I'll have to disagree with points I saw in the last two posts.
It's been proven time and time again lately that compared to other manufacturers Apple actually often comes out cheaper when you compare similiar specs. They used to seem more expensive when you couldnt compare the components but not anymore. Yes you can find a cheapo pc that is "cheaper" but Apple will not stoop that low it's not worth it to them to play in the low end. You get what you pay for.
The unix os does have just as many tweakable if not more attributes to mess with than windows. If you owned one and thought of something you would like to change, google it and you'll probably find a hard way to do it and also a simple program for tweaking it just as you'd find with Windows. I can compare the two pretty easily as I have both operating systems running at the same time on my Apple iMac, and for those that don't know this yet - it's full speed ahead and no emulation involved.
The security through obscurity myth is repeated time and time again yet still seems to carry on. The FreeBSD Unix code that forms the foundation of OS X has been prodded by legions of expert programmers for 30 years. Many orders of magnitude more people have looked over the source code for OS X and the related BSDs than have access to Windows source code so many of the obvious holes in OS X were closed years ago. That, some suggest actually makes OS X a more attractive target. According to Apple there are at least 19 million OSX users and still zero viruses. According to CNET, the Windows Vista Beta was released "to about 10,000 testers" at the time the first Windows Vista virus arrived. Shouldn't the 10,000 small at the time Vista have been obscure enough to hide from virus writers using this logic? Does anyone reading this not think that a real OSX virus wouldn't make headlines everywhere? There are so many Windows viruses that writing a new one is hardly noticed. If I were a fame-driven cracker with solid technical skills, cracking a BSD-based system would be the fastest way to show off my capabilities. Its just too hard to do thus after 8 years of doomsday predictions it still hasn't happened. The media is to blame for carrying this myth... so and so at Symantec (who wants to sell mac users protection) says macs are unsafe (and this IS where these things start). The newspapers and tech writers pick this stuff up and write whatever it takes to get the most interested readers using the "expert" as their source. The NY Times David Pogue understands the myth after making this mistake recently wriiting "I also wrote that Mac OS X and Linux are virus-free because they offer virus writers a much smaller “audience” than Windows -- a notion that’s been much repeated in the press, most recently last week’s BusinessWeek cover story. That, as it turns out, is a myth, no matter who repeats it. There’s a much bigger reason virus writers don’t like Mac OS X and Linux."
As for the iPod being a fluke or another brand being able to do better for the money? I don't even know where to start with these statements. I agree that Apple didnt expect this much of a response and that is in itself a fluke, but for the iPod being a better product... that was planned and successfully executed. It is so hugely obvious how much better their fit and finish and attention to detail are that I can't believe someone in the graphics or sign business can't see this glaring difference between the ipod and the also-rans.
Well enough .02 for now. I don't mean to offend anyone I'm just tired of people carrying on these Apple myths.
Dave
It's been proven time and time again lately that compared to other manufacturers Apple actually often comes out cheaper when you compare similiar specs. They used to seem more expensive when you couldnt compare the components but not anymore. Yes you can find a cheapo pc that is "cheaper" but Apple will not stoop that low it's not worth it to them to play in the low end. You get what you pay for.
The unix os does have just as many tweakable if not more attributes to mess with than windows. If you owned one and thought of something you would like to change, google it and you'll probably find a hard way to do it and also a simple program for tweaking it just as you'd find with Windows. I can compare the two pretty easily as I have both operating systems running at the same time on my Apple iMac, and for those that don't know this yet - it's full speed ahead and no emulation involved.
The security through obscurity myth is repeated time and time again yet still seems to carry on. The FreeBSD Unix code that forms the foundation of OS X has been prodded by legions of expert programmers for 30 years. Many orders of magnitude more people have looked over the source code for OS X and the related BSDs than have access to Windows source code so many of the obvious holes in OS X were closed years ago. That, some suggest actually makes OS X a more attractive target. According to Apple there are at least 19 million OSX users and still zero viruses. According to CNET, the Windows Vista Beta was released "to about 10,000 testers" at the time the first Windows Vista virus arrived. Shouldn't the 10,000 small at the time Vista have been obscure enough to hide from virus writers using this logic? Does anyone reading this not think that a real OSX virus wouldn't make headlines everywhere? There are so many Windows viruses that writing a new one is hardly noticed. If I were a fame-driven cracker with solid technical skills, cracking a BSD-based system would be the fastest way to show off my capabilities. Its just too hard to do thus after 8 years of doomsday predictions it still hasn't happened. The media is to blame for carrying this myth... so and so at Symantec (who wants to sell mac users protection) says macs are unsafe (and this IS where these things start). The newspapers and tech writers pick this stuff up and write whatever it takes to get the most interested readers using the "expert" as their source. The NY Times David Pogue understands the myth after making this mistake recently wriiting "I also wrote that Mac OS X and Linux are virus-free because they offer virus writers a much smaller “audience” than Windows -- a notion that’s been much repeated in the press, most recently last week’s BusinessWeek cover story. That, as it turns out, is a myth, no matter who repeats it. There’s a much bigger reason virus writers don’t like Mac OS X and Linux."
As for the iPod being a fluke or another brand being able to do better for the money? I don't even know where to start with these statements. I agree that Apple didnt expect this much of a response and that is in itself a fluke, but for the iPod being a better product... that was planned and successfully executed. It is so hugely obvious how much better their fit and finish and attention to detail are that I can't believe someone in the graphics or sign business can't see this glaring difference between the ipod and the also-rans.
Well enough .02 for now. I don't mean to offend anyone I'm just tired of people carrying on these Apple myths.
Dave
