So come on guys and girls, out of all us music people, who here uses the superior (and most creative ) computer? I'm a Mac of course...

MacBook Pro for me!

LOL..this could cause a flame war. I'm not a Mac or a PC, I'm a person

I use Windows myself. I find Macs just way too overpriced. And Windows, being so popular, has twice (or thrice?) the support and apps available. Don't count on it for security, though.

I just wish Linux was better supported and more user-friendly (it already is user-friendly, but not to a person like me who likes constant tweaks). Then I'll take a Linux box over a Mac or PC any time.

Btw, I run Ubuntu on my Windows laptop on dual-boot.

Mac is the only way to go! Never (and I mean never) have I had a virus problem and everything is just so uncomplicated. Yea, Mac!

I can't imagine ever being able to afford Mac stuff. Linux on a PC suits me -- inexpensive, reliable, and powerful. I find it hard to understand why anybody would use anything else, to be quite honest.

If Mac isn't for you, that's the very best solution. And with open source stuff like Wine* you can run your favorite Windows apps. I love my Mac, and will be replacing my old PC with a new iMac soon.


* Builds are available for most common flavors of Linux (Ubuntu, Red Hat, Fedora, Gentoo), as well as Solaris and BSD. It's open source, so you can compile it on any Unix system for yourself. You can do it on Mac OS X (all you need is X11 and the latest version of Xcode). Xcode 3.x cannot compile 16 bit code, so you need register with the Apple Developer's Connection to get Xcode 2.x if you want 16-bit support. However, for most people, CrossOver is a commercial version of Wine for Mac OS X that will be easier to set up.

I have a PC, my dad has a Mac. Macs have better security because the computer is actually made by the same people who make the operating system.

MacBook Pro and iMac! Easier to use and no viruses, thus far. Love my iPhone too

No, it's more secure because it's Unix. Unix's strict compartmentalizing of the system makes it a very tough nut to crack. Basically, the only things that can be done are trojans that trick the user into allowing them to do something, by giving an admin password for instance. The way Unix is organized also prevents the day-to-day crap that happens in Windows, like an application crash taking down the whole system.

Or something overwrites system files, thus destroying the Windows installation. That can happen. Believe me. Unix solves all these problems by permissions. For instance, only the root can write to system files in Unix.

The fact that it's made by the same people who put together the hardware means that it runs very efficiently on said hardware.

Ah right. I knew there was something about it being made by the same people, and it looks like I got my facts wrong. Thanks for filling me in.

No problem!

Good to see a nice discussion
I personally love Macs because, although they're more expensive, they're so much more intuitive and almost never break down, so that little extra cost pays off in the end!

I do love my Mac(s)....I've got an iMac, and a Mac Mini. After the first of the year, I'll likely get a 13" MBPro. I live in the Windows world, too....but if I can choose, I'll choose the Mac. For any of the creative / music stuff I do, it just works better for me.

Mac is so much more friendly to music applications. It does have some drawbacks though. I sometimes wish I could get in on some of the discussion threads about audio setup and latency problems over in the Digital Pianos area, but with my Mac I just never have those issues to contribute :-(

Mac here too, MacBook Pro to be precise. It's my 1st Mac but Windows Vista finished me with Windows. I had to get something else!!

Am loving the Mac - easy to use, very well built and so far absolutely bullet proof. Those daily Windows crashes are but a distant memory. :-)

I'm on PC mainly because that's what was given to me. Basically, someone in the family decided it was time to replace instead of upgrade and I got their old PC. I've never had a Mac so I guess I don't really know what I might be missing, but I can say for sure that I do like itunes much better than Mindows Media Player.

In principle, there's no reason why modern versions of MS Windows couldn't offer the same level of immunity to viruses and nasties. The process and filesystem security models are both pretty solid. Unfortunately, it's taking developers and users a long time to cotton on to this. A lot of Windows software still works on the basis that it is subject to no security restrictions, and doesn't work on more secure installations. And a lot of users can't get their heads around the idea of using different login accounts to do different jobs -- something that is meat and drink in the Unix world.

I'm sure things will catch up, eventually. I'm a long term Unix user (more than 20 years), but I've been quite impressed with Windows 7. Things are definitely moving along. I reckon in about five years time you'll be able to buy a version of Windows that is as good as what I can now get from Linux for free

....Fair points all. But I won't be convinced till Microsoft completely ditches archaic garbage like the Registry. Until that happens, it's still the same old Windows in my book, and much of that security will still be provided by antivirus. Heck, I've heard of people having Registry problems with 7, though granted it's pretty rare.

Separate user accounts are only one issue; Windows also needs to implement a permissions system that will prevent things from writing places they shouldn't whether it's an admin account or a lesser account. In Unix, it's not possible to write to system files unless you are running as root (not smart unless you know what you are doing!) or use the 'sudo' command in a terminal. I don't know of it's still true with 7, but there certainly used to be ways windows system files could be overwritten (with disastrous consequences, of course) without even invoking such privileges.

Unix is still >> Windows, for now. And I predict for a long time in the future, as well.


Cheers!

Well, as a long-term Linux user I'm inclined to agree. But the gap is closing, for various reasons. One reason is that mainstream Linux distributions are seeking to make themselves more appealing to the non-technical user, and introducing problems in that area that Microsoft, for all its faults, addressed years ago. A good example is the graphical boot process that most new distros favour. Windows always worked this way, and there are fallbacks for situations where the graphical boot fails. But this is a relatively new thing for Linux, and those fallbacks aren't really in place -- not where a non-technical user would know how to find them, anyhow.

The default filesystem permissions for Windows 7 are, in fact, _more_ restrictive than Linux defaults. Generally, an unprivileged user can't write _anywhere_ on a newly installed system apart from the home directory. And there isn't even a catch-all `root' account you can use to overcome permissions problems as there is on Unix -- if you create a new disk partition on Windows 7, you actually have to assign rights to the Administrator account. This has caught me out, because I'm used to the Unix approach.

Of course, the power of this new security model is completely emasculated by the tendency of Windows users to do routine word processing and whatnot with admin privileges Sadly, I'm seeing the same thing more and more among Linux users, which further reduces the advantage that Linux offers over Windows.

Well, I haven't fooled much with Win7 except on someone else's computer, so I didn't know; thanks.

Basically, you bring up the point that you can't protect a computer from the user's stupidity. All the good stuff about Unix can be quickly negated by running with more privileges than you need all the time. I run Mac OS X as admin because I need the privileges for my programming (more a hobby than anything right now! ), but I don't even consider running as root because 'sudo' takes care of the few root level things I need to do every once in a while. And I know not to give something I know nothing about my password. I really need to create a normal account for using when I take my MBP outside the house and use it in a public place, though.

Mac OS X has a particular key combinations for modifying the boot process, so they've got that addressed. I think Linux still isn't entirely suitable for the non-technical user for several reasons, that included. But I haven't tried Ubuntu, which I understand is sort of the "slickest" Linux.

Agreed. Windows can be tightly secured. But doing so would leave most users helpless. The typical PC (both Windows and Mac) have no system administrator to manage the system. So the system must remain relatively unlocked, to allow the owner to install applications and to configure the system.

That's not acceptable in a business environment. Users aren't allowed to make system changes. Only admins should do that. So things are kept tightly locked.

So the difference isn't between Unix and Windows (or between Unix and Mac). The difference is between a business environment (with admins) and a home (or small business) environment (with no proper admin at all).

I don't think `helpless' is the right word. If there is the inclination, software vendors can promote the message that there is more to responsible computer use than simply knowing how to change fonts in your word processor. Saying that users would be `helpless' if they had to be responsible is like saying car drivers are `helpless' if they have to obey the Highway Code. Of course it would be easier to learn to drive if you could assume that you're the only driver on the roads; but in practice we all accept that isn't the case, and are taught how to deal with it. And so it should be with computers.

A challenge of Microsoft and Apple and other software vendors is to make their systems enforce good security practices while at the same time being easy for a non-technical user to administer. All the major vendors have made significant steps in this direction in the last couple of years.

Microsoft in particular has a real battle here. The company really wants to do the right thing, but it faces constant protest from customers whenever it steps back, however slightly, from the `click here if you Microsoft to do your thinking for you' business model.

I suspect that the majority of computer owners don't realize that working on a computer with an Internet connection is in many ways very much like driving on a public highway, particularly the notion of shared responsibility. The sooner we put people right about that, the better for everybody.

Nice screen name. Afraid I have to disagree somewhat there...the Unix platform is better designed irrespective of security protocol.

Unix wasn't designed -- it evolved by random selection

Happily, it evolved in environments which were largely free of commercial pressures to make it appealing to end users. Whether this favourable climate persists remains to be seen.

I would disagree with Horwitzian (and agree with Kevin) about the current state of affairs with OS security. In the early days of the internet, hacking into unix/linux servers was common place and easily done. Current systems are where they are due to a significant amount of trial and error. OpenBSD is one of the few systems around that actually took a significant proactive approach to OS security. The concepts of permissions and protected address spaces has been around since the dark ages, it's a much better understanding of how to apply them (e.g. setuid) and having the horsepower to overcome performance penalties (e.g. user space vs kernel space) that have really brought it down to the common man.

Yep...I don't disagree about your point regarding security. My point is more of a performance thing rather than a security thing. No OS is going to be perfect with regards to security. Of course, some is more perfect than others.

"Don't ask a man what kind of computer he uses. If it's a Macintosh, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?" (supposed source: Tom Clancy)

Recently finished reading a book "The Cuckoo's Egg" by Clifford Stoll. Pretty interesting account of security problems on Unix systems. Didn't much care for the writing style, but the story was good, and it gave a look into the general disregard for computer security back in the late 1980s.

BTW, I have both a Mac and PC at work, but only a Mac at home. Security concerns aside, I prefer the Mac for its much more elegant and intuitive user interface. (And I can still get a Unix prompt on my Mac. )

I have a MacBook Pro, an iMac, and a Mac Pro. Only one Windows laptop in the house and it's going in the dumpster as soon as I can afford another MacBook.

I support Microsoft all day at work, and when I get home the LAST thing I want to see is Windows.

Beyond that, I like Mac for home machines, but for business I don't think they are ready for prime time due to the lack of professional/business line software availability and interoperability with such applications on the corporate network. Microsoft is simply far too entrenched on the corporate LAN/WAN to permit true Mac adoption in the business world, IMHO.

And beyond that, it's too expensive for most companies to adopt on a large scale.

Maybe someday!

Bob

They are actually coming along pretty well in that department, or so I have heard. One big problem is unresolved issues with Active Directory; however, that affects all Unix operating systems that are used in a Windows server environment.

But Apple is traditionally consumer-oriented. They certainly don't depend upon enterprise buyers to keep their profit margins.

I'm on PC,because pc can do many thing that mac can't do it