple of handy links below with links to allsorts of mac apps so you can see the products available to mac and visit homepages of the products:
http://www.pure-mac.com/webed.html
http://www.pure-mac.com/gifanim.html
Have you considered linux though? From the sounds of it you seem annoyed with windows instability. Linux is another alternative but unlike mac, its free! I use a distro called dreamlinux. Its got an interface very similar to mac, very stable and easier in alot of ways than windows to use. There are loads of apps available for linux, its come a long way in the past few years. I do alot of creation and development on linux.
http://www.pure-mac.com/webed.html
http://www.pure-mac.com/gifanim.html
Have you considered linux though? From the sounds of it you seem annoyed with windows instability. Linux is another alternative but unlike mac, its free! I use a distro called dreamlinux. Its got an interface very similar to mac, very stable and easier in alot of ways than windows to use. There are loads of apps available for linux, its come a long way in the past few years. I do alot of creation and development on linux.
wh666-666
03-27-2007, 03:50 PM
Sorry was posting same time as toicontien .. It depends on your location, in the UK for example macs are more than double the price because its "fashionable" .. I agree with what you said about windows though .. There are some apps for web developing on windows i couldnt do without as well
changintimes
03-27-2007, 04:39 PM
thanks ticottien and wh66666,
the website for the macs is a breath of fresh air, nice and easy to read, not all commercial and impure like a typical, "modern" webpage,
so compelling,
seems macs are all about ease of use,
the website for the macs is a breath of fresh air, nice and easy to read, not all commercial and impure like a typical, "modern" webpage,
so compelling,
seems macs are all about ease of use,
\\.\
03-27-2007, 05:23 PM
This argument has been in debate for years.
You have little in the way of comparison, PC component based systems are flexable and allow you to pick and chose from 100's of manufacturers and vendors of millions of software titles.
Mac is expensive for what you get and upgrading is expensive. The range of software titles is alot less than component systems and repairing them is RTB which means getting the credit card out!
Parts are very expensive compaired to Component based systems.
Mac are percieved as being better when in reality theyre no better than the next system manufacturer.
VHS and Betamax, PC is the VHS and Mac is the Betamax, its only a question of time before the demise of one and my money is on PC based systems coming out on top.
When you compare the markets, they are totally different, when you compare the machines, they are just as different with the added advantage of a PC system is more flexable.
Instead of Windows, try a different operating system, you have many to chose from like Linux, Solaris, Unix, OS/2, FreeBSD to name a few.
Finally, just because you have a windows HOME edition DOES NOT MEAN that YOU cant develop on it.
I use a windows XP home edition PC which runs everything needed to develop web based applications on it. All it requires is a bit of effort into looking at exactly whats needed to overcome the usual pitfalls of having a windows system, namely the lack of software bundled with it.
Macs, of the 3 I have tried, 2 brokedown within the hour and the laptop was a constant source of income for the apple service centre...
You have little in the way of comparison, PC component based systems are flexable and allow you to pick and chose from 100's of manufacturers and vendors of millions of software titles.
Mac is expensive for what you get and upgrading is expensive. The range of software titles is alot less than component systems and repairing them is RTB which means getting the credit card out!
Parts are very expensive compaired to Component based systems.
Mac are percieved as being better when in reality theyre no better than the next system manufacturer.
VHS and Betamax, PC is the VHS and Mac is the Betamax, its only a question of time before the demise of one and my money is on PC based systems coming out on top.
When you compare the markets, they are totally different, when you compare the machines, they are just as different with the added advantage of a PC system is more flexable.
Instead of Windows, try a different operating system, you have many to chose from like Linux, Solaris, Unix, OS/2, FreeBSD to name a few.
Finally, just because you have a windows HOME edition DOES NOT MEAN that YOU cant develop on it.
I use a windows XP home edition PC which runs everything needed to develop web based applications on it. All it requires is a bit of effort into looking at exactly whats needed to overcome the usual pitfalls of having a windows system, namely the lack of software bundled with it.
Macs, of the 3 I have tried, 2 brokedown within the hour and the laptop was a constant source of income for the apple service centre...
\\.\
03-27-2007, 05:26 PM
I forgot to add, Macs are also expensive to buy, in my local mac centre, the average price is 1.5 times that of my local Computer shop.
\\.\
03-27-2007, 05:28 PM
... And who says Macs are more expensive?
Me, I have recently seen the price of them and believe me, they aint cheap.
Me, I have recently seen the price of them and believe me, they aint cheap.
toicontien
03-27-2007, 05:59 PM
Hm. You've had just the opposite experience with macs that I have. I'm a PC guy. My custom built PC with XP Pro has been pretty painless. I just don't like the constant notifications, and the general windows OS/applications interface. The macs I've used, and I've used many since I used to be in journalism, have been relatively pain free. More so than windows. If you don't like meddling with your OS, MacOS is great. I've just had so many quality problems with windows, with my one OEM version install of XP pro being the exception. I've had 2000, 95, 98, and XP. Only XP has been decent to use, and even then, only this one computer.
I guess it just goes to show it's personal experience that decides the mac vs. windows debate. I just like how mac software is designed. It makes sense. Windows interface? Not so much.
I guess it just goes to show it's personal experience that decides the mac vs. windows debate. I just like how mac software is designed. It makes sense. Windows interface? Not so much.
Znupi
03-27-2007, 06:22 PM
Get Linux. You won't have to buy a new machine. Just download a free OS, with only free software, that works great, fast and is very reliable.
\\.\
03-27-2007, 06:28 PM
Depends on what your cooking.
I dont like them and I dont dislike them, its just silly to buy a machine that is expensive to upgrade and the selection of software is limited and also expensive.
Most mac users at home are mac users at work, you find those that bridge the gap and use both systems but those that have PC at home and Mac at work are still at work !!!
If you are brought up on PC's then your naturally going to lean towards PC systems.
So the argument isnt really up for debate on which is better.
I dont like them and I dont dislike them, its just silly to buy a machine that is expensive to upgrade and the selection of software is limited and also expensive.
Most mac users at home are mac users at work, you find those that bridge the gap and use both systems but those that have PC at home and Mac at work are still at work !!!
If you are brought up on PC's then your naturally going to lean towards PC systems.
So the argument isnt really up for debate on which is better.
changintimes
03-27-2007, 11:20 PM
well i have nothing but trouble with the Intel Graphics Controller,
it keeps setting my resolution to 1024 x 768, but i like 800 x 600, but 800 x 600 just won't stick,
and it should stick because the pc was fine a month ago,
it keeps setting my resolution to 1024 x 768, but i like 800 x 600, but 800 x 600 just won't stick,
and it should stick because the pc was fine a month ago,
mikekirk102
03-27-2007, 11:41 PM
Use XP - It is a great OS - Look at your urchin or other web logs and you will figure it out fairly quick, Sry Windows wins.. flat out No comparison.
Use the OS your clients use or work harder to appease the "in crowd" that will dispute this msg.
Use the OS your clients use or work harder to appease the "in crowd" that will dispute this msg.
\\.\
03-28-2007, 12:55 PM
Reinstall the graphics driver.
Run a system repair on your operating system.
Virus scan your sysem with your usual PLUS cross reference with another AV program.
Set your graphics video card to the size you want it to be and then CREATE a NEW RESTORE POINT.
Check that your monitor has not got it own agenda, I have a samsung monitor that constantly show its display @ 1152 x 864 when the system, is outputting 1024x768... Its not the first monitor that I have had that does this, quite why I dont know, pointless, yes totally.
Another pointer, the video card (unless its onboard) could be lose, push it home.
Run a system repair on your operating system.
Virus scan your sysem with your usual PLUS cross reference with another AV program.
Set your graphics video card to the size you want it to be and then CREATE a NEW RESTORE POINT.
Check that your monitor has not got it own agenda, I have a samsung monitor that constantly show its display @ 1152 x 864 when the system, is outputting 1024x768... Its not the first monitor that I have had that does this, quite why I dont know, pointless, yes totally.
Another pointer, the video card (unless its onboard) could be lose, push it home.
bathurst_guy
03-30-2007, 07:33 AM
Me, I have recently seen the price of them and believe me, they aint cheap.
But does that other computer contain an intel core 2 duo with built in wireless, bluetooth, camera, microphone, firewire, the OS, already setup and plenty of software.... Your statement is like comparing the prices of apples and oranges
But does that other computer contain an intel core 2 duo with built in wireless, bluetooth, camera, microphone, firewire, the OS, already setup and plenty of software.... Your statement is like comparing the prices of apples and oranges
toicontien
03-30-2007, 03:38 PM
Your statement is like comparing the prices of apples and oranges
It's too bad Microsoft didn't come out with a computer named Orange. Then we really could. :D
It's too bad Microsoft didn't come out with a computer named Orange. Then we really could. :D
drhowarddrfine
03-31-2007, 10:52 PM
VHS and Betamax, PC is the VHS and Mac is the Betamax, its only a question of time before the demise of one and my money is on PC based systems coming out on top.In the meantime, Apple market share has increased while Windows has dropped (slightly) and Apple's stock price is $85 while Microsoft is at $28.try a different operating system, you have many to chose from like Linux, Solaris, Unix, OS/2, FreeBSD to name a few.Not sure about OS/2 (OS/2?!) but the others are, essentially, all Unix so not really different.
Sunny G
04-01-2007, 12:59 PM
I love discussions such as these:)
Here's my 2 cents (or whatever currency you use:cool:).
MACS are infinitely superior in every conceivable regard, save two...
Yes, they are expensive
But only because not enough people use them
Developing on a MAC is awesome, because every browser you test it on is standards savvy. Firefox, Safari, Camino, all of them (except IEmac (http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/internetexplorer/internetexplorer.aspx?pid=internetexplorer), but nobody uses that anyways). The main point that I wanted to make (I am surprised nobody has said this yet) is that the new Intel MACS have the capacity to run windows. Read all about it. (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/) This makes sense, definitely. Dump your PC, get a MAC, get Boot Camp, enjoy a PC/MAC computer with ALL your software. I've even heard stories of people who have used Boot Camp to use OSX, Windows, and Linux all on one computer. This means you can test your websites on ALL the major browsers. Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Konqueror (though Safari and Konquerror share the same rendering engine).
The only problem is almost a moral issue... Windows on a MAC:eek:?!?! What the devil?!
...edit...
And of course, don't forget to test on Opera.
Here's my 2 cents (or whatever currency you use:cool:).
MACS are infinitely superior in every conceivable regard, save two...
Yes, they are expensive
But only because not enough people use them
Developing on a MAC is awesome, because every browser you test it on is standards savvy. Firefox, Safari, Camino, all of them (except IEmac (http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/internetexplorer/internetexplorer.aspx?pid=internetexplorer), but nobody uses that anyways). The main point that I wanted to make (I am surprised nobody has said this yet) is that the new Intel MACS have the capacity to run windows. Read all about it. (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/) This makes sense, definitely. Dump your PC, get a MAC, get Boot Camp, enjoy a PC/MAC computer with ALL your software. I've even heard stories of people who have used Boot Camp to use OSX, Windows, and Linux all on one computer. This means you can test your websites on ALL the major browsers. Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Konqueror (though Safari and Konquerror share the same rendering engine).
The only problem is almost a moral issue... Windows on a MAC:eek:?!?! What the devil?!
...edit...
And of course, don't forget to test on Opera.
EricG1793
04-19-2007, 10:46 AM
But does that other computer contain an intel core 2 duo with built in wireless, bluetooth, camera, microphone, firewire, the OS, already setup and plenty of software.... Your statement is like comparing the prices of apples and oranges
Somebody directed me to this thread from one that I created yesterday.
I have an HP Pavilion DV2000Z, for those who don't know, the "Z" meaning having an AMD processor.
Intel Core 2 duo: No
Built in wireless: Yes! a/b/g networking. It even has a nice switch to shut the wireless adapter off when I don't want it.
Bluetooth: No. Who uses Bluetooth with a computer?:confused: I could pay 20$ for it if I wanted to. That's the reason Macs are so expensive: They put in all these "fancy" hardware components that most people don't even need. On PC, you get the basic system, and you can pay more as you want more.
Camera and microphone: Yes! 1.3 MP camera with omni-directional microphones
Firewire: Yes!
The OS: Not Mac OS, but I'm getting my express upgrade to Vista in a few days.
Already set up: Pretty much. Just had to give my info, tell it how I want it to behave, and that's it. No drivers to download like the Mac commercial says.
Plenty of software: Yes! Vongo, Windows Media Player, Sonic Premium DVD suite, HP games, and there were many other full versions of programs that I don't use that I got rid of. Some people might want to use them, though.
Somebody directed me to this thread from one that I created yesterday.
I have an HP Pavilion DV2000Z, for those who don't know, the "Z" meaning having an AMD processor.
Intel Core 2 duo: No
Built in wireless: Yes! a/b/g networking. It even has a nice switch to shut the wireless adapter off when I don't want it.
Bluetooth: No. Who uses Bluetooth with a computer?:confused: I could pay 20$ for it if I wanted to. That's the reason Macs are so expensive: They put in all these "fancy" hardware components that most people don't even need. On PC, you get the basic system, and you can pay more as you want more.
Camera and microphone: Yes! 1.3 MP camera with omni-directional microphones
Firewire: Yes!
The OS: Not Mac OS, but I'm getting my express upgrade to Vista in a few days.
Already set up: Pretty much. Just had to give my info, tell it how I want it to behave, and that's it. No drivers to download like the Mac commercial says.
Plenty of software: Yes! Vongo, Windows Media Player, Sonic Premium DVD suite, HP games, and there were many other full versions of programs that I don't use that I got rid of. Some people might want to use them, though.
EricG1793
04-19-2007, 02:34 PM
Is this thread dead?
\\.\
04-20-2007, 09:36 AM
It depends. People have likes and dislikes but you can get over hard fact, apples are more expensive than PC systems and quoting stock market share prices wont do much but to iterate my point, theyre $85 a share because they are so bloody expensive.
If you go into a PC shop and grab an off the shelf External DVD burner thats pluged via USB2.0, depending on where you shop, I can get them for about £29.99 each, apples firewire version is a heafty £49.99.
Go and buy a Mac for less than £300, you cant.
Software.... Wont go anywhere near that as its already in the bag.
Virus arguments... Hmmm, well times seem to be changing as the number of virus writers that have spent their times battering Microsoft are spending time now attacking Macs, Macs are afterall part of the M$ empire or do mac users forget?
If you go into a PC shop and grab an off the shelf External DVD burner thats pluged via USB2.0, depending on where you shop, I can get them for about £29.99 each, apples firewire version is a heafty £49.99.
Go and buy a Mac for less than £300, you cant.
Software.... Wont go anywhere near that as its already in the bag.
Virus arguments... Hmmm, well times seem to be changing as the number of virus writers that have spent their times battering Microsoft are spending time now attacking Macs, Macs are afterall part of the M$ empire or do mac users forget?
changintimes
04-20-2007, 11:34 AM
are you saying macs are owned by microsoft ?
wh666-666
04-20-2007, 11:51 AM
Yes ... in a way
Bill gates who owns microsoft owns a very large chunk of Apple as well. (thankyou steve jobs!)
So to be honest it makes no difference to him whether you buy an Apple system or miscrosoft. If you buy a Apple system your lining his pockets with more money than buying a microsoft system but if you buy a microsoft system your aiding him in market dominance.
The only real alternative is linux/unix based OS's. At the moment they're not established enough to be a real threat but with microsofts standards slipping and linux becoming more user friendly Bill gates better not let his arrogance shield him from reality. Vista has already encouraged people to switch due to microsoft repeating and enhancing the mistakes they made with XP. Microsft needs to be very careful with vista's successor and put more creativity in to the coding and indeed the ad campaign.
Bill gates who owns microsoft owns a very large chunk of Apple as well. (thankyou steve jobs!)
So to be honest it makes no difference to him whether you buy an Apple system or miscrosoft. If you buy a Apple system your lining his pockets with more money than buying a microsoft system but if you buy a microsoft system your aiding him in market dominance.
The only real alternative is linux/unix based OS's. At the moment they're not established enough to be a real threat but with microsofts standards slipping and linux becoming more user friendly Bill gates better not let his arrogance shield him from reality. Vista has already encouraged people to switch due to microsoft repeating and enhancing the mistakes they made with XP. Microsft needs to be very careful with vista's successor and put more creativity in to the coding and indeed the ad campaign.
drhowarddrfine
04-20-2007, 01:06 PM
theyre $85 a share because they are so bloody expensive.Stock price has nothing to do with the price of the product.
If you buy a Apple system your lining his pockets with more money than buying a microsoft systemNot at all true. The value of a stock varies based on demand for the stock and not sales of product. If I own Apple stock and someone buys a thousand Macs, I won't see one penny of that sale.
However, if someone buys 1000 copies of Vista, Bill will see some percentage of that depending on how his pay method is structured.
I do find it interesting that MS feels the need to sell Windows for $3.60/copy in foreign markets as reported in the news yesterday. Although grabbing marketshare is the obvious plan, I just don't know that discounting that steeply is the wise decision.
If you buy a Apple system your lining his pockets with more money than buying a microsoft systemNot at all true. The value of a stock varies based on demand for the stock and not sales of product. If I own Apple stock and someone buys a thousand Macs, I won't see one penny of that sale.
However, if someone buys 1000 copies of Vista, Bill will see some percentage of that depending on how his pay method is structured.
I do find it interesting that MS feels the need to sell Windows for $3.60/copy in foreign markets as reported in the news yesterday. Although grabbing marketshare is the obvious plan, I just don't know that discounting that steeply is the wise decision.
wh666-666
04-20-2007, 07:30 PM
If I own Apple stock and someone buys a thousand Macs, I won't see one penny of that sale.
However, if someone buys 1000 copies of Vista, Bill will see some percentage of that depending on how his pay method is structured.
I didnt mean in a purely technical point as i dont know bill gates exact wage packet/commission/income from both companies but working on a basic theoretic principle of if he got the same amount of commission per system sold from Microsoft and Apple then from a short term financial profit its in his best interests to pedal Apple as macs generate alot more profit than windows OS's because they're the latest fashion item.
You'll probably find the $3.60 is home basic (which is total crap and has as many features as a gerryatric gerbil in comparison to other vista editions). I believe they had home premium in the states for $5 for educational copies.
However, if someone buys 1000 copies of Vista, Bill will see some percentage of that depending on how his pay method is structured.
I didnt mean in a purely technical point as i dont know bill gates exact wage packet/commission/income from both companies but working on a basic theoretic principle of if he got the same amount of commission per system sold from Microsoft and Apple then from a short term financial profit its in his best interests to pedal Apple as macs generate alot more profit than windows OS's because they're the latest fashion item.
You'll probably find the $3.60 is home basic (which is total crap and has as many features as a gerryatric gerbil in comparison to other vista editions). I believe they had home premium in the states for $5 for educational copies.
NogDog
04-20-2007, 10:10 PM
....Apple's stock price is $85 while Microsoft is at $28....
That is a meaningless comparison without knowing what the original stock prices were, how many stock splits there have been, what the trend is in the prices, how much dividends each pays out (if any), etc.... (I do not invest in either of them and don't follow their stocks, so I have no idea which I'd prefer to invest in; I just know that the current per-share price is not a criteria for that decision.)
That is a meaningless comparison without knowing what the original stock prices were, how many stock splits there have been, what the trend is in the prices, how much dividends each pays out (if any), etc.... (I do not invest in either of them and don't follow their stocks, so I have no idea which I'd prefer to invest in; I just know that the current per-share price is not a criteria for that decision.)
drhowarddrfine
04-20-2007, 11:08 PM
That is a meaningless comparison without knowing what the original stock prices were, how many stock splits there have been, what the trend is in the prices, how much dividends each pays out (if any), etc.... (I do not invest in either of them and don't follow their stocks, so I have no idea which I'd prefer to invest in; I just know that the current per-share price is not a criteria for that decision.)
It's far from meaningless and original stock price, splits, etc. mean nothing. The current price indicates what people think the stock is worth. If people didn't think Apple stock was worth $85 then it wouldn't be sitting there now because no one would buy it. Just like the rich guy (name escapes me. Bill Gates friend) whose company stock (Berkshire-Hathaway) is $110K per share. It is worth that because people get a return on this investment. They place more value on Apple than they do on Microsoft.
To tell the truth, I don't remember what I was comparing in the original post.
It's far from meaningless and original stock price, splits, etc. mean nothing. The current price indicates what people think the stock is worth. If people didn't think Apple stock was worth $85 then it wouldn't be sitting there now because no one would buy it. Just like the rich guy (name escapes me. Bill Gates friend) whose company stock (Berkshire-Hathaway) is $110K per share. It is worth that because people get a return on this investment. They place more value on Apple than they do on Microsoft.
To tell the truth, I don't remember what I was comparing in the original post.
omnicity
04-23-2007, 04:54 AM
If you go into a PC shop and grab an off the shelf External DVD burner thats pluged via USB2.0, depending on where you shop, I can get them for about £29.99 each, apples firewire version is a heafty £49.99.
Go and buy a Mac for less than £300, you cant.
Software.... Wont go anywhere near that as its already in the bag.
Virus arguments... Hmmm, well times seem to be changing as the number of virus writers that have spent their times battering Microsoft are spending time now attacking Macs,
What complete rubbish!
Of course a Firewire -enabled drive is going to be more expensive than USB - it is going to be much faster as well. If you want to use the cheaper USB-only drive on your Mac then no problem there.
The cheapest Mac's out there are cheaper than most equivalently specced PC's. Since the switch to Intel this comparison is now exact, and generally works in Apple's favour - there have been several recent reviews in the main stream press that do all the Maths for you. If you want to buy a PC that will break in a weeks time then go ahead and buy that £300 "bargain"
The Mac can now draw upon more software than any other platform: all of the original applications that made Apple famous; loads of Windows stuff can (and is) easily being ported across; and finally virtually all Unix, BSD and Linux software can be installed as well - absolutely no shortage there!
Finally, there are more new Windows Virusses (Virii) every month than there have ever been for the Mac.
Go and buy a Mac for less than £300, you cant.
Software.... Wont go anywhere near that as its already in the bag.
Virus arguments... Hmmm, well times seem to be changing as the number of virus writers that have spent their times battering Microsoft are spending time now attacking Macs,
What complete rubbish!
Of course a Firewire -enabled drive is going to be more expensive than USB - it is going to be much faster as well. If you want to use the cheaper USB-only drive on your Mac then no problem there.
The cheapest Mac's out there are cheaper than most equivalently specced PC's. Since the switch to Intel this comparison is now exact, and generally works in Apple's favour - there have been several recent reviews in the main stream press that do all the Maths for you. If you want to buy a PC that will break in a weeks time then go ahead and buy that £300 "bargain"
The Mac can now draw upon more software than any other platform: all of the original applications that made Apple famous; loads of Windows stuff can (and is) easily being ported across; and finally virtually all Unix, BSD and Linux software can be installed as well - absolutely no shortage there!
Finally, there are more new Windows Virusses (Virii) every month than there have ever been for the Mac.
wh666-666
04-23-2007, 08:31 AM
Finally, there are more new Windows Virusses (Virii) every month than there have ever been for the Mac.
I was discussing in another thread viruses/malware for systems. Windows has an estimated 60,000 pieces of malware currently in the wild compared to linux which has just 40. Im unsure on the mac figures, il try to find out. If anyone has a reliable linky it will be interesting to see a comparison between all three
I was discussing in another thread viruses/malware for systems. Windows has an estimated 60,000 pieces of malware currently in the wild compared to linux which has just 40. Im unsure on the mac figures, il try to find out. If anyone has a reliable linky it will be interesting to see a comparison between all three
changintimes
04-23-2007, 11:17 AM
well you sure make linux sound good as far as security, but what would the pros and cons be of my switching from windows XP home over to linux ?
EricG1793
04-23-2007, 12:23 PM
well you sure make linux sound good as far as security, but what would the pros and cons be of my switching from windows XP home over to linux ?
Yeah... Linux sounds EXTREMELY hard to use. And I hear it's the OS that virus makers use. Ugh! I don't want people to think I'm a virus maker...;) But, that's probably why it's secure because virus makers wouldn't make viruses for their own OS or they could pick them up everywhere...
Yeah... Linux sounds EXTREMELY hard to use. And I hear it's the OS that virus makers use. Ugh! I don't want people to think I'm a virus maker...;) But, that's probably why it's secure because virus makers wouldn't make viruses for their own OS or they could pick them up everywhere...
wh666-666
04-23-2007, 01:16 PM
It really depends on your hardware and your needs from a operating system. Linux has evolved alot over the years and everything can be done in a graphical enviroment.
Dont think of me as an ms hater. I have xp pro installed at home and a distro called dreamlinux. Both OS's are handy for different reasons.
Linux is just the kernel (the basis of any OS). There are different distrobutions of linux, over 100 distros. For some hardware you may need to use the terminal (command prompt) though. There are so many advantages and disadvantages to mention but il try and mention a few major ones:
Linux pro's:
- Running files instead of executing them. Its hard to explain in a simplified manner but with linux and the way it reads/writes compared to windows helps minimise rogue agents.
- Faster and uses far less resources than some other OS's which is a major point as it means you can run old or new systems very well.
- Open source and customisable which means that there are loads of distros out there. Like the mac look, there's plenty of distros to choose from, xp look, win2k look, virtually any kind of graphical layout so you can find something easy for you to use.
- More secure on system admin based on the fact to do alot of harmful changes to the system you have to sign in as the root (master acc).
- Easier language in my opinion. If you know dos from the early windows days or pre windows you'll appreciate the language. Usually in linux its a simple line to issue a command, alot of the time just a simple word.
- Native support, some things are supported natively, that is instead of windows where it will have drivers when you attach new hardware have to set it up for you if linux has the drivers just plug it in and it works straight away without prompting.
- Installing hardware can sometimes be faster. For example a few weeks back i installed a wi-fi card on linux by adding the driver in the control panel and just activated it, worked in under 10 seconds. Thought id try installing it on windows as well for a comparison, took over 10 minutes to install it and get it activated.
- Growing support. People appreciate that using linux is different to windows and can help. JM, the same people that run webdev, this site, run a site called justlinux which is a very helpful community as some linux users on other forums dont help out as much and appear arrogant.
- Small distro's. Some operating systems like damn small linux can be fitted on a small capacity flash drive and then taken with you with all your files and settings so if your away from home and using someone elses computer you have all your own work and computer enviroment with you.
- Live cd's. You can get a linux distro and if its a live cd then you can boot the live cd and try out the whole system. Then if you like it to get full functionality you can install it. Some live cd's you get near perfect functionality from even before installing it.
- Spare time. Actually browsing the web more often instead of security updates, malware scanning, etc etc. On windows that takes up a huge amount of my time just to get it running at the same level as my linux box.
- Easier and quicker formats/installation and reformats not needed as much. I can format a HDD and then partition (split up) and install an operating system on linux in less than 20 minutes. The same format/partition/install process on something like xp takes over an hour.
Linux cons:
- Most hardware is supported but the minority or rareity may not be as alot of manuafactuers primarily support windows because its mainstream
- While the setup and installation is easier and in alot of cases more graphically guided than windows some of the time you might have to use the terminal. Plenty of people dont even need to ever use it but its hardware dependant and linux written commands are a new language.
- If there is a security vunerability or exploit, dependant on your distro, it may take a bit longer for them to come out with a fix/patch than windows. Its to be expected since microsoft is far bigger they can respond that much quicker and this is usually only an issue with servers.
- Support, its a double edged sword, its friendly and growing but this is still a con as its more limited than windows. You may not need support as often after a while but in the first place it can be tricky to find helpful people.
Basically if your interested in linux give it a try, dont give up at first but i would advise getting an old computer or a hard drive with no other data so then if you do make a mistake and get confused just re-format/install and also with a testing hard drive you can try loads of different distros.
I use xp pro for a few programs and bits of hardware thats quite rare and will only run on windows. I could use an emulator on linux (which simulates a windows enviroment so you can run most windows software) but i need to use xp pro for work as well. For hardcore gaming i use xp as well
When browsing the net and doing day to day activities, graphics and web work and some gaming i use linux. It suits me really well and i use it most of the time although im not very experienced in linux. I looked at loads and tried out 5-10 different linux distros before i found one i liked and settled with.
Here is a list of handy links, have a look around and see what you think.
Osdir. Pictures of different operating systems, reviews and a generally handy site:
http://shots.osdir.com/
Linux help forums run by the same people as here:
http://justlinux.com/
Ubuntu is a popular distro with new users as it detects hardware very well and has good forum support. Personally i dont like ubuntu's interface but its dependant on each individual:
http://www.ubuntu.com/
Dreamlinux, my distro of choice:
http://www.dreamlinux.com.br/english/index.html
Dont think of me as an ms hater. I have xp pro installed at home and a distro called dreamlinux. Both OS's are handy for different reasons.
Linux is just the kernel (the basis of any OS). There are different distrobutions of linux, over 100 distros. For some hardware you may need to use the terminal (command prompt) though. There are so many advantages and disadvantages to mention but il try and mention a few major ones:
Linux pro's:
- Running files instead of executing them. Its hard to explain in a simplified manner but with linux and the way it reads/writes compared to windows helps minimise rogue agents.
- Faster and uses far less resources than some other OS's which is a major point as it means you can run old or new systems very well.
- Open source and customisable which means that there are loads of distros out there. Like the mac look, there's plenty of distros to choose from, xp look, win2k look, virtually any kind of graphical layout so you can find something easy for you to use.
- More secure on system admin based on the fact to do alot of harmful changes to the system you have to sign in as the root (master acc).
- Easier language in my opinion. If you know dos from the early windows days or pre windows you'll appreciate the language. Usually in linux its a simple line to issue a command, alot of the time just a simple word.
- Native support, some things are supported natively, that is instead of windows where it will have drivers when you attach new hardware have to set it up for you if linux has the drivers just plug it in and it works straight away without prompting.
- Installing hardware can sometimes be faster. For example a few weeks back i installed a wi-fi card on linux by adding the driver in the control panel and just activated it, worked in under 10 seconds. Thought id try installing it on windows as well for a comparison, took over 10 minutes to install it and get it activated.
- Growing support. People appreciate that using linux is different to windows and can help. JM, the same people that run webdev, this site, run a site called justlinux which is a very helpful community as some linux users on other forums dont help out as much and appear arrogant.
- Small distro's. Some operating systems like damn small linux can be fitted on a small capacity flash drive and then taken with you with all your files and settings so if your away from home and using someone elses computer you have all your own work and computer enviroment with you.
- Live cd's. You can get a linux distro and if its a live cd then you can boot the live cd and try out the whole system. Then if you like it to get full functionality you can install it. Some live cd's you get near perfect functionality from even before installing it.
- Spare time. Actually browsing the web more often instead of security updates, malware scanning, etc etc. On windows that takes up a huge amount of my time just to get it running at the same level as my linux box.
- Easier and quicker formats/installation and reformats not needed as much. I can format a HDD and then partition (split up) and install an operating system on linux in less than 20 minutes. The same format/partition/install process on something like xp takes over an hour.
Linux cons:
- Most hardware is supported but the minority or rareity may not be as alot of manuafactuers primarily support windows because its mainstream
- While the setup and installation is easier and in alot of cases more graphically guided than windows some of the time you might have to use the terminal. Plenty of people dont even need to ever use it but its hardware dependant and linux written commands are a new language.
- If there is a security vunerability or exploit, dependant on your distro, it may take a bit longer for them to come out with a fix/patch than windows. Its to be expected since microsoft is far bigger they can respond that much quicker and this is usually only an issue with servers.
- Support, its a double edged sword, its friendly and growing but this is still a con as its more limited than windows. You may not need support as often after a while but in the first place it can be tricky to find helpful people.
Basically if your interested in linux give it a try, dont give up at first but i would advise getting an old computer or a hard drive with no other data so then if you do make a mistake and get confused just re-format/install and also with a testing hard drive you can try loads of different distros.
I use xp pro for a few programs and bits of hardware thats quite rare and will only run on windows. I could use an emulator on linux (which simulates a windows enviroment so you can run most windows software) but i need to use xp pro for work as well. For hardcore gaming i use xp as well
When browsing the net and doing day to day activities, graphics and web work and some gaming i use linux. It suits me really well and i use it most of the time although im not very experienced in linux. I looked at loads and tried out 5-10 different linux distros before i found one i liked and settled with.
Here is a list of handy links, have a look around and see what you think.
Osdir. Pictures of different operating systems, reviews and a generally handy site:
http://shots.osdir.com/
Linux help forums run by the same people as here:
http://justlinux.com/
Ubuntu is a popular distro with new users as it detects hardware very well and has good forum support. Personally i dont like ubuntu's interface but its dependant on each individual:
http://www.ubuntu.com/
Dreamlinux, my distro of choice:
http://www.dreamlinux.com.br/english/index.html
Znupi
04-23-2007, 01:18 PM
EricG1793, I disagree with you.
First of all, Linux is NOT AT ALL HARD TO USE. I thought so, too, but it has been proven to me that it's actually simpler than M$ Windows XP sometimes.
Second of all, who told you virus-makers are Linux users?? That is totally wrong, most 'virus-makers' are script-kiddies who like to play in Visual Basic (which is a M$ Program). Oh and another thing, it would be pretty hard to make even a simple program for windows, using Linux (not to speak about a virus), considering it has absolutely no tools for developing win32 applications!! You can't even compile one! So yeah, it's pretty impossible to create a virus for windows, using Linux.
Now, why Linux is safe:
1. Because few people use it (it's a shame).
2. Because the developers of Linux are able to make it very safe, unlike M$ for example. (I can't give examples of Apple, since I never used one)
3. Because the 'script-kiddies' that make viruses won't find their trusted VB in Linux (which is basically a wysiwyg editor) and they'll abandon the whole idea of Linux when they see their first Linux shell command.
Sorry if I was a bit harsh, but your statements are totally untrue (at least as far as my knowledge goes).
First of all, Linux is NOT AT ALL HARD TO USE. I thought so, too, but it has been proven to me that it's actually simpler than M$ Windows XP sometimes.
Second of all, who told you virus-makers are Linux users?? That is totally wrong, most 'virus-makers' are script-kiddies who like to play in Visual Basic (which is a M$ Program). Oh and another thing, it would be pretty hard to make even a simple program for windows, using Linux (not to speak about a virus), considering it has absolutely no tools for developing win32 applications!! You can't even compile one! So yeah, it's pretty impossible to create a virus for windows, using Linux.
Now, why Linux is safe:
1. Because few people use it (it's a shame).
2. Because the developers of Linux are able to make it very safe, unlike M$ for example. (I can't give examples of Apple, since I never used one)
3. Because the 'script-kiddies' that make viruses won't find their trusted VB in Linux (which is basically a wysiwyg editor) and they'll abandon the whole idea of Linux when they see their first Linux shell command.
Sorry if I was a bit harsh, but your statements are totally untrue (at least as far as my knowledge goes).
wh666-666
04-23-2007, 01:34 PM
I agree with you Znupi. I write programs for windows from windows, not linux as i can compile it and test it in the actual enviroment its intended.
Oh and btw i also ethically hack from windows as well, im used to doing it from there now.
As i said some may say that linux is easy or hard to use, but if you have to use the terminal then yes its going to be a bit difficult because its a whole new system layout and language but yes it is easier.
(i was shocked Znupi when i just asked someone a simple command to list my network connection settings, 'iwlist', i was like, "oh, is that all it is?")
But linux users can come across as arrogant or demons bent on destruction which isnt quite the case but i can see erics sceptisism. A virus maker may run a linux box but someone who usually has the knowledge to hack or write viruses will have an aptitude to learning new technology and systems.
I would advise eric and other people to look at fair opinions. There are those who hate microsoft and then microsoft and partners do release bias material and blatently lie to scaremonger and in a business sense retain their market share
Oh and btw i also ethically hack from windows as well, im used to doing it from there now.
As i said some may say that linux is easy or hard to use, but if you have to use the terminal then yes its going to be a bit difficult because its a whole new system layout and language but yes it is easier.
(i was shocked Znupi when i just asked someone a simple command to list my network connection settings, 'iwlist', i was like, "oh, is that all it is?")
But linux users can come across as arrogant or demons bent on destruction which isnt quite the case but i can see erics sceptisism. A virus maker may run a linux box but someone who usually has the knowledge to hack or write viruses will have an aptitude to learning new technology and systems.
I would advise eric and other people to look at fair opinions. There are those who hate microsoft and then microsoft and partners do release bias material and blatently lie to scaremonger and in a business sense retain their market share
wh666-666
04-23-2007, 01:43 PM
I don't want people to think I'm a virus maker...;) But, that's probably why it's secure because virus makers wouldn't make viruses for their own OS or they could pick them up everywhere...
Oh and just on this point something i left out, dont worry too much. As Znupi said alot of people will code basic windows viruses but even experienced coders will exploit windows first because of three major reasons:
1: Its the easiest operating system to exploit
2: Its mainstream and has the biggest market share
3: A higher majority of users using windows are unaware of security (novices) than other systems
Oh and just on this point something i left out, dont worry too much. As Znupi said alot of people will code basic windows viruses but even experienced coders will exploit windows first because of three major reasons:
1: Its the easiest operating system to exploit
2: Its mainstream and has the biggest market share
3: A higher majority of users using windows are unaware of security (novices) than other systems
EricG1793
04-23-2007, 06:16 PM
Wow, a lot has been posted since I was here six hours ago...
OK, it was somewhere on the Internet that I got the idea that virusmakers usually use Linux; it seemed to make sense to me so I believed it and remembered it.
And Znupi, and all of the Webdeveloper community, who cares if you're harsh? It's merely a way of expressing your... strong feelings. I'm sure that 90% of the Webdeveloper community has been harsh some time in their threads....
And I don't even have any idea where to obtain a copy of any version of the Linux operating system. I don't like to buy things online (although sometimes eBay is an exception, if that sounds crazy enough...) and I never see it in stores. Maybe a local computer store, one that's not a chain probably would have it but I really don't have any around. In fact I hardly have any good stores around. The nearest Staples is a half hour drive away! But anyway, enough of that. Where would I be able to get a copy of the Linux operating system if for whatever reason I decided to upgrade some time in the future?
OK, it was somewhere on the Internet that I got the idea that virusmakers usually use Linux; it seemed to make sense to me so I believed it and remembered it.
And Znupi, and all of the Webdeveloper community, who cares if you're harsh? It's merely a way of expressing your... strong feelings. I'm sure that 90% of the Webdeveloper community has been harsh some time in their threads....
And I don't even have any idea where to obtain a copy of any version of the Linux operating system. I don't like to buy things online (although sometimes eBay is an exception, if that sounds crazy enough...) and I never see it in stores. Maybe a local computer store, one that's not a chain probably would have it but I really don't have any around. In fact I hardly have any good stores around. The nearest Staples is a half hour drive away! But anyway, enough of that. Where would I be able to get a copy of the Linux operating system if for whatever reason I decided to upgrade some time in the future?
drhowarddrfine
04-23-2007, 08:36 PM
Where would I be able to get a copy of the Linux operating system if for whatever reason I decided to upgrade some time in the future?Buy? Who buys? Linux is free. Go to ubuntu.org and download it.
wh666-666
04-23-2007, 09:38 PM
Yea .. On the linky to OSDIR above i provided if there is a distro you like the look of, type the name in to google and go to the offical site and download it (usually iso's to burn straight to disc)
Handy fact as dr howard said is its free. More than that its illegal for anyone to charge for most linux distros. Distros like ubuntu say people can only ask for reasonable costs like the blank disc and postage but not to make a profit.
Handy fact as dr howard said is its free. More than that its illegal for anyone to charge for most linux distros. Distros like ubuntu say people can only ask for reasonable costs like the blank disc and postage but not to make a profit.
Znupi
04-24-2007, 04:29 AM
Example on how to get Ubuntu Linux:
Method 1, you have a good internet connection:
Go to www.ubuntu.com and you should be able to navigate to the download page ( http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download ). Select a mirror close to you and download it (it took 10 mins for me to do it). Get a blank CD and burn the downloaded .iso with a CD burner of your choice (I used Nero). Evrika! You have your Linux.
Method 2, you don't have a stable internet connection:
Go to https://shipit.ubuntu.com/login , create an account on Launchpad if you don't already have one, log in with it and order an Ubuntu CD and they will deliver it to you totally free of charge -- absolutely no cost, no taxes, no nothing! They got it covered -- the only downside is it takes up to six weeks to deliver, but what do you expect?
So yeah, Ubuntu is free of charge and can be downloaded in 10 mins and installed in maximum 20. :)
Method 1, you have a good internet connection:
Go to www.ubuntu.com and you should be able to navigate to the download page ( http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download ). Select a mirror close to you and download it (it took 10 mins for me to do it). Get a blank CD and burn the downloaded .iso with a CD burner of your choice (I used Nero). Evrika! You have your Linux.
Method 2, you don't have a stable internet connection:
Go to https://shipit.ubuntu.com/login , create an account on Launchpad if you don't already have one, log in with it and order an Ubuntu CD and they will deliver it to you totally free of charge -- absolutely no cost, no taxes, no nothing! They got it covered -- the only downside is it takes up to six weeks to deliver, but what do you expect?
So yeah, Ubuntu is free of charge and can be downloaded in 10 mins and installed in maximum 20. :)
EricG1793
04-24-2007, 04:02 PM
*Getting up from being blown to the ground*
Jeez, I simply asked where I could get/buy Linux and all of that came back at me. LOL. It's great that Linux is free. Maybe eventually when I'm not on my dream laptop that I saved up to buy for a year that's three months old.... Not that Linux will affect it I'm sure but I don't want to do any experiments anyway. A few days ago I upgraded to Vista and that's enough for a while.d
Jeez, I simply asked where I could get/buy Linux and all of that came back at me. LOL. It's great that Linux is free. Maybe eventually when I'm not on my dream laptop that I saved up to buy for a year that's three months old.... Not that Linux will affect it I'm sure but I don't want to do any experiments anyway. A few days ago I upgraded to Vista and that's enough for a while.d
\\.\
04-28-2007, 06:44 PM
You can even download it to your PC via Bit Torrent, most Linux distros appear to be distributed from the various vendors using that protocol.
boxxertrumps
04-29-2007, 10:52 PM
has anyone read the wikipedia article on linux viruses? the 14 most prominant ones are listed, and it says they're all outdated and failed horribally back in the day. linux is just inherently secure.
As for "command line ahh!/u need 2 b uber 1337 to run linux" mindsets, they're wrong. im am running fedora6 right now, and i rarely use the console... the only thing i need the console for is either mounting my freind's zen or learning python.
only linux distro that absolutely requires command line knowlege = gentoo, and i think only gentoo.
python tutorial: http://docs.python.org/tut/
mount the zen command: mount /dev/sda /mnt/zen
- - mounts the device "sda" to the folder "/mnt/zen"... very simple.
EDIT: try out the liveCD before you install the OS. it wont ruin your laptop in any way. (it cant...)
Torrent- Fedora Core 6 LiveCD for i386 (http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents/Zod-livecd-1-i386.torrent)
As for "command line ahh!/u need 2 b uber 1337 to run linux" mindsets, they're wrong. im am running fedora6 right now, and i rarely use the console... the only thing i need the console for is either mounting my freind's zen or learning python.
only linux distro that absolutely requires command line knowlege = gentoo, and i think only gentoo.
python tutorial: http://docs.python.org/tut/
mount the zen command: mount /dev/sda /mnt/zen
- - mounts the device "sda" to the folder "/mnt/zen"... very simple.
EDIT: try out the liveCD before you install the OS. it wont ruin your laptop in any way. (it cant...)
Torrent- Fedora Core 6 LiveCD for i386 (http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents/Zod-livecd-1-i386.torrent)
EricG1793
04-30-2007, 06:33 AM
I'll stay away from gentoo then.
bathurst_guy
05-01-2007, 05:54 PM
has anyone rEDIT: try out the liveCD before you install the OS. it wont ruin your laptop in any way. (it cant...)
Torrent- Fedora Core 6 LiveCD for i386 (http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents/Zod-livecd-1-i386.torrent)
Yes definately! You can boot linux from a CD and have a play around in the environment and you can just reboot back to your current install.
This is what I did to first try it out - the only things I have running linux at the moment though is a Moodle server and proxy server both running ubuntu server 6.06 - just another 8 servers to convert mwah haha
Torrent- Fedora Core 6 LiveCD for i386 (http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents/Zod-livecd-1-i386.torrent)
Yes definately! You can boot linux from a CD and have a play around in the environment and you can just reboot back to your current install.
This is what I did to first try it out - the only things I have running linux at the moment though is a Moodle server and proxy server both running ubuntu server 6.06 - just another 8 servers to convert mwah haha
Znupi
05-02-2007, 06:25 AM
EDIT: try out the liveCD before you install the OS. it wont ruin your laptop in any way. (it cant...)
Also, you can try the Ubuntu LiveCD, so you can make the comparison between the two. I'm saying this because my PC came with Fedora Core and I didn't like it, now I have Ubuntu and it's simply awesome, and I thought maybe you will feel the same way, too. I don't know about Fedora but Ubuntu automatically mounts all your partitions (so you can see what you have on your Windows drives), but you won't be able to write on them until you install a specific package (which can be done in less than 3 seconds), it perfectly detects all hardware (I had no issues with it, but with Fedora I had)... it's basically a plug&play OS. As the Ubuntu motto says: "Just works." :)
Also, you can try the Ubuntu LiveCD, so you can make the comparison between the two. I'm saying this because my PC came with Fedora Core and I didn't like it, now I have Ubuntu and it's simply awesome, and I thought maybe you will feel the same way, too. I don't know about Fedora but Ubuntu automatically mounts all your partitions (so you can see what you have on your Windows drives), but you won't be able to write on them until you install a specific package (which can be done in less than 3 seconds), it perfectly detects all hardware (I had no issues with it, but with Fedora I had)... it's basically a plug&play OS. As the Ubuntu motto says: "Just works." :)
EricG1793
05-02-2007, 03:51 PM
Woooowwwwwww... this thread is going even more off topic than the Del vs HP thread....
carlos1818
05-02-2007, 05:35 PM
EXCUSE ME!
the question is simple... are macs good for web developing??
the answer is as simple too! Yes they are!
if you are wondering if you will get some very nice programs to edit, publish, etc.. no need to worry..
search for BBEdit and COBA.. you will be surprised!
I have a MacBook.. it comes with python, apache, php.... all ready to go..
it took me 3 minutes to run apache with php in my notebook, and 2 lines to uncoment!
macs are good? yes they are!
I can access my computer with vnc, and the "linux shell thing" from anyplace in the world.
comon guys... if you dont have a mac, dont come saying it is too expensive.. I live in brazil.. i bough mine for 5000 reais.. thats ALOT of money... but i couldnt be happier..
Im am not a windows hater! guess what, I have both on my note! =DD
i dont want to begin a discussion here, im just answering the question!
best regards!
the question is simple... are macs good for web developing??
the answer is as simple too! Yes they are!
if you are wondering if you will get some very nice programs to edit, publish, etc.. no need to worry..
search for BBEdit and COBA.. you will be surprised!
I have a MacBook.. it comes with python, apache, php.... all ready to go..
it took me 3 minutes to run apache with php in my notebook, and 2 lines to uncoment!
macs are good? yes they are!
I can access my computer with vnc, and the "linux shell thing" from anyplace in the world.
comon guys... if you dont have a mac, dont come saying it is too expensive.. I live in brazil.. i bough mine for 5000 reais.. thats ALOT of money... but i couldnt be happier..
Im am not a windows hater! guess what, I have both on my note! =DD
i dont want to begin a discussion here, im just answering the question!
best regards!
Znupi
05-02-2007, 08:13 PM
Yeah but Linux still rules :D
I never thought I could switch to it, but basically Ubuntu 7.04 did it for me. From the moment I started it the first time, I didn't boot Windows anymore. And it keeps amazing me everyday. Really.
I never thought I could switch to it, but basically Ubuntu 7.04 did it for me. From the moment I started it the first time, I didn't boot Windows anymore. And it keeps amazing me everyday. Really.
carlos1818
05-03-2007, 12:51 AM
yeah..
personaly, thats my scale:
If I have money, Ill buy MacOS,
If I dont, Ill go to linux..
If microsoft buys apple, ill go to linux,
if linux is no longer free, Ill still go with linux. :p
After all, MacOS runs in UNIX!
that proves it!
bests!
personaly, thats my scale:
If I have money, Ill buy MacOS,
If I dont, Ill go to linux..
If microsoft buys apple, ill go to linux,
if linux is no longer free, Ill still go with linux. :p
After all, MacOS runs in UNIX!
that proves it!
bests!
boxxertrumps
05-04-2007, 06:05 PM
I don't agree with the ad campaign for macs, they're bashing pcs and saying they're full of viruses and are liable to shut down without notice. I mean, the commercials aren't even quiet about it, and im suprised MS hasn't sued apple for slander, as well as many pc hardware manufacturers.
So im never getting a mac.
i have owned this comp for about a year, and i've had the hdd wiped 3 times.
Once when i installed kubuntu, once when i installed fedora, and once when i tried out my new vid card and figured that fedora detects hardware on install... and reinstalled fedora.* Never for viruses, i took good care of my comp while i had windows. I dont really need to take care of it now, because there are less than 50 linux viruses, with only 14 getting a notable mention. None of those 14 propagated sucsessfully, none are able to infect the current linux version b/c of updates to the core and NONE are running around free on the internet.
* -The actual problem was i didn't have a proper driver for my vid card. still dont, so im getting an Nvida one instead of ati.
So im never getting a mac.
i have owned this comp for about a year, and i've had the hdd wiped 3 times.
Once when i installed kubuntu, once when i installed fedora, and once when i tried out my new vid card and figured that fedora detects hardware on install... and reinstalled fedora.* Never for viruses, i took good care of my comp while i had windows. I dont really need to take care of it now, because there are less than 50 linux viruses, with only 14 getting a notable mention. None of those 14 propagated sucsessfully, none are able to infect the current linux version b/c of updates to the core and NONE are running around free on the internet.
* -The actual problem was i didn't have a proper driver for my vid card. still dont, so im getting an Nvida one instead of ati.
EricG1793
05-04-2007, 06:22 PM
I don't agree with the ad campaign for macs, they're bashing pcs and saying they're full of viruses and are liable to shut down without notice. I mean, the commercials aren't even quiet about it, and im suprised MS hasn't sued apple for slander, as well as many pc hardware manufacturers.
So im never getting a mac.
i have owned this comp for about a year, and i've had the hdd wiped 3 times.
Applause to you... I hate Macs too. In fact I started a poll about Macs vs. PCs and it turned to be one person and I arguing about it so I said for somebody to close it and they did. I think I'll make it again now.
PCs are full of viruses. And they are liable to shut down. However you need to have appropriate AntiVirus software and scan once a week and be sure to check for updates everyday which is a two minute task that doesn't require supervision. And for the liable to shut down... You never know when someone'll hit a telephone poll near your house and cause a power failure! :D You know, I just had a really big thing against Macs, so I'm going to start another PC vs. Mac thread. I can't duplicate the one I had so I'll have to put Macs first in the name.:(
What kind of computer do you have? I understand it's not viruses or defectiveness why you wiped the hard drive three times but I'm curious what kind of computer it is.
So im never getting a mac.
i have owned this comp for about a year, and i've had the hdd wiped 3 times.
Applause to you... I hate Macs too. In fact I started a poll about Macs vs. PCs and it turned to be one person and I arguing about it so I said for somebody to close it and they did. I think I'll make it again now.
PCs are full of viruses. And they are liable to shut down. However you need to have appropriate AntiVirus software and scan once a week and be sure to check for updates everyday which is a two minute task that doesn't require supervision. And for the liable to shut down... You never know when someone'll hit a telephone poll near your house and cause a power failure! :D You know, I just had a really big thing against Macs, so I'm going to start another PC vs. Mac thread. I can't duplicate the one I had so I'll have to put Macs first in the name.:(
What kind of computer do you have? I understand it's not viruses or defectiveness why you wiped the hard drive three times but I'm curious what kind of computer it is.
boxxertrumps
05-04-2007, 07:06 PM
It's just a normal asus comp, and it was wiped 3 times because thats how many times i installed linux and reformatted it. i told you, i went from windows to kubuntu (1 reformat) then kubuntu to fedora (2 reformats) then i wrongly reinstalled fedora, (3 reformats) thinking there was an issue with the first install.
Uhh, 2.8ghz, 512mb ram, 80GB HDD, cd drive... It has never failed me, i love it.
Uhh, 2.8ghz, 512mb ram, 80GB HDD, cd drive... It has never failed me, i love it.
EricG1793
05-04-2007, 07:19 PM
I don't hear much of Asus but what I do hear is always good. When I hear the name "Asus" I think of motherboards. Although on other threads throughout Webdeveloper.com I talk about my HP Pavilion DV2000Z which I don't really know which brand of a motherboard it has. It has Nvidia graphics and an AMD processor. There are an awful lot of drivers and updates for products from Nvidia on my computer so I'm thinking that my motherboard is Nvidia. Does anybody know what kind of motherboard is in my computer? In another thread I'm doing about which is the ultimate PC, I know that ABS lets you see what components you're buying and a lot of times they let you select a different brand/type of motherboard. But let's not get off topic... that's SO easy to do in threads online! Actually talking about this is off topic itself... this thread is titled "Macs and web development" and here we are talking about Linux and motherboards and Asus... Ha ha ha.
wh666-666
05-04-2007, 10:06 PM
If I have money, Ill buy MacOS,
If I dont, Ill go to linux..
If microsoft buys apple, ill go to linux,
if linux is no longer free, Ill still go with linux. :p
Some linux alternatives to mac interface are even better than mac osx itself.
Linux distros will always be free and since the linux kernel is open source you can even package your own distros with the aid of software.
Microsoft probably wont be buying apple at any point but for years bill gates has owned a massive portion of apple.
People that get hyped up about mac bashing microsoft dont see the bigger picture. Microsoft and macs started off from the same garage full of geeks. Ultimately bill gates wants to retain the market share with microsoft and keep macs as fashion items/bling bling. The only thing that worries microsoft or bill gates for that matter is linux/unix kernels but its debateable whether linux will ever gain the biggest market share. From bill gates POV though so long as he can push microsoft or apple as the only systems in the media (as many people havnt even heard of linux), he's still raking in the money.
Whats funny is that damn sexy/cute next door girl from the linux commercials!
If I dont, Ill go to linux..
If microsoft buys apple, ill go to linux,
if linux is no longer free, Ill still go with linux. :p
Some linux alternatives to mac interface are even better than mac osx itself.
Linux distros will always be free and since the linux kernel is open source you can even package your own distros with the aid of software.
Microsoft probably wont be buying apple at any point but for years bill gates has owned a massive portion of apple.
People that get hyped up about mac bashing microsoft dont see the bigger picture. Microsoft and macs started off from the same garage full of geeks. Ultimately bill gates wants to retain the market share with microsoft and keep macs as fashion items/bling bling. The only thing that worries microsoft or bill gates for that matter is linux/unix kernels but its debateable whether linux will ever gain the biggest market share. From bill gates POV though so long as he can push microsoft or apple as the only systems in the media (as many people havnt even heard of linux), he's still raking in the money.
Whats funny is that damn sexy/cute next door girl from the linux commercials!
boxxertrumps
05-04-2007, 11:47 PM
There are linux commercails?
wh666-666
05-04-2007, 11:58 PM
Yea, enjoy!
http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148784
http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148784
carlos1818
05-05-2007, 01:32 AM
Don't get me wrong, I love linux, I work with linux, I just like macs best..
Not Mac OS, not apple software, but put them together, just using to understand...
PS: I dont hate windows either, i develop over windows plataform..
Not Mac OS, not apple software, but put them together, just using to understand...
PS: I dont hate windows either, i develop over windows plataform..
wh666-666
05-06-2007, 08:47 AM
I dont hate windows either although it may sound like it at times.
I work with windows as well with it being so mainstream but personally im more disgrunteled with microsoft. Win98se was brilliant, since then it feels as if microsoft cant be bothered in the slightest to make any headway and when talking about vista, etc etc, have actually made steps back. If i pay $400 or whatever for software from someone i expect at least for considerate coding. Microsoft dont even check their code properly before compiling. Like update fiascos!
I work with windows as well with it being so mainstream but personally im more disgrunteled with microsoft. Win98se was brilliant, since then it feels as if microsoft cant be bothered in the slightest to make any headway and when talking about vista, etc etc, have actually made steps back. If i pay $400 or whatever for software from someone i expect at least for considerate coding. Microsoft dont even check their code properly before compiling. Like update fiascos!
EricG1793
05-06-2007, 09:00 AM
Win98se was brilliant, since then it feels as if microsoft cant be bothered in the slightest to make any headway and when talking about vista, etc etc, have actually made steps back.
You think that Windows 98 SE was brilliant?!
Windows 98SE wasn't really designed well in my opinion. And over time it always pollutes itself and continues to do that until the system's barely running and you need to do a clean install of Windows.
However I think that the best operating system (Besides Vista... everybody, Vista isn't all the horror stories that you've heard.) was Windows 2000 Professional. I think that all the buttons and icons looked nice and I liked the logon sound. It was also very reliable and able to go on for a very very long time without needing to wipe out the hard drive. And it's so good that Microsoft extended the service lifetime of it. (I forget when or for how long but they did.)
I think, right now, I'm going to create a thread about Windows Vista.
You think that Windows 98 SE was brilliant?!
Windows 98SE wasn't really designed well in my opinion. And over time it always pollutes itself and continues to do that until the system's barely running and you need to do a clean install of Windows.
However I think that the best operating system (Besides Vista... everybody, Vista isn't all the horror stories that you've heard.) was Windows 2000 Professional. I think that all the buttons and icons looked nice and I liked the logon sound. It was also very reliable and able to go on for a very very long time without needing to wipe out the hard drive. And it's so good that Microsoft extended the service lifetime of it. (I forget when or for how long but they did.)
I think, right now, I'm going to create a thread about Windows Vista.
Znupi
05-06-2007, 11:01 AM
everybody, Vista isn't all the horror stories that you've heard.
Oh no? Then how come my Linux box has a desktop that looks 1000 times better than Windows could ever do (I'm talking about Beryl), and it only needs a half of what Vista requires? (Vista requires 1GB of RAM, and my desktop only uses 330Mb of RAM -- with music playing, IMing, browsing, e-mailing etc and 260Mb of Swap space -- which isn't really RAM... it's a partition Linux uses as secondary RAM) And I never experience stalls or slow-downs, and I only have 512MB Ram, so Vista wouldn't even INSTALL on my PC! Think about that...
Comparation of Vista over Linux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQ
Oh no? Then how come my Linux box has a desktop that looks 1000 times better than Windows could ever do (I'm talking about Beryl), and it only needs a half of what Vista requires? (Vista requires 1GB of RAM, and my desktop only uses 330Mb of RAM -- with music playing, IMing, browsing, e-mailing etc and 260Mb of Swap space -- which isn't really RAM... it's a partition Linux uses as secondary RAM) And I never experience stalls or slow-downs, and I only have 512MB Ram, so Vista wouldn't even INSTALL on my PC! Think about that...
Comparation of Vista over Linux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQ
wh666-666
05-06-2007, 08:48 PM
You think that Windows 98 SE was brilliant?!
Windows 98SE wasn't really designed well in my opinion. And over time it always pollutes itself and continues to do that until the system's barely running and you need to do a clean install of Windows.
However I think that the best operating system (Besides Vista... everybody, Vista isn't all the horror stories that you've heard.) was Windows 2000 Professional. I think that all the buttons and icons looked nice and I liked the logon sound. It was also very reliable and able to go on for a very very long time without needing to wipe out the hard drive. And it's so good that Microsoft extended the service lifetime of it. (I forget when or for how long but they did.)
I think, right now, I'm going to create a thread about Windows Vista.
Yes i do but i should state about win98se in comparison to win95 before it and winME afterwards. You wanna see horrible, just look at winME, and as for win95, win98se was a massive technological bound.
I do agree about win2k but that was after the horrific shambles of winME that made microsoft looked back at correcting errors in win98se, years after win98se had even been outdated it still formed a stepping stone for win2k. Very nice and i still use win2k on a rig or two at times. Basis of xp as well although its a shame that microsoft changed certain parts that worked well so that they didnt anymore.
You can start a thread about vista but its already been done ;)
And vista is the horror story and more everyone makes it out to be and more. Half of the problems lie with the retarded coding microsoft spews out every few years and the other major problem is the delays, different versions and doubts and changes to microsoft plans which left many hardware manufactuers not sufficiently preparing for vista. Major isp's, sole line suppliers and oem's still havnt provided driver support, maybe some of them are locked in a dark room and unaware that its not called longhorn anymore and last years work is void and its called vista now.
Ive seen vista right through as a beta tester at almost ever stage and the final version. Vista probably wont even be useable till sp1 which by all estimates is due in december (but vista was due over a year ago, so dont hold your breath, else you'll die from oxygen starvation). It was kinda the same, although not as bad with xp. Sp1 was terrible and it only became a suitable workhorse when sp2 came out.
Lon and short of it there is no point at all in upgrading to vista unless you have a very good dual core rig, then boot times are quite favorable. The only real advantage it offers technically is dx-10 but many games havnt even been coded to utilise dx-10 so for the next couple of years there isnt really much point and only then if your a hardcore gamer who alienates themself from society :p
Windows 98SE wasn't really designed well in my opinion. And over time it always pollutes itself and continues to do that until the system's barely running and you need to do a clean install of Windows.
However I think that the best operating system (Besides Vista... everybody, Vista isn't all the horror stories that you've heard.) was Windows 2000 Professional. I think that all the buttons and icons looked nice and I liked the logon sound. It was also very reliable and able to go on for a very very long time without needing to wipe out the hard drive. And it's so good that Microsoft extended the service lifetime of it. (I forget when or for how long but they did.)
I think, right now, I'm going to create a thread about Windows Vista.
Yes i do but i should state about win98se in comparison to win95 before it and winME afterwards. You wanna see horrible, just look at winME, and as for win95, win98se was a massive technological bound.
I do agree about win2k but that was after the horrific shambles of winME that made microsoft looked back at correcting errors in win98se, years after win98se had even been outdated it still formed a stepping stone for win2k. Very nice and i still use win2k on a rig or two at times. Basis of xp as well although its a shame that microsoft changed certain parts that worked well so that they didnt anymore.
You can start a thread about vista but its already been done ;)
And vista is the horror story and more everyone makes it out to be and more. Half of the problems lie with the retarded coding microsoft spews out every few years and the other major problem is the delays, different versions and doubts and changes to microsoft plans which left many hardware manufactuers not sufficiently preparing for vista. Major isp's, sole line suppliers and oem's still havnt provided driver support, maybe some of them are locked in a dark room and unaware that its not called longhorn anymore and last years work is void and its called vista now.
Ive seen vista right through as a beta tester at almost ever stage and the final version. Vista probably wont even be useable till sp1 which by all estimates is due in december (but vista was due over a year ago, so dont hold your breath, else you'll die from oxygen starvation). It was kinda the same, although not as bad with xp. Sp1 was terrible and it only became a suitable workhorse when sp2 came out.
Lon and short of it there is no point at all in upgrading to vista unless you have a very good dual core rig, then boot times are quite favorable. The only real advantage it offers technically is dx-10 but many games havnt even been coded to utilise dx-10 so for the next couple of years there isnt really much point and only then if your a hardcore gamer who alienates themself from society :p
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.