Considering a Mac - how good are they really?

[garyk]

Raid1 *can* be setup on Mac but not easily. I think its abit crazy they ship mac mini's with dual drives that arent raid enabled out of the box. I was thinking of getting one but the drives arent big enough anyway so I'm getting a readynas duo which I can put 2 2TB drives in running RAID1.

Gary

 

[Rudi]

Best thing is no more 'Java needs to install an update' every hour or 'Installing update 1of 26 ' on shutdown. Majority of updates are quick, background and require no restarts.

Every update round that has come from the Mac I worked with required a restart for their 'Security Updates'. In fact, one of their "security" updates late last year was a change to a font, which required a restart.

I was forced to use a Mac at work for a year and never got into it at all. It was a Mac Pro with 16GB RAM and 2x Quad Core Xeons, it was noticably slower for what I did (web & software development) than the equivilant software for my 5 year old Dell XPS laptop (Core2Duo, 4GB RAM). Of course that would not hold true for most software, but I find that Macs go more for the "oooh shiney" than the "oooh this should always work!" thing.

Also the idea of never being able to quit an application from the big red quit box (just close the active windows) is counterintuitive. As is the green '+' button that you would expect to maximise the window...

 

[robertdicks]

I have been using a mac in work for years now and up until December a PC at home until I finally decided to ditch my old Dell laptop for a MacBook Pro. Wouldn't go back to a PC now to be honest the user interface is far better than Windows especially if you have lots of windows open the whole system is easier and quicker to navigate.

That said restarting the computer for nearly every update can be a pain but its something I can out up with!

 

[eventdomain]

First and foremost the whole app installation/removal process is *way* cleaner than on a PC. After 18-24 months most PCs will start to crawl due to getting bogged down with tons of files scattered all over the hard drive

Ahhh, nice observation - anyone else care to add to the above?

That said restarting the computer for nearly every update can be a pain

This is for the fairly big updates yes? like PC's will do eg: Update 10 of 20....

But are Macs an all-rounder or more of a specialists machine? How fast is it when operating in RAM compared to a dual core i3 processor?

 

[Rudi]

This is for the fairly big updates yes? like PC's will do eg: Update 10 of 20....

No, like I stated in my post OSX Required a restart for a 20MB Font Update tagged as a 'Security Update', God only knows why.

 

[RevaxMedia]

I've known about Macs for years, but always had PC's as I guess I followed the crowd and they've never let me down, apart from a short shelf life once or twice.

So need advice on how good Macs are, benefits and why a starting price Mac Pc is £849 compared to the equivalent PC of £370ish.

I've got an iMac and Macbook pro - mac pro works great but the iMac I run parallels and I have had to upgrade it to 16gb RAM (I am waiting on it from crucial.com should be here tomorrow)

 

[robertdicks]

No, like I stated in my post OSX Required a restart for a 20MB Font Update tagged as a 'Security Update', God only knows why.

You are correct Rudi even though I would never move back to a PC the restarting of the mac is very annoying even for the most basic updates at times. I had my Dell laptio (running XP) for years and never experienced quite so many restarts as you do with Mac updates.

 

[andygambles]

I've got an iMac and Macbook pro - mac pro works great but the iMac I run parallels and I have had to upgrade it to 16gb RAM (I am waiting on it from crucial.com should be here tomorrow)

Check the activity monitor for Page Outs. You need additional RAM to at least cover whatever is here. However just boosting to the 16GB Max is best. The iMacs love RAM. Mine had an immense speed boost. Booting up and even browsing are faster.

You are correct Rudi even though I would never move back to a PC the restarting of the mac is very annoying even for the most basic updates at times. I had my Dell laptio (running XP) for years and never experienced quite so many restarts as you do with Mac updates.

I have to disagree a little. Unless my Mac is somehow different. In a year I have been forced in to a reboot just twice following an update.

 

[robertdicks]

Check the activity monitor for Page Outs. You need additional RAM to at least cover whatever is here. However just boosting to the 16GB Max is best. The iMacs love RAM. Mine had an immense speed boost. Booting up and even browsing are faster.



I have to disagree a little. Unless my Mac is somehow different. In a year I have been forced in to a reboot just twice following an update.

I have a mac in work (running Leopard) and a mac at home running Lion and both need regular reboots when Apple release updates. My old Mac in work (2007 running Tiger) also needed lots of rebooting.

 

[eventdomain]

So a basic level Mac can do what a PC does, but faster yes?

Its looks very tasty, shiny....

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

Check the activity monitor for Page Outs. You need additional RAM to at least cover whatever is here. However just boosting to the 16GB Max is best. The iMacs love RAM. Mine had an immense speed boost. Booting up and even browsing are faster.

You say that like it's a benefit when really it's a flaw, all computers benefit from more RAM if they are using a page file but a well programmed OS will run perfectly well with a page/swap file.

So a basic level Mac can do what a PC does, but faster yes?

No, I doubt it would be noticable, maybe even slower if you upgraded your PC to 16GB of RAM to do a fair comparison.

Its looks very tasty, shiny....

Yes. A lifestyle choice, not a computing performance choice.

 

[andygambles]

I have a mac in work (running Leopard) and a mac at home running Lion and both need regular reboots when Apple release updates. My old Mac in work (2007 running Tiger) also needed lots of rebooting.

I've only ever been using Lion. Could be the reason.

 

[andygambles]

You say that like it's a benefit when really it's a flaw, all computers benefit from more RAM if they are using a page file but a well programmed OS will run perfectly well with a page/swap file.

I never meant it to be either way. I just said that the iMacs flourish much better with more RAM. Calm down dear.

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

I never meant it to be either way. I just said that the iMacs flourish much better with more RAM. Calm down dear.

It's ok, it's just i've never seen a Windows user have to add 16GB RAM to make a desktop PC work

Just had a check and it seems Mac OS doesn't use a swap partition, which is strange considering it's based on Linux. It has the swap file on the same disk as the data files the same as Windows does.

Mac users probably aren't encouraged to adjust virtual memory settings so throwing more RAM at it is what they do.

 

[Davek0974]

Mac here too, yes they do like ram but what computer doesn't?

I run windows XP on my Mac using Parallels Virtualisation, i get the best of both worlds although i only use XP for my accounts software.

Also have ipads, iphones and ipods in the house owned by various family members, i spend most of my browsing time on the ipad.

 

[dynamic08]

It depends what you do!

I used a pc from the age of about 8. Switched to mac around 18 months ago now. Picked it up in under 48 hours.

Would never go back to windows the MAC is just to big and shiny and nice and its just a pleasure working on it. I guess the 27" helps to.

You buy Mac you get good quality. You want a nice car you buy a Merc not a Ford. You want a nice computer then you buy a MAC.

 

[Rudi]

Just had a check and it seems Mac OS doesn't use a swap partition, which is strange considering it's based on Linux.

It's not based on Linux, it's based on FreeBSD (Unix). But yes, neither have a separate /swap partition and it's not really required on Linux either (You can use mkswap to make any blank storage-reserved file the swap file).

You buy Mac you get good quality. You want a nice car you buy a Merc not a Ford. You want a nice computer then you buy a MAC.

Mercs may be expensive, built well, and look pretty, but they handle like crap, so yes, I guess that is a pretty good analogy/metaphor

 

[efficiencycoach]

I've always been a hardcore PC user - after all who wants to pay for a pretty looking machine that doesn't work as well as a PC...

How wrong was I....

I have a 13" Mac Book Air, as I am fairly mobile in what I do and want to minimise the weight I carry around with me.

My old PC laptop was an HP running window's vista, so this was what I have to compare with it.

1) Speed
Even though I supposedly have less processing power on my mac than my old HP, my mac is 5-10 times quicker

2) Log on/Log off speed
It takes me about 5-10 seconds to completely power up or power down my mac. This used to take 1 minute or so with the PC

3) weight
my mac book air is about 1/3 of the weight of an equivalent PC spec

4) battery life
I get double the amount of battery life than my HP laptop at a third of the weight

5) Noise
The fan on my mac book air only kicks in very occasionally. In fact I have to be doing some heavy video processing for that to happen. The fan on the PC would kick in every time I used it

6) hard disk storage
Because the mac operating system is so much more efficient (as it is a closed system), it needs much less storage space than the equivalent PC hard disk.

7) Free software
The mac comes bundled with garageband, iMovie and iPhoto. You would have to pay hundreds of pounds for the PC equivalent of these. There are also no annoying pre-bundled bits of software on a mac which don't do anything or slow the machine down when you use them

8) Virus software
You pretty much don't need one of these for a mac, and this really helps reduce the load on the computer's processors. You will find that any anti-virus software running on a computer in the background will significantly slow the machine done

9) split screen working
I think you can do this on Window's 7 - but really helpful to be able to edit one document based on another

Would I ever go back?

NO.

 

[KarlAustin]

8) Virus software
You pretty much don't need one of these for a mac, and this really helps reduce the load on the computer's processors. You will find that any anti-virus software running on a computer in the background will significantly slow the machine done

Tell that to the 600,000+ people infected with a trojan right now because apple took 8 weeks to update Java

Most of those issues aren't PC specific and you're not comparing apples to apples. Of course a CPU that's lower power is going to not need the fans on full power as much - same as if you went and bought an ultrabook, same with battery life, software pre-installed - that's HP, nothing to do with Windows

Also, as far as I'm aware, a 24MB file still takes up 24MB on Mac OS

For anyone who thinks I'm a mac hater, I do own one

 

[Davek0974]

Tell that to the 600,000+ people infected with a trojan right now because apple took 8 weeks to update Java

Most of those issues aren't PC specific and you're not comparing apples to apples. Of course a CPU that's lower power is going to not need the fans on full power as much - same as if you went and bought an ultrabook, same with battery life, software pre-installed - that's HP, nothing to do with Windows

Also, as far as I'm aware, a 24MB file still takes up 24MB on Mac OS

For anyone who thinks I'm a mac hater, I do own one

Hmm, well maybe but that's small fry compared to the millions of PC users that have suffered from viruses

 

[KarlAustin]

Hmm, well maybe but that's small fry compared to the millions of PC users that have suffered from viruses

True, but then there are many more Windows PCs out there so even if 1% of Windows machines and 5% of Macs were infected the raw number would be much higher for Windows still. This also explains the huge number of exploits - you go for maximum penetration when you're writing something like this, hence why it has taken a while for the Mac is invincible routine to be once and for all blown to pieces, as it is now worth people writing trojans for them.

Not only that, this is just 600k infections reported by people actually running some form of AV from a relatively unknown vendor - so the true number is likely to be a lot lot higher.

No software is secure, all software has bugs, it is inevitable.

 

[RevaxMedia]

Tell that to the 600,000+ people infected with a trojan right now because apple took 8 weeks to update Java

Most of those issues aren't PC specific and you're not comparing apples to apples. Of course a CPU that's lower power is going to not need the fans on full power as much - same as if you went and bought an ultrabook, same with battery life, software pre-installed - that's HP, nothing to do with Windows

Also, as far as I'm aware, a 24MB file still takes up 24MB on Mac OS

For anyone who thinks I'm a mac hater, I do own one

Bloody judas! ha - I've got an iMac and Mac book Pro - personally I would not say the Mac book Pro is worth it as other laptops could offer a higher spec for the same price.

iMac was a little disappointing as the Ram new was 4gb and to upgrade to 16gb from Apple was $600 which is mental as Crucial.com did it for around £55

 

[Subbynet]

Hmm, well maybe but that's small fry compared to the millions of PC users that have suffered from viruses

You need to know the difference in Viruses, Trojans, Worms and other malware. Hardly anyone has suffered from a Virus with Windows since around XP SP2... XP was released in 2001, SP2 around 2004...

The main threat is Trojans and Worms. Both of which Macs are being infected with.

 

[RevaxMedia]

The main threat is Trojans and Worms. Both of which Macs are being infected with.

On a smaller scale - administration viruses like backdoor trojans are more usable with PC's and you can't really get a virus with a mac as it does have the log-in credentials when installing an app - something Microsoft took from Apple.

 

[Davek0974]

Of course, the secure way is to not connect to the internet and never install any software

But, when a virus is written, is it actually 'targetted' at an O/S or just 'put out there' for any fishes to catch, if the latter then it would indicate that pc's are more vulnerable surely?

On the other hand if it is 'targetted' at a weak spot then that is a different matter.

No computer is immune, of course not, but the fact that you have to expressly OK an install on Macs is a great feature i feel.

I was also told once that the only A/V software that is worth looking at should be FREE so that there is no chance of collusion between the supplier and virus writers to make their product look good when its not.

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

I still can't get over needing 16GB of RAM to make a shiny user interface work!

I'm currently using 1.5GB (out of 2GB) on XP with the following software open:

Photoshop
Outlook
Chrome (Multiple tabs)
Firefox (Multiple tabs)
CoreFTP
NetBeans IDE
Sophos Anti Virus / Malware Detector
AVast and WAMPserver in the background

 

[Davek0974]

iMac was a little disappointing as the Ram new was 4gb and to upgrade to 16gb from Apple was $600 which is mental as Crucial.com did it for around £55

You took the upgrade option

DIY is the way.

I stuffed my new Mac mini choc-full with ram for a very reasonable price.

 

[Davek0974]

I still can't get over needing 16GB of RAM to make a shiny user interface work!

But when it's that good, its worth every byte

 

[RevaxMedia]

You took the upgrade option

DIY is the way.

I stuffed my new Mac mini choc-full with ram for a very reasonable price.

Never took the upgrade version used Crucial.com - Can see the appeal to some Apple warriors as it voids your warranty.

 

[RevaxMedia]

Another thing I noticed with the iMac is the standard keyboard that comes with the 27" looks too small so I bought the full sized keyboard with number pad (wired) and sold the other - should have the option.

 

[Subbynet]

On a smaller scale - administration viruses like backdoor trojans are more usable with PC's and you can't really get a virus with a mac as it does have the log-in credentials when installing an app - something Microsoft took from Apple.

I understand what you're saying but Trojans are normally installed by tricking someone to install it. Once its installed, it can do everything its been given privileges to do.

Remember tho, only today Apple pushed out the final fix for the Java based trojan!

 

[Subbynet]

But, when a virus is written, is it actually 'targetted' at an O/S or just 'put out there' for any fishes to catch, if the latter then it would indicate that pc's are more vulnerable surely?

Nothing can be "Just put out there"... You need to target it otherwise it won't work. This is code, and ultimately maths.. It needs to add up.

 

[RevaxMedia]

I understand what you're saying but Trojans are normally installed by tricking someone to install it. Once its installed, it can do everything its been given privileges to do.

Remember tho, only today Apple pushed out the final fix for the Java based trojan!

Are you referring to "FlashBack?"
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/12/apple-releases-java-update-to-remove-flashback-malware/

 

[Krash]

No computer nor network in the world is secure, it is purely a matter of time before they are broken if there are people committed enough to breaking them.

The reason Mac's have, to now, escaped from heavy infection rates or attempts is because of the relatively small numbers of them when compared to Windows machines (same with Linux etc). After all, it's a numbers game so you wouldn't really target the "lesser known computer user".

This is now changing and Mac's and OSX will see more and more concerted attempts to infect and take control of them, the fact that OSX does ask for "permission" to make a change will only be so effective because, ultimately, if a person can be tricked (and they can) then the best security in the world is utterly useless.

 

[RevaxMedia]

But I would say that is purely down to user error and not the OS, it's a big issue for Windows, viruses like the Millenium Bug required minimum user input.

Lets not forget how much resources an antivirus and firewall uses - which is why Macs may run a little better "spec for spec"

 

[trebor8]

Never thought hackers were that discerning

 

[KarlAustin]

Macs may ask for permission - but if the hole is inside something that already has permission, as was the case here with Java then it's not going to mean anything. In this instance the user just had to visit a website, nothing else, no downloads, nothing to click.

 

[Subbynet]

Are you referring to "FlashBack?"
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/12/apple-releases-java-update-to-remove-flashback-malware/

Yep... It took 3 updates by Apple to close the hole* that was already closed by Oracle on other platforms. Instead Apple likes to use it's own implementation of Java, and that means Apple users have waited 6 weeks longer than Windows users.

* ps. When I said Apple closed the hole, I meant they mostly closed it, but some versions of Flashback still work. As is admitted by Apple.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5242

 

[garyk]

Yep Java updates are a joke which is why I dont install it on either OS X or windows, each update is typically 100MB. About time it was rid of, always slow never fully delivered on its write once run anywhere. I hate (and always have hated) Java with a passion.

 

[Nala]

I'm sure I'll probably regret bothering to join this discussion, but here goes!


It's a trojan that tricks the user - the only way that a Mac will be infected ( at least so far ) as it requires the user password to be installed. It pretends to be flash player ( and possibly updates to ) and exploits the aformentioned Java vulnerability to prompt installation and inputting the user password.

When installed it is reported to disable OSX malware updates and I have seen it mentioned that it allows incoming connections - I'd guess by disabling the firewall ( I can't see it being able to do that if the computer is behind a router firewall but there you go ). It may do other things as well, but I got bored trying to find it.

If you don't receive the new Java update from apple (only for 10.6 & 7 not previous OS's) then I'd guess you have it as the automatic updating for malware and security risks is meant to be disabled.

I didn't have it I received the update and ClamXav found nothing on whole computer scan and I use it to scan all incoming files and downloads anyway. Also it has been stated that 'Little Snitch' defeated it, to quote 'if it detected Little Snitch was installed it bailed and deleted itself' ( these are not my words ).

Just like I said before on another thread, be careful and don't get tricked

Speaking of being tricked, why is it that only Russian 'security' firms where crying aloud with numbers of infected machines - all trying to sell things to the unwary.

After all RUSSIA!! One of the most corrupt of developed countries! I think I'll pass thanks