>
New Topic
>
Topic Locked
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> Apple Macintosh and Sony Ericsson issues
Bookmark topic
Max, I have a PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0 its great.
But you have to admit the OS itself has setbacks. The 32 bit transfer, itll soon be improved in longhorn tho, also for more advanced users, who use graphic and webdesign utilities, mac is the obvious choice. Due to the stability issues associated with windows.
--
Posted: 2005-04-03 22:14:10
Edit :
Quote
All OS's have their shortcomings but Windoze seems to take this to a new level. Almost daily security updates, viruses, etc.... Mac OS X may not be the best in the world, but there are very few OS's out there that compare with it outside of UNIX.
--
Posted: 2005-04-03 22:56:26
Edit :
Quote
I agree that when really pushed hard a mac is more stable, all things considered.
However for pure business use windows can be setup to run as stable and as reliably as OSX, and is much cheaper. I hardly had to touch the 200 machine lan I managed - it hummed along fine. Sites that have lot's of machines with windows crashing all the time just have poor technical support, I hate to say it, but I think it's true.
More initial care and attention is required when setting up windows (the right patches, updates settings, security, virus settings etc,), whereas you can set and forget a mac. You also have to be more careful with software, but most of that is due to crap software that could be written better, nothing to do with Windows per se.
But as far as antivirus goes, AVG doesn't suck memory, it's free, and excellent protection. Don't use Norton's as a benchmark, it's bloatware from hell. Viruses will start to affect linux and mac as those os's become more of a target (through increasing market share), so don't rest on your laurels over virus protection
I could use the mac no viruses argument to explain why my phone doesn't get viruses; it's about exposure not technical ability to avoid a virus.
Some thoughtful attention to the IE security settings also makes a HUGE difference in vulnurability on Windows machines. Or don't use IE, no one is forcing anyone, although MS tried and lost
Really, most people I find who bitch about windows don't actually know how it really works. They stuff around on windows and can't deal with the complexity of it compared to mac or linux (which are much leaner) and don't realise they just have to stop bitching about the inefficiencies and just understand them, they would then make better windows techs.
--
Posted: 2005-04-04 01:38:22
Edit :
Quote
@Max
Good points. Mac's are more expensive mainly because of the "Cool" factor. However, I will point out that the fact that most Mac's are fire and forget, and for me this is worth the extra money. I was an avid Windows user. I got tired of sitting there watching the hour glass spin. I decided right then and there to go by a Mac. It was an semi-impulse purchase. I already had an iPod, running with Windows, but after the hour glass thing, I got fed up and decided to just go buy a Mac. I find that BT is much smoother, WiFi is totally transparent. I would put my 15 inch, 1.5 Ghz up against any laptop out there on the market and would be very confident that my Mac could hang. My version of MS Office for Mac (2004 version) leaves my Windows friends saying, "not bad, or I wish mine was like that". As for the virus stuff, I know that it is only a matter of time before we have to watch out. You are true enough about Norton. It seems to be the biggest resource hog on the market. My Mac runs so much better without it. Another thing about Mac OS that I like is the fact that I have loaded it on my iPod so that from time to time, I can defrag my Mac's HD's.
--
Posted: 2005-04-04 01:59:38
Edit :
Quote
@sapporobaby, also excellent points. I must admit, along with the G5 dual, a powerbook would be very nice
I'd run linux on the G5, and mac osx on the powerbook, and windowx xp in vpc!
ipod's are cool kit, but maybe they don't interface with pc's well because apple hasn't tried too hard with the drivers..?
try belkin adapters if you want to experience even more heart wrenching computer woes!!
Incidently I'm finding the native XP sp2 drivers for Bluetooth to be heaps more stable and faster than the OEM software. Soon BT adapters in windows will be as seemless as apple (then will come wireless usb!)
--
Posted: 2005-04-04 04:42:13
Edit :
Quote
Rumor has it that OS X 10.4 will really put the hit on Long"wait"horn. BT 2.0 will be out soon. Fast, better and more stable, and part of Mac OS. Have you seen the uptake to Mac from Windows? The U.S. Navy switched from Windows Server to the Mac X-Serve. Actually, I want one of these. I plan on buying a Mac Mini and tuning that into a server. I will max the memory, put in a larger HD, BT and WiFi, and then the world will be right again.
--
Posted: 2005-04-04 04:51:51
Edit :
Quote
Although this thread seems to have become a Windows vs Mac discussion rather than a SonyEricsson issues thread, I just wanted to say a couple of things:
Most people assume that the reason Mac OS X is less of a virus, spyware and security threat is due to its low market share and lower attractive-ness to the people that write such things. This is true to a certain extent, but its also down to the fact that Mac OS X is just more secure from the out-set than Windows.
- The usual methods of virus replication just don't exist in Mac OS X.
- A user HAS to enter their admin password for anything to be installed in Mac OS X. Therefore its impossible for spyware to install itself without the user noticing. Obviously this doesn't stop rogue programs installing nasties when the user thinks they're installing something else, but it stops these pop-up window, auto-download, run and install background programs from web-sites installing.
- Even after releasing XP SP2, Microsoft insists on leaving many internet services that spyware and viruses use active, even though they are not required by most users.
See these articles for the security issues still in XP after SP2:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/02/winxpsp2_security_review/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/17/xphome_sp2/
Yes, it is possible to set-up a Windows PC to be 99% immune to the majority of threats. However, this requires the sort of knowledge only a trained IT expert would have. Most Windows users aren't IT experts and don't even know what services to enable/disable or how to do it even if they understood the merits of it.
Microsoft should supply Windows set-up to be totally secure by default. Then have an easy to use and understand interface for average users to enable services only when they need them, and explain in clear language what the potential side effects of enabling certain things could be. They shouldn't supply the system wide open from day one.
And finally, here's an article on the relative costs of a Mac (from a Linux site):
Macs Are More Expensive, Right?
--
Posted: 2005-04-04 10:59:08
Edit :
Quote
Hey Jools,
You are talking about the Open Raw Sockets that Windows uses right? This was a problem with Windows back about 3 years ago and Microsoft said that they have no reason to address this issue. Go to
www.grc.com for more info about this. You 100% correct in that you can not install anything without Mac OS asking. This is quite common in Linux and Unix and is mean for security.
As for the compatibility between SE and Mac OS. I like the fact that I do not have to load any software to make my phones work. I do wish that SE would be more native Mac friendly but in the next release of Mac OS, this should all be moot.
--
Posted: 2005-04-04 12:05:09
Edit :
Quote
Jools, agree with everything you said.
I especially agree about ms security, it needs a lot of work. But with third party tools you can void most of the issues. For example, don't use Interent Explorer!
Yes, my 200 machine lan ran well because I can achieve the 99%. I browsed the internet most of the day while the machines hummed away nicely. I had no one helping me, I was it for technical support.
Home machines are harder to get that sort of reliability out of windows, but there are certain things you can do even then. I find certain classes of users crash windows a lot, and they are people who like to play, so if they like to play they can go and learn (or pay extra and get a mac). I didn't learn windows from a text book, I taught myself.
Yes windows is more clunky, and from an expense point of view, while mac may have corporate cost comparisons to an all windows install, they don't apply to the home user, for whom windows (and machine) can be half the cost of a mac.
And if that lan I managed had had to convert to mac's the cost would have been astronomical and there is no way I could have justified it to management, even if all the machines actually needed replacement. Remember, you may not believe it, but those machines had very little downtime, as good as any mac network I have seen.
The cost comparisons on that link are stacked, I could do a similar comparison that puts windows machines on top.
The comparison actually shows that for low end, a $500 dell does the same as a $800 emac! It calls this a "small" difference in price, take those prices to the Managing Director when asking for 200 machines and see what you are allowed to buy!
When it comes to more powerful tasks, then the cost differential starts to even out, and arguably, come out on top for the mac (cheaper) at the ultra high end. However they are talking a dell with xeon processers, not exactly common kit, the comparison would be more accurate with dual P4 chips.
Windows has it's place, as does mac, as does linux.
@sapporobaby, re native support for BT in next version of MAC, Windows XP (SP2) already supports BT natively
I haven't loaded a driver for my BT dongles on any XP SP2 machine yet!
--
Posted: 2005-04-05 01:45:32
Edit :
Quote
@Max-Meister:)
I have not loaded one driver. My WiFi worked out of the box, as did my BT. BT 2.0 is the next version to BT over 1.1. BT is not native to Windows, as it is not part of the kernel to the best of my knowledge. Any BT that you are currently using must have had the drivers included in the "driver cache" on the XP SP 2 update. If you were using XP with SP 1, then you had to load a driver. Remember, I only switched to Mac about a year ago, so I know XP rather well.
--
Posted: 2005-04-05 02:13:45
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Topic Locked
