NDRU said:

OS 9 was ova 5 years ago.

JediTodd said:

I never said market share had NOTHING to do with it. I said that argument only gets you so far. a) Previous version of Apple software were hacked/attacked with viruses when they had a far smaller, less hip installed base. b) It's still a speculative discussion because we can't pop into a reality where Apple has a 90% share to see what the situation would be like. c) It's a moot point today when it comes to using or buying one. Apple could increase their installed base by several million over the next several years and they'd still have less than a 15%% market share in the US.

When it comes to the average end user it makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE why a Mac is safer/more secure - it just is. In the real world, that is all that matters.

As far as security "holes" go... of course, every piece of software ever invented has them. OS X has quite a few just by the very nature of using open source software because it automatically inherits the vulnerabilities in the *nix software it borrows from.



Yup, this is the challenge I made previous reference to where the organizers had to actually relax their rules. The original contest specified that the hacker had to 'break in' from the outside via remote access... no one could do it, so they had to make it easy. In the end the hacker had to send an email to the user on the MacBook, then the user had to manually open the email and manually click on the link in the email to go to the malicious site. This is as much a user issue as it is a vulnerability. If a user will just stupidly click on anything, or install anything sent to them then there will always be a problem.




Oh come on... that's all marketing. Every single computer vendor out there has buzz words and marketing spiel plastered everywhere.



Actually, for the price of Vista Ultimate and the upgrades most users need to take advantage of it, you can probably buy a new Mac mini with OS X and iLife for less.



Are you intentionally looking for things that aren't there? This refers to not needing a new Printer, new Monitor, etc... most of these bullet points are there for people who are thinking of switching and are perfectly fine.

Graycap23 said:

5 years isn't that long for something that costs over $1000 to last. Thing is, the computers work fine, they're just becoming unusable.

NDRU said:

Ummm, OS X has been available via retail since March of 2001. OS 9 has been a dead, obsolete system for years upon years. If your employer purposely held themselves back then that's not a problem created by Apple. Even the very latest version of OS X will run on anything made in the past 5 or 6 years without much fuss at all (maybe a cheap memory upgrade depending on the model, if anything).

NDRU said:

If those computers are any type of G4 or better then they will run the latest OS X just fine. OS X 10.4 will even run on some of the G3's, including the cheapest iMacs. I do this upgrade for customers every week.

jtfolden said:

So what would be the cost of upgrading, say, 10 machines? Do you have to pay for each one, or can you buy one set of software and do them all?

NDRU said:

"Technically" speaking, you can just buy one copy of OS X and install it on all the Macs you own. Apple does not use License/Product Keys or track usage of their OS like MS does. There's nothing to prevent you from doing this at all. Retail on the current version is around $129.00.

"Legally" you're supposed to have a License for each system. If you go that route then Apple has what's called a "Family Pack", which is a copy of the software and 5 licenses for $199.00.

jtfolden said:

So worst case scenario is about $400 for 10 machines? No reason not to do that. Even a broke ass company like mine can afford it, and to use a cliche, can't really afford not to anymore.

NDRU said:

Yup, assuming they have enough memory (and if they happen to be Power Mac's then they most likely do) then it's not bad at all.

I've got one machine here right now still running OS 9. It's an ancient beast from 1998 that I just keep around to help with diagnostic issues on the occasional other ancient beasts that come in for service and it's virtually impossible at this point to get much working with that OS. I still have a few customers that use it but they're ones that need very little functionality, no internet, and more or less just use the machines as glorified typewriters.

jtfolden said:

We can do most of what we need to do on OS9, but we can't sample anything new, and the internet is getting harder to use.

On a day to day basis it's fine, but more and more often we're presented with the sad truth that we're outdated.

jtfolden said:

Most people don't need the Ultimate edition. One of the main things I use my system for is gaming, and even I don't need Ultimate. Home Premium is perfectly fine and can be purchased for around $120 for the OEM version. http://www.tigerdirect.co...=WEM1379SS


I think monitors are pretty darn universal. Why would anyone need a new monitor just because they're switching to Vista? As for printers, we can blame HP for deciding that it won't support Vista with its older models. I haven't heard of issues with other printer manufacturers. In the original statement, it was asking about upgrading to Vista vs buying a Mac. That implies that the person already has a PC and not a Mac. Therefore the person choosing would STILL have to buy a new computer. I don't think I'm looking for things that aren't there. "Stuff" can be anything including the computer itself. The bullet points are just plain silly. Apple's advertising can totally be compared with political ads: if you're behind and you know it, start running attack ads against the opposition. You don't see MS running ads bashing Macs, and it's not because there isn't ammunition. It's because they don't need to.

I'm sorry. This whole Mac vs. PC thing just gets me all heated up. Nothing personal.

JediTodd said:

It's sad that MS releases crippled sub-sets of the OS just so they can gouge the consumer for the full product. Also, those OEM copies - not only does MS frown on people buying it without hardware BUT the License is non-tranferable. Once you've activated it on a specific system then it's a dead end license. If you buy even a new motherboard, according to MS, you must buy a new copy of Vista as the previous one you just spent $100+ for is no longer legal.



That Apple page isn't there to assure you that your monitor works with Vista, it's there to assure you that it will work with the Mac (you know - what they're trying to sell you)...



What original statement? The original poster didn't ask about Vista or buying a Mac.. and the original post you replied to from ArielB was a simple statement of opinion that the troubles caused by upgrading to Vista may spur people to buy a Mac. More people are just likely to stick with XP until they buy a new computer but it will no doubt spur a few Mac sales. ArielB was right that after the initial push for Vista systems that some manufacturer's re-introduced XP as an option due to incompatibilities.



Actually, they can just be compared with everyone else who's trying to hype a product and make a buck. ...but you know what they say about political satire getting easier and easier every year? - the same olds true with pointing out MS's flaws.

The fact is: Most system sales these days are due to people upgrading, not from people buying a brand ewn computer for the first time. It only makes PERFECT sense that Apple would be courting the largest user base. They don't need to preach to the choir and Linux users certainly aren't anything to worry about.



You're kidding right? MS started a big advertising campaign last year or so - "Tales of a Windows Switcher" that supposedly detailed the true story of someone who switched back from a Mac to Windows. Just as the campaign hit, it came to light that not only was the whole story fictitious but that the person was just a model playing a role. The advertisements were scrapped and the "Window Switchers" page was pulled rather quickly. MS has a history of being paranoid about competition all the way back to the days of "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" (this was an actual development moto), to intentionally making Windows throw up an error when it was running on DR-DOS, for no reason at all, to the days of underhanded warfare with IBM's OS/2.

...and don't think MS isn't concerned about Apple right now. MS and it's affiliates can't makes a multimedia store or a media player to compete with iTunes/iPods to save their life and they're going to have trouble with the iPhone, too. All that leads to a Halo effect for Macs, which is why their sales have been increasing.

Furthermore, MS doesn't 'visibly' bash Macs much any longer because they make major $$$ selling Office for Mac. The fact that all new Macs are capable of running Windows is, also, another possible sale in their eyes. Apple looses nothing if someone ends up deciding to install Windows as they make most of their money on the hardware anyway. MS looses when a non-Windows PC is sold. Why do you think their contracts with vendors, for years and years, has introduced penalties to manufacturer's that offer or pre-load alternatives? Paranoia...



Well, you shouldn't let it do that... Why does it matter to you personally what someone else chooses to run?
[Edited 6/6/07 16:29pm]

jtfolden said:

Actually, I've heard of cases where the motherboard has gone bad and MS allowed them to transfer the OEM to the new board. For the amount of time people go through motherboards, two motherboard life expectancies (due to upgrade or otherwise) are almost about as long as whatever version of Windows is out there.


I'm not referring to the original post in this thread. I'm talking about the original statement in Apple's bullet list: "Thinking about upgrading to Vista? Even more reasons to get a Mac."


Never saw them. Speaking of fictitious, how about those Mac ads?


People can run whatever they want. I don't have issues with that. It's the smugness and arrogance I see in quite a few Mac users that burns me up. People have legitimate questions regarding something on their PCs, and some Mac user comes in and doesn't address the issue but instead pushes onto them a Mac. It's the same smugness I see along with questionable and often misleading statements regarding Windows in Macs ads, and that's the reason why I hate those commercials with a passion.

JediTodd said:

Interesting viewpoint. Like I've stated, I've used BOTH 4 years (concurrently) and quite honestly, the MAC in my opinion is just a better machine and a better OS.

JediTodd said:

Yes, MS used to allow this but a new addition to the EULA, etc came down the pipe last year and now that is no longer "legally" the case in the US. Now, you can be creative on the phone and get around that with the clueless support people in India who handle product activation but I've had more than one customer be refused activation recently. It's beyond ridiculous that MS thinks they're not making enough money on Windows that they have to charge people twice. Note, this issue does not effect Upgrade copies, only OEM.



Of course you didn't, MS had to dump the whole thing from embarrassment. Couldn't they even find one real person to tell their tale?

...and which Mac ads, the switcher ads were all real people off the street, telling their story. The new PC/Mac ads are slightly exaggerated at times but they do tend to be heavily based in reality, I'm afraid.



Then you're looking at it with bias. A select subset of people running every OS both evangelize and knock the other alternatives. Select Linux users do it. Select Windows users do it constantly, like the lamer statements about Macs being toys and having no software. MS completely and utterly stretches reality in most of their marketing. No one has a corner on the market in that area, imo.

However, Mac users do have valid reason to be self confident in their choice.
In 6+ years of servicing Windows and Mac customers I've never had a Mac customer come in with:

-a virus infection
-spyware
-an OS problem that required fresh re-install of OS X
-etc...

They are, without a doubt, less troublesome machines.
It's too early to tell if Vista will improve this situation at all. They need to get past the compatibility problems first.