MarkCDodd said: I have been in the IT industry for over 30 years. Used to have my own chain of computer stores.

I used to love selling Macs which made up about 10% of my total computer sales. They were, and are, high quality machines.

But they aren't, and never will be, better than a IBM PC based Personal Computer. Not if the criteria are:

a) Price

b) Choice

c) Software Catalog

The perpetual myth that Macs and their operating systems are somehow safer then Windows is the biggest con job ever.

The fact is, if a hacker is going to spend time writing a worm or virus, does he/she want to concentrate on the 95% of IBM based PCs or the Macs? Of course they are going to target the biggest, but not necessarily the easiest to infiltrate, user base.

There are serious flaws found in Mac security on a regular basis but nobody bothers to exploit them and the average user isn't going to be receiving the security bulletins or read the relevant website that those who work in IT do.

Windows Vista is nice, but slow. Windows XP is basic, but fast. The Mac operating systems are pretty but lack the same depth of software and choice the Windows user has.

MarkCDodd said: I have been in the IT industry for over 30 years. Used to have my own chain of computer stores.

I used to love selling Macs which made up about 10% of my total computer sales. They were, and are, high quality machines.

But they aren't, and never will be, better than a IBM PC based Personal Computer. Not if the criteria are:

a) Price

b) Choice

c) Software Catalog

The perpetual myth that Macs and their operating systems are somehow safer then Windows is the biggest con job ever.

The fact is, if a hacker is going to spend time writing a worm or virus, does he/she want to concentrate on the 95% of IBM based PCs or the Macs? Of course they are going to target the biggest, but not necessarily the easiest to infiltrate, user base.

There are serious flaws found in Mac security on a regular basis but nobody bothers to exploit them and the average user isn't going to be receiving the security bulletins or read the relevant website that those who work in IT do.

Windows Vista is nice, but slow. Windows XP is basic, but fast. The Mac operating systems are pretty but lack the same depth of software and choice the Windows user has.

iaculch said: Thats not true. Heaps of people have macs now and 'how many people have macs' does not justify how many viruses windows computers have and how little macs have. Its just not very logical.

Cham-balam said: iaculch said: Thats not true. Heaps of people have macs now and 'how many people have macs' does not justify how many viruses windows computers have and how little macs have. Its just not very logical.

I look at my school, and my friends.

Out of the 500 computers at school, i think only 30 are macs, and that's a multimedia classroom that runs ONLY mac programs. Maybe an iMac here that is only ever used as windows.

No friends of mine have one except one whos dad teaches that multimedia thing.

I've never seen one mac user in my life that i know in person,.

Rus_A7 said: LOL!

"It's mac's fault"

Loving them. As useless as Apple's products are, their marketing department are geniuses.

annirowe said: Rus_A7 said: LOL!

"It's mac's fault"

Loving them. As useless as Apple's products are, their marketing department are geniuses.

What they dont advertise is how defensive us Mac owners become!!!! DONT GET ME STARTED!!!

hahah

Cham-balam said: iaculch said: Thats not true. Heaps of people have macs now and 'how many people have macs' does not justify how many viruses windows computers have and how little macs have. Its just not very logical.

I look at my school, and my friends.

Out of the 500 computers at school, i think only 30 are macs, and that's a multimedia classroom that runs ONLY mac programs. Maybe an iMac here that is only ever used as windows.

No friends of mine have one except one whos dad teaches that multimedia thing.

I've never seen one mac user in my life that i know in person,.

annirowe said: Probably due to Mac's superior uptime. (Cue PC related defence)

Rus_A7 said: annirowe said: Probably due to Mac's superior uptime. (Cue PC related defence)

PCs are just as good if you know how to use them. I hardly ever have to restart my PC, and it only ever crashes if I overclock. All this nonsense of PCs being unstable, is just noobs complaining about their inability to use a pc properly.

annirowe said: Rus_A7 said: annirowe said: Probably due to Mac's superior uptime. (Cue PC related defence)

PCs are just as good if you know how to use them. I hardly ever have to restart my PC, and it only ever crashes if I overclock. All this nonsense of PCs being unstable, is just noobs complaining about their inability to use a pc properly.

20 Years of building, supporting, and just plain using wouldnt class me as a Noob! Dos, 3.1, 3.11, 95, NT, 98, ME, 2000, XP, XP MCE, Vista..... Been through them all. (Did I forget any??)... For general day to day use I would have more uptime on a mac, and If I pushed it I would think the same!

Okay and another what happens if you dont know how to use? What happens if its just the Noob in the office? Would you prefer a system that is forgiving (mac) or a BSOD?