Is The Apple OS More Stable Than MS Windows?

[ki11erDM]

Yeah, except that Apple doesn't make you prove you don't have a stolen copy before they'll let you get the latest security updates, doesn't demand to install spyware on your machine (WGA) and most important of all doesn't use Direct X. Which is one of the the biggest sources of security flaws and exploits in windows, due to the horrible holes it pokes in any security set up on windows.

So basically what I am reading is “Macs are great because you can steal software.” How is that a positive? If you want free software then go Linux.

And WGA does NOT prevent you from installing security updates (when it is working right), even on known ‘stolen copies’. The OS gives you time to fix the fact you have stolen software (when it is working right). And if you are a pirate you don’t even care about that because you can just hack it and get around it. And if you use iTunes you have spyware on your Mac or PC so Apple has very little to brag about on that end of things.

And why do you have an issue with DirectX? Do you mean ActiveX? That was a bad decision they made ages ago and we are still suffering from it… but it has nothing to do with Vista.

 

[Umbran]

I think the answer is "that depends".

Remember that the issue isn't actually Windows or OS X alone - issues often lie in the overall package of hardware and software. With a Mac, you're talking about a fairly unified front there, but not so with machines on Windows. It is not really fair to compare a Mac to any old machine thrown together by an individual, or by a second-rate provider. Out of the box Dell or IBM/Lenovo machines have good track records.

I use an IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad T-60 laptop running WinXP at work. It has plenty of punch for basic office-type computing, and the thing has never let me down. I've a T-30 at home which is a bit long in the tooth, so that it's slow working with video and such, but it is rock-solid stable. My Mac-using colleagues have come to say that the extra stability of Macs is a myth, as their machines crash as often if not more often than the Windows users here.

Any machine will get flaky if you put lots of two-bit software on it, or muck with it sufficiently beyond the original specs.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I thought it was the case that you can download security updates for Windows, no matter what. Just not other things, like the latest version of Windows Media Player or whatever.

The only reasons I'm not completely sure are that a) I'm running genuine XP, and b) um, I haven't researched it.

It's just the impression I've got from various people. What *is* the case with that anyway?

 

[Rackhir]

What? When you install a program it asks you if you want to install it… OSX does the same thing as do most modern Linux distros. In fact I find OSX to be far more intrusive than Vista when it comes to the user security. But that probably has to do with when I am dealing with a Apple I am typically fixing some issue and it requires local admin.

Popping up a notification that something is being installed, is called basic security. If you do in fact do the things you say you do, this should be obvious to you. You don't want stuff being installed on a computer without notification that this is happening.

Likewise you don't want changes being made to critical OS files and the system without warning. This is why under OS X and Linux users don't run as an admin, like users generally do under windows.

This is one of the changes MS tried to make with Vista and in typical MS fashion they screwed it up and made it way too obnoxiously intrusive.

And do you even know they sell laptops? You should go in and look at the mouse pad on those… they are single button. And no it has not stopped being a joke.

You said mice, not track pads and there are ways to get multi-button functionality on those as well. It's only a joke with those who don't know anything about macs.

Yeah, except that Apple doesn't make you prove you don't have a stolen copy before they'll let you get the latest security updates, doesn't demand to install spyware on your machine (WGA) and most important of all doesn't use Direct X. Which is one of the the biggest sources of security flaws and exploits in windows, due to the horrible holes it pokes in any security set up on windows.

So basically what I am reading is “Macs are great because you can steal software.” How is that a positive? If you want free software then go Linux.

No, what it means is that Apple doesn't treat you like a criminal unlike Microsoft. Which demands the right to turn off your computer and deny you access to your data.

In any case denying people security updates for their OS, illegally duplicated or not, only increases the number of compromised and virus spreading machines, which isn't in anyone's interest.

And WGA does NOT prevent you from installing security updates (when it is working right), even on known ‘stolen copies’. The OS gives you time to fix the fact you have stolen software (when it is working right). And if you are a pirate you don’t even care about that because you can just hack it and get around it. And if you use iTunes you have spyware on your Mac or PC so Apple has very little to brag about on that end of things.

You can't install those security updates or even get access to them unless you install the WGA. Which someone without the technical skills to get around isn't going to do.

iTunes doesn't kill your computer or even stop you from using music.

And why do you have an issue with DirectX? Do you mean ActiveX? That was a bad decision they made ages ago and we are still suffering from it… but it has nothing to do with Vista.

Brain fart, yes I meant Active X. Active X was created to help kill Netscape by making internet browsing dependent on proprietary MS standards. It's intimately tied to IE which MS has spent the past 10 years intimately tying into windows. So it has quite a bit to do with Vista/windows.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So I decided to look it up. Usually better that way.

Q: Will non-genuine Windows Vista users be able to receive critical security updates?
A: Yes. Microsoft will make critical security updates available to non-genuine users via Automatic Updates.

Link.

 

[Rackhir]

So I decided to look it up. Usually better that way.



Link.

All I know is that when I was trying to use Automatic updates to patch up new XP machines at work, it would not show me anything past WGA, when I got up to that, until I had installed it. Maybe I just didn't spend enough time trying to find a way around it. You're also at the mercy of what ever MS's definition of a "Critical" security update is. Which definitely leaves out a lot of important other system updates.

One of the things that really sticks in my craw about WGA is the @#^#%$% they try to feed to us about it being for "our" benefit. Nobody with half a brain believes anyone other than MS benefits from it. If you're going to be holding us hostage with something like that, don't pretend it does anything for us.

 

[Aus_Snow]

All I know is that when I was trying to use Automatic updates to patch up new XP machines at work, it would not show me anything past WGA, when I got up to that, until I had installed it. Maybe I just didn't spend enough time trying to find a way around it. You're also at the mercy of what ever MS's definition of a "Critical" security update is. Which definitely leaves out a lot of important other system updates.

Fair enough. Can't argue with experience, really. I mean sure, I haven't come across any problems with updates, personally or - in my former place of work - professionally. But I'm quite open to the idea that there are problems. I'm hardly of the opinion that MS are saints, or what have you.

In fact, IIRC - I know, I should look it up - they weren't going to provide security (OK, critical security) updates to machines running non-genuine Windows, until it was pointed out what a security disaster this could mean for the general population of networked PCs. Or until they were pressured, more likely.

One of the things that really sticks in my craw about WGA is the @#^#%$% they try to feed to us about it being for "our" benefit. Nobody with half a brain believes anyone other than MS benefits from it. If you're going to be holding us hostage with something like that, don't pretend it does anything for us.

Yeah, I know. Corporate spin, only not at its finest or most subtle. They could at least be better at it, eh?

 

[Rackhir]

Fair enough. Can't argue with experience, really. I mean sure, I haven't come across any problems with updates, personally or - in my former place of work - professionally. But I'm quite open to the idea that there are problems. I'm hardly of the opinion that MS are saints, or what have you.

We've got legit licenses for all our stuff at work and once you do the WGA bend over, we've not had any problems. But there have been incidents where the WGA servers have gone down or false negatives get generated that have locked people out of their computers.

Part of what I was also trying to get at was that if Joe-Ignorant computer user with a copy of Win XP he borrowed from Frank, hits the WGA installation, he's probably not going to go checking the faq to find out if he can get critical security updates. He's just not going to install WGA and avoid the whole updates thing most likely.

In fact, IIRC - I know, I should look it up - they weren't going to provide security (OK, critical security) updates to machines running non-genuine Windows, until it was pointed out what a security disaster this could mean for the general population of networked PCs. Or until they were pressured, more likely.

I'm certain I read this as well on one of the tech news websites.

 

[ki11erDM]

This is one of the changes MS tried to make with Vista and in typical MS fashion they screwed it up and made it way too obnoxiously intrusive.

I think you watch too much TV. Just because someone makes a funny ad does not make that ad true. Heheh

In my day to day use of my own Vista PCs I very rarely get any 'obnoxiously intrusive' that you speak of. You should only get UAC warnings if you are installing software or changing OS files or settings. And those are just not things you do day in and day out. Now if you are not an admin on the system then things are totally different... which is a great thing.

You said mice,

You got me there. The mighty mouse is a darn good mouse. The single button track pad is 'teh suck'.

No, what it means is that Apple doesn't treat you like a criminal unlike Microsoft. Which demands the right to turn off your computer and deny you access to your data.

In any case denying people security updates for their OS, illegally duplicated or not, only increases the number of compromised and virus spreading machines, which isn't in anyone's interest.

This. Is. Not. True. You are provided security updates (but only security ones). The very reason you mentioned is why they let you get security updates. And you still have access to all your data, if you don't resolve your licensing issue with them in a timely manner it might not be usable on that system... but you still have access to it. That is not to say they have a perfect system. It has had a few well publicized failures, but as a rule your statement is not true.

yes I meant Active X.

Yea it needs to die. And I think they know that... but they made some really piss poor decisions years ago. They are just dealing with lazy programmers that dont want to stop using IE6 with ActiveX : (

To the OP: I am sorry this turned into a Apple/Microsoft battle. Computers suck. All of them. The most important thing is to make sure the action on the keyboard is good and the monitor looks good to you and it can run the programs you need in a timely manor. hehe

 

[ki11erDM]

I mean sure, I haven't come across any problems with updates, personally or - in my former place of work - professionally.

There have been some major issues with it. I know SP3 for XP really screwed us over because a few system did not have the right MS installer and later it would not auto update. MS’s patch system is definitely not great by any means. But it is so tremendously better in Vista. Making it a standalone application was the best thing they could have done.