Ten years of OS X, from heavily criticized to heavily praised

Apple's Mac OS X has come a long way since it's debut on March 24, 2001 where it was plagued with bugs and claims of being incomplete to now a digital designer's dream, known for stability, security, and a viable alternative to Windows for the average computer user. Today, Mac OS X celebrates its 10 year birthday still going strong and looking to the future.

One interesting part of OS X is the version system that Apple uses. Instead of incrementing each new release with an entire version number, such as from 10 to 11, each version of OS X is represented as 10.x. The names of the operating system also have had a characteristic of being named after big cats, which in order of release are Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, and the upcoming Lion.

Mac OS X 10.0 Codename "Cheetah"

This is the first release of the Mac OS X line of desktop and server operating systems released on March 24, 2001. It introduced as an upgrade to the "Classic" Mac OS 9. Cheetah was created to become the next generation Macintosh operating system with a brand new Aqua interface, Mail email client, full PDF support in any application via Printing, and the Dock to help users managed applications. While many new features were brought to the Mac, many of which are still included today or improved upon, this initial release was not without bugs of its own. Interestingly enough, this OS was also bundled with Microsoft's Internet Explorer for Mac as Apple had no browser of their own, and this partnership would last until Microsoft's support for Internet Explorer for Mac ended and Apple built Safari for Panther.

OS X 10.0 had a lethargic interface that significantly hindered productivity, was very unstable compared to OS 9, and was lacking features that OS 9 offered like DVD playback and CD burning. Apple potentially released this a little too early, leaving these issues present but for everyone who paid the $129 for the new OS, they were given 10.1 for free.

Mac OS X 10.1 Codename "Puma"

Not even one year had passed by when Apple decided that their first release of OS X was not satisfactory and they got hard at work on the next version, Puma, which was released later in 2001 on September 25. This would also later become the first version of OS X to be included as the default operating system on new Macs in 2002 with the release of 10.1.2. Previously with Apple not wanting to include OS X 10.0 as a default operating system, clearly they did not even believe in it fully and really more acted like a second beta than a stable release. OS X 10.1 fixed many of the issues present in Cheetah, but system performance still was somewhat of an issue.

DVD playback, burning, and CD burning were all added, in addition to an AppleScript that could access more system components, built in support for digital cameras, scanners, and printers, and performance enhancements over 10.0. Puma is what the first release of OS X should have been, and with Apple admitting their faults and giving away copies of this for free, plus for the first time including the new OS on new Macs, this was the first widespread exposure to OS X for many users. 

The system requirements for both Cheetah and Puma are the same, only requiring 128 MB of RAM and 1.5 GB of space to install. They also ran on PowerPC G3 processors and higher, allowing those still with eMacs which came with Mac OS 9 to upgrade.

Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar

Just under one year since the release of Puma and Apple released Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" on August 24 2002. OS X 10.2 was also the first in the line of operating systems to use its codename in marketing of the product. Upon boot users noticed a major change, where their beloved "Happy Mac" which had greeted them previously was now replaced with the current grey Apple logo.

Many of Jaguar's new features come as major usability upgrades to Finder, Mail, and other Apple applications by including system wide searches and better interoperability among applications. Quartz Extreme also came along in 10.2 which moved some of the processing to the video card resulting in major performance increases and a better end-user experience.

A journaled file system and handwriting recognition came with this update as well, and system requirements remained largely unchanged, however support for G5 processors and a bump in the recommended RAM to 256MB were introduced.

Mac OS X 10.3 Panther

Another year passes by and Apple releases OS X 10.3 on October 24 2003. This release included many features that would change how people used the operating system, with many still in use and praised today. Apple finally retired the "pinstripe" theme, or at least put it at a minimum by introducing their "brushed-metal" interface that would be later replaced in Leopard with a more matte-grey.

Safari, Expose, Xcode, and Preview were all major points of focus with this release. The contract between Apple and Microsoft for Internet Explorer had ended which forced Apple to create their own web browser, Safari. Expose was introduced as an all-new way to manage windows by assigning a hotkey that users would press to make all of their open windows to be displayed in a stylized thumbnail-view. Many Mac users swear by this feature now and can't live without it. Xcode was Apple's answer to a way that users could develop for OS X, and it gained many fans where it is now used to develop applications for OS X, iPhone, and iPad. Preview, the incredibly handy tool to quickly view PDFs or work with images was also included.

Panther included newfound support for Zip archives, Fax, and interoperability with Microsoft Windows. The system requirements were for the first time heavily tweaked, now restricting the update to newer Macs with a New World ROM with built-in USB, processor of at least 233 MHz, and 512 MB of RAM recommended. The Mac OS 9 "Classic" environment was still fully supported as well.

This release, with all of the new features not having to focus strictly on the core OS itself showed that OS X finally had become a stable and well-accepted environment for computing.

Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger

Instead of the traditional annual release, Tiger took about one-and-a-half years to be released after Panther, publicly being available on April 29 2005. Tiger comes as one of the largest updates to OS X, including Spotlight, Dashboard, new versions of Safari and Mail, Automator, VoiceOver, Xcode 2 and an integrated Dictionary and Thesarus.

For the first time, search on OS X was completely integrated with the system and applications. Previously there had been Sherlock, but Spotlight is always available, being at the top-right of the screen where just one click and the user may begin searching. Files are indexed as they are created, which helps with performance in the search-as-you-type function of Spotlight.

Dashboard added a full mini-application layer to OS X using what are called "Widgets" to bring information and tools all to a single place. Widgets ranged from Weather to mini-games, and all are contained in this application layer which via a hotkey can be brought in or out of the desktop quickly. Various users also wanted ways to access these widgets without switching to Dashboard itself, and by running the widget in developer mode users could then bring these mini-applications right onto their desktop so they wouldn't have to switch back and fourth.

VoiceOver came as a great addition for accessibility by adding the ability to use the Mac through voice commands and have text on-screen be read aloud in virtually any application. Safari, Mail, and Xcode were also all updated bringing new features and an updated interface. Automator allowed users to do mundane, repetitive tasks in an automated way through AppleScripts. The ability to print PDFs from any application was also included, as well as several other usability features found around the OS like more options for the Dock.

In addition to much optimization for larger amounts of RAM and 64-bit processors, Tiger was the first version of OS X to run on the new Intel Macs. This addition however did end the support for OS 9 "Classic" environments as they could not run on Intel Macs. System requirements for this version also jumped up requiring 300 MHz or faster PowerPC processors, early Intel Macs, Built-in FireWire, a recommended 512 GB of RAM, install space of 3 GB instead of just 1.5 GB, and a DVD drive as Tiger was distributed on DVDs. 

Mac OS X previously had been restricted to Apple-branded hardware, but with the release of an x86 version for Intel processors people realized that with some modifications OS X could be run on non-Apple hardware, and thus the OSx86 procject was created.

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard

Leopard took about another two years to be released after Tiger, finally coming on October 26 2007. It was originally slated for earlier, however the brand new at-the-time iPhone was taking up much of the company's efforts.

Probably the very first thing people noticed was the drastic interface change, which gave everything a matte-grey look as an evolving style from brushed-metal. Boot Camp, Spaces, Quick Look, and Time Machine all brought new features to the OS, while updates to many applications including Mail, Safari, iCal, iChat, Preview, Spotlight, and perhaps most notably Finder and the Dock were also included.

Boot Camp embraced Intel by allowing users to easily install Windows in a dual-boot situation. While the feature was great, plenty of problems did creep up such as poor battery life or driver support which led many users to virtualize Windows under a solution like Parallels. Spaces added multiple desktops to OS X by allowing users to change in which their programs are displayed. Multi-tasking, and even keeping on track are greatly aided by this feature. Quick Look allowed the instant preview of almost any file all right from Finder. They could play an MP3, movie, look at a Word document, image, or even get information about a file just by selecting it and pressing space. When searching for just the right file, this comes in handy.

Time Machine allowed for users to not have to worry about making backups of their data, as many neglect to do so anyhow, and provided a rigid schedule and pleasant interface to browse through backups with. Time Machine works by using an external drive to backup your system onto, which can be configured to do full computer or just documents. A backup is made every hour, each time keeping previous versions of documents or other files. It was made for the user that accidentally deleted something, or perhaps misplaced something and knew where it once was. Time Machine's GUI takes the user into an almost "Time Travel" view where they can browse back through previous documents in a 3D setup.

Finder was redesigned to include more views like Cover-Flow and an enhanced sidebar that was list-like. The Dock was changed from the common 2D setup into a 3D one, and added Stacks. Stacks was a way of quickly accessing files in folders that could be pinned to the dock, and opened in a fan, grid, or list depending on the number of items in the folder right from the dock. The Applications folder, Documents folder, and Downloads folder are all added to demonstrate this ability and the usefulness of the concept behind it.

The move to 64-bit computing also came apparent in this version by adding support for many libraries and frameworks of 64-bit applications. System requirements jumped up from Tiger as well, now recommending 1GB of RAM, 9GB of disk space which is up from just 3 GB in Tiger, and the processor must be any Intel, G5 or G4 that clocks at 867 MHz or faster. Leopard would also be the last version of OS X to support the PowerPC architecture. 

Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard

Coming in two years later is Snow Leopard, being released on August 28 2009. This version however is not geared for bunches of new end-user features, but rather optimizations of the core OS itself. Updates to Boot Camp, Finder, Preview, QuickTime, Safari, Time Machine, and VoiceOver are found, which mainly increases speed and compatibility while optimizing for the work done on the back end of Snow Leopard.

The OS as a whole takes up 7GB less space than Leopard which was accomplished by rebuilt in-house applications to run in 64-bit mode, and dropping PowerPC support. The kernel was also rebuilt to support 64-bit computing, with new Macs now shipped to run this kernel by default rather than just be capable of running it.

Perhaps one of the best optimization features offered is Grand Central Dispatch, a method to distribute processes among multiple cores of a CPU rather than leaving it up to the application itself as typically applications are not optimized to take full advantage of multi-core CPUs. OpenCL was introduced to help manage how GPUs (graphics processing units) were used, allowing better support for 3D applications. Power management was also greatly improved. The only difference in system requirements is needing less disk space to install; 5 GB for Snow Leopard instead of 9 GB like Leopard needed.

Snow Leopard didn't bring any major visual changes, and overall was treated somewhat as an upgrade to Leopard rather than an entire new package. All other Mac OS X versions retailed for $129, while Snow Leopard was just a mere $29.

Mac OS X 10.7 Lion

Lion recently went out to developers and Neowin did a full review on it demonstrating new features. Highlights include Full-screen apps, Mission Control, Multi-touch gestures, Launchpad, and a redesigned Aqua interface with a heavy influence from iOS. Full-screen apps will allow users to focus specifically on one app and one task, however other apps can also be set into full-sreen mode and the user may swipe through them using gestures. These gestures are part of the new line introduced in Lion which are taken from iOS to create a more fluid experience with tasks like scrolling, zoom, and other functions.

Mission Control is more-or-less an updated Expose that allows the user to view all applications currently open on all Spaces. Launchpad is an application launcher that mimics the method for opening apps that iOS uses, displaying a grid which supports multiple pages and folders.

Several productivity features are added too such as Resume, Auto Save, and Versions. Resume allows one to quickly pick back up where they left off in any application, which is also why by default the Dock no longer shows if an application is open or not. Auto Save and Versions both help out with working on a document. Auto Save periodically updates the working document as you work on it, and Versions will allow you to go back and see past versions of the same document in a similar way that Time Machine does.

The Mac OS X line has gone from an incredibly unstable and a painful-to-use operating system to a carefully refined and praised one for its ingenuity and plentiful features. The amount of progress in just ten years has been incredible, and it only leaves the door wide open for a great potential of new ways and methods to use the computer. 

Here is to another ten glorious years, you've earned it!

Image sources: wikipedia.org

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Rumour: Motorola working on in-house mobile OS

Next Story

Mozilla pushes on development with release of Firefox 4.2 Alpha 1

156 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Wow! !0 years of OSX with 6 releases, while Windows in same time had only 3. And even if Windows XP didn't last 8 years by itself, based on Microsoft's time table of a new OS once every 3, Microsoft would have only had 4 releases by now.

Apple, stop charging for Service Pack upgrades even if its $29.
THis is how APple has people fooled. Apple can easily add any of the subsequent features in a single download that could be free. The majority of the changes are under the hood. But to get money, They also change the UI when they don't even have too. Under the hood improvements dont need a UI change. Its just an excuse to callit a new OS and change for it.

And no I am not a hypocrite, Microsoft did the same with Windows 2000 and XP, Windows Vista and 7? Nah. Windows 7 was a kernel rewrite to make the emprovements. Windows XP wasn't a rewrite if Windows 2000.

Funny timing.. I just dusted off a PowerMac G5 I got as a freebie from work and fired it up, having not used a Mac now for well over a year or two.. I used to have an Intel iMac but decided I wanted to go back to PC ownership and realised I'd be better off selling the Mac and buying some Wintel hardware as I'd get a bit more for my money.

I don't think I've even tried Snow Leopard yet, let alone Lion so would be interesting to see how things have changed since 10.5.. I have to say though coming over from Windows 7 to Leopard, I am just much more used to the Windows way of doing things and I do feel somewhat restricted on Leopard! Never thought I'd hear myself say that!

Hehe, put OSX and windows in one post and the OS fundalism breaks out

Happy birthday!

OSX is solid, just like W7 and Ubuntu 10.10 imo

So ten years of a old OS. With a lot of Service Packs as it were.

Before you all start on me stop and remember how much crap windows XP got for be old as it was before be update to Vista/7.

But ten years in any OS is a good sign that it was done well.

Good on Apple for sicking with it.

So Happy 10th Birthday OSX

ra_27 said,
So ten years of a old OS. With a lot of Service Packs as it were.

Before you all start on me stop and remember how much crap windows XP got for be old as it was before be update to Vista/7.

But ten years in any OS is a good sign that it was done well.

Good on Apple for sicking with it.

So Happy 10th Birthday OSX

actually, with some of the major features OSX has gotten, like time machine, expose, and other things it should realy be like OS 15 by now, OSX at this point is just a name ... like IBM with OS/2... it wasn't version 2 it had OS/2 version 2, v3, v4....

Today, 4 MAC's Birthday, I did something a little crazy on my Brand New Mac Mini, And I am hoping that I will be able 2 reverse it when the time comes around: I completely Removed Mac OSX and Performed a Windows 7 Clean Install on it Using One Hard Drive Partition Only! Hopefully I did NOT do anything that is irraverseable 2 the MAC!

kevpan815 said,
Today, 4 MAC's Birthday, I did something a little crazy on my Brand New Mac Mini, And I am hoping that I will be able 2 reverse it when the time comes around: I completely Removed Mac OSX and Performed a Windows 7 Clean Install on it Using One Hard Drive Partition Only! Hopefully I did NOT do anything that is irraverseable 2 the MAC!

1. It's the birthday of OS X, not Mac. That's the name of the overpriced computer they make which were being made before OS X.

2. MAC is a make-up brand. Mac/Macintosh is the computer.


So you don't see Time Machine, Native PDF support, Spotlight, iChat, Smart Folders, Expose', Developer Tools, Unix underpinnings and a modern core?

As I've stated in previous threads and cited with examples...no I don't, and UNIX "underpinnings" aren't an "Apple Innovation" so its not relevant.

I don't understand why does apple have the same build number for 10 years? 10.1 10.3 etc. Why don't they up the version number to 11?

Did they take 100 years for them to reach OS X then?

Steve Jobs love (or LOVES? should I add 's' after verb? Jobs is plural, isn't it? Ohk, It was a joke. Very bad joke) BEASTS very much....Tiger Lion KingKong...

Great article! It was a very interesting read
The comments however aren't...All I can seem to find are trolls on both side of the fence...It's hard to read any decent comments on some of these articles...

And Happy Birthday OSX!

Grammar Nazi's gave a lot of slack with this article... and the replies as well.

Anyhow, to summarize:
New OS-apple
10.0 bugs: fix= new version- free upgrade to 10.1 this time (yay!)
10.1 bugs: fix= new version- pay to upgrade
10.2 bugs: fix= new version- pay to upgrade
10.3 bugs: fix= new version- pay to upgrade
10.4 bugs: fix= new version- pay to upgrade
10.5 bugs: fix= new version- pay to upgrade
10.6 bugs: fix= new version- pay for a new computer if you want it, 'cause it don't work on PPC.
10.7 bugs: fix= new version- pay to upgrade

I counted 7 upgrades requiring around 130 each to stay current. That equates to about 930 to stay bleeding edge Apple.
Windows XP, new "Pro" (not upgrade), released to the public October 2001, was around $300, but the "upgrade" version could be tricked into upgrading itself... and at the low price of 179 was a bargain.
SP1 cost=0; SP2 cost= 0; SP3 cost 0.
And for another 300 or so, I can go from XP to 7... or another 300, go from XP to Vista, then to 7.
And even THAT is still cheaper than Apple's upgrade path... unless you worry about graphic cards and such, but then if you were PPC and had to buy new hardware to go Intel, Apple porked you.

By all means, feel free to correct me here, and I hope you do. And while you're at it, point me at the Apps that run OSX and support my cell site test gear.

• The gap between Windows XP and Vista was not what Microsoft intended. Windows Longhorn was originally planned for release in 2003 (around the same time as Mac OS X Panther).
• Just like Windows users, not all Mac users upgrade. You really don't have to.
• Where does $930 come from? Assuming Mac OS X Lion will cost $129 you get: 6 Mac OS X releases for $129. $29 for Mac OS X Snow Leopard. Mac OS X Puma was free. So (6x129)+0+29=803
• There isn't a single commercially available Mac in existence that can be upgraded from Mac OS X Cheetah all the way to Mac OS X Lion. So the $803 has no meaning to begin with.
• Mac users from March 2001 till Summer 2011 got at least three Mac OS X releases for free: One with their original PPC Mac + Mac OS X Puma + one with their Intel Mac. Assuming they didn't get a new Mac fell in between releases without upgrade path to a new release for a $9 upgrade fee.

You're taking none of these things into account.

Edited by .Neo, Mar 24 2011, 6:16pm :

.Neo said,
• There isn't a single commercially available Mac in existence that can be upgraded from Mac OS X Cheetah all the way to Mac OS X Lion.

That is a very good point, and one that many people seem to overlook. The first machines capable of running OS X aren't (in general) capable of running anything past about 10.3. Then you have a second batch of machines (later G3s, most G4s and G5s) that can run anything from about 10.2 through 10.5 (although I think G5 support came about with a later version of 10.3, IIRC). 10.4 and 10.5 support both PowerPC (G4 and G5s mainly, although some G3s could run 10.4) and Intel chips. And of course, 10.6 and 10.7 only support Intel chips (and it is rumored that 10.7 is going to drop support for the original Core Solo and Core Duo chips, since they are not 64-bit capable).

From what I know all Macs released in 2000-2001 are capable of running up to Mac OS X Tiger. From the top of my head Mac OS X Leopard requires an 867 MHz G4, no G3 support.


The Mac OS X line has gone from an incredibly unstable and a painful-to-use operating system to a carefully refined and praised one for its ingenuity and plentiful features. The amount of progress in just ten years has been incredible, and it only leaves the door wide open for a great potential of new ways and methods to use the computer.

Here is to another ten glorious years, you've earned it!

I don't see the 10 years of innovation...

j2006 said,
Congrats to them... however I'll stay with the smarter and more efficient choice, Windows 7
How smart and efficient an OS is depends entirely on the user. Sorry.

Not even one year had passed by when Apple decided that their first release of OS X was not satisfactory

I'd say it wasn't Apple that decided that, it was the users.
I remember when I got 10.0 for my Mac. I booted it exactly 2 times. Used OS 9 instead. Only when 10.1 was released OS X became usable. 10.0 was so damn slow.

OSX was a huge gamble, I would even say that 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2 were barely usable and everything really took shape with 10.3. 10.4 is the reason I switched to OSX and it was a great OS, I now run Lion full time and I can't wait until the final release this summer!

Rudy said,
OSX was a huge gamble, I would even say that 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2 were barely usable and everything really took shape with 10.3. 10.4 is the reason I switched to OSX and it was a great OS, I now run Lion full time and I can't wait until the final release this summer!

I'd say it's shaping up real good now, with lion. I've always been a Windows guy but lion looks real interesting, they get lion out and refresh the air with a sandybridge processor and ship lion with it and ill get one.

jesseinsf said,
And the UI hasn't changed in 10 years either, with the acception of the "Dock APP".

You are either blind or trolling. I'd vote for blind though, others might think otherwise.

jesseinsf said,
And the UI hasn't changed in 10 years either, with the acception of the "Dock APP".

The UI changed in pretty much every release, but incrementally. The only one it didn't change is Snow Leopard

DomZ said,

The UI changed in pretty much every release, but incrementally. The only one it didn't change is Snow Leopard

And even that is not quite right, there were many smaller changes like Dock-bound context-menus, DockExposé or icon preview. :-)

DomZ said,
The UI changed in pretty much every release, but incrementally. The only one it didn't change is Snow Leopard

Even Mac OS X Snow Leopard has its differences from Mac OS X Leopard. Apple has a good thing going on with Aqua, so they keep improving upon it. Mac OS X Lion has some pretty big changes already though: Finally all of the old Aqua has been replaced with a flatter/sunken look, the window chrome has become lighter (similar to iTunes 10) and basically all build-in applications got an overhaul.

Apple had its major shift in interface when Mac OS X was released in 2001. Microsoft five years later with Windows Vista, although a lot of legacy elements still lurk around in Windows 7.

azure.sapphire said,

Yes, yes... I am. I normally don't, but I enjoy mocking Mac users sometimes. They take things way too seriously.

Unlike all those people around here that have an irrational hate towards Apple.

roadwarrior said,

You are either blind or trolling. I'd vote for blind though, others might think otherwise.

Actually, I am doing neither. I am just pointing out my opinion. and I am actually pointing out the "Candy Cane" UI look. It has not changed. They may have moved things around quite a bit and extended and added funtionallity and updated and added kewl apps, but that Candy Cane Look needs to retire. Maybe it will change within the next few versions.

They are cheap on craigs list. You can buy an old mac book for like $300. My friend got one with a g4 cpu and 4 gigs of ram 250 hard drive and guess what it got snow leopard on there. My jaw dropped how smooth it runs. its a two to three year old lap to and osx runs good on it. Try to load your windows 7 or vista on a three year old lap top and see if your windows boots for the next hour or so.

enocheed said,
Try to load your windows 7 or vista on a three year old lap top and see if your windows boots for the next hour or so.

Sure, I have loaded Win7 on a 5 year old laptop and it runs great....no hour boot time at all. Vista can be clunky and is why 7 came out soon after Vista.

Do yourself a favor....know what you are talking about before you post and spout off at the mouth. Sounds like PCs are to complicated for you.

enocheed said,
They are cheap on craigs list. You can buy an old mac book for like $300. My friend got one with a g4 cpu and 4 gigs of ram 250 hard drive and guess what it got snow leopard on there. My jaw dropped how smooth it runs. its a two to three year old lap to and osx runs good on it. Try to load your windows 7 or vista on a three year old lap top and see if your windows boots for the next hour or so.

Err, Snow Leopard is Intel only.

GreyWolf said,

Err, Snow Leopard is Intel only.

hahaha, missed that! I think enocheed is just a troll. All of what he said doesnt make sense or is completely WRONG!

techbeck said,

hahaha, missed that! I think enocheed is just a troll. All of what he said doesnt make sense or is completely WRONG!

I was going with "wrong" since I built my PC at least 3 years ago and it's run the same with XP, Vista and Windows 7 on it. I can only imagine that a PPC with Snow Leopard would run quite smoothly since it would just boot the DVD and tell you it can't be installed on that Mac.

GreyWolf said,

Err, Snow Leopard is Intel only.


I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant Leopard, not Snow Leopard, but the rest of his post makes me think twice about that.

GreyWolf said,

I was going with "wrong" since I built my PC at least 3 years ago and it's run the same with XP, Vista and Windows 7 on it. I can only imagine that a PPC with Snow Leopard would run quite smoothly since it would just boot the DVD and tell you it can't be installed on that Mac.


My home PC is now seriously old , bought it sometime in Feb 2007 - that's 4 year old and only upgrade has been to GPU (nothing fancy). Windows 7 boots in 40sec flat (OOTB Dell HDD)

roadwarrior said,

I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant Leopard, not Snow Leopard, but the rest of his post makes me think twice about that.

It is remotely possible he has a hacked install. It may indicate snow leopard but under the hood is a leopard (or older) kernel which is allow it to boot on PPC. If that's the case then he should be crying when a combo update is installed that updates the kernel of the system as it won't boot anymore.

enocheed said,
They are cheap on craigs list. You can buy an old mac book for like $300. My friend got one with a g4 cpu and 4 gigs of ram 250 hard drive and guess what it got snow leopard on there. My jaw dropped how smooth it runs. its a two to three year old lap to and osx runs good on it. Try to load your windows 7 or vista on a three year old lap top and see if your windows boots for the next hour or so.

uh 5 yr old laptop windows 7 loads fine, works fine and even supports aero?..... comon man, don't make stuff up to support your flawed argument... btw no way in heck is snow leapord on a G4 processor, because that is PowerPC and Apple doesn't make PPC software anymore

enocheed said,
They are cheap on craigs list. You can buy an old mac book for like $300. My friend got one with a g4 cpu and 4 gigs of ram 250 hard drive and guess what it got snow leopard on there. My jaw dropped how smooth it runs. its a two to three year old lap to and osx runs good on it. Try to load your windows 7 or vista on a three year old lap top and see if your windows boots for the next hour or so.

Fail.

I have an Acer Ferrari 4000 Laptop that will be 6 years old this August, it runs Windows 7 64bit, with Aero perfectly fine...

enocheed said,
They are cheap on craigs list. You can buy an old mac book for like $300. My friend got one with a g4 cpu and 4 gigs of ram 250 hard drive and guess what it got snow leopard on there. My jaw dropped how smooth it runs. its a two to three year old lap to and osx runs good on it. Try to load your windows 7 or vista on a three year old lap top and see if your windows boots for the next hour or so.
Ugh....here we go again. This whole thread is filled with iTrolls. It's annoying to say the least. Shouldn't you be over on MacRumors smelling your own farts out of a wine glass talking about how great you think you are?

Good writeup!

It's come a long way, really. I love looking at old screenshots and let the nostalgica kick in.

I was already impressed with Tiger back then but Snow Leopard really is the perfect OS for me. Looking forward to Lion! :-)

instant.human said,
Good writeup!

It's come a long way, really. I love looking at old screenshots and let the nostalgica kick in.

I was already impressed with Tiger back then but Snow Leopard really is the perfect OS for me. Looking forward to Lion! :-)

Yep bring out the Lion so it can roar like the metro gold win mier thing. Because right now I can only here it meou like in front of tom and jarry cartoons.

Jenson said,
How is it a viable alternative to Windows considering you have to buy the £1000 mac that goes with it.

Let me see I pay 1000 pounds for the Mac and I have no anti virus subscription no firewall for $100000 to keep hackers out and no $400 windows software to buy every 3 years to try to stay in front of hackers and their new old toys. And no cpu upgrade and memory upgrade to speed my windows down after all the spyware has slowed it down. No weekly reinstalls for corrupted files by virus or other windows glitches no weekly visit to the store tech to fix my crapy windows. Ah well I can live with that. Sting me once and i am happy for the rest of my life. But windows keep stinging you for the rest of your life. Good luck to you with that.

Jenson said,
How is it a viable alternative to Windows considering you have to buy the £1000 mac that goes with it.

Personally I like having an all-in-one desktop. So far I haven't seen a single other PC company offer something similar to my 27-inch iMac for less.

enocheed said,

Let me see I pay 1000 pounds for the Mac and I have no anti virus subscription no firewall for $100000 to keep hackers out and no $400 windows software to buy every 3 years to try to stay in front of hackers and their new old toys. And no cpu upgrade and memory upgrade to speed my windows down after all the spyware has slowed it down. No weekly reinstalls for corrupted files by virus or other windows glitches no weekly visit to the store tech to fix my crapy windows. Ah well I can live with that. Sting me once and i am happy for the rest of my life. But windows keep stinging you for the rest of your life. Good luck to you with that.

Wait, what? Why did you get a firewall for 100k? And if anyone doesnt have AV on a Mac, they are not very bright IMO. And most people I know, even the non tech people, do not make weekly visits to the store to fix their machines. If you are making weekly visits, then you doing something REALLY wrong. Also, if you ever upgraded the CPU and memory to address issues with malware INSTEAD of removing the malware....then you wasted money and another non bright move.

Your whole post is just wrong and to be honest, sounds just like a troll remark.

Jenson said,
How is it a viable alternative to Windows considering you have to buy the £1000 mac that goes with it.

Its an alternative to Windows...cost doesnt really matter.

Jenson said,
How is it a viable alternative to Windows considering you have to buy the £1000 mac that goes with it.

Sounds like a great deal to me!!

enocheed said,

Let me see I pay 1000 pounds for the Mac and I have no anti virus subscription no firewall for $100000 to keep hackers out and no $400 windows software to buy every 3 years to try to stay in front of hackers and their new old toys. And no cpu upgrade and memory upgrade to speed my windows down after all the spyware has slowed it down. No weekly reinstalls for corrupted files by virus or other windows glitches no weekly visit to the store tech to fix my crapy windows. Ah well I can live with that. Sting me once and i am happy for the rest of my life. But windows keep stinging you for the rest of your life. Good luck to you with that.

I have no virii or spyware either, and OS X has a firewall.

Jenson said,
How is it a viable alternative to Windows considering you have to buy the £1000 mac that goes with it.

That extra money goes to paying for hundreds of retail stores that can give you free support, even after your warranty may have expired.

GreyWolf said,

I have no virii or spyware either, and OS X has a firewall.

I never get viruses or spyware on my PC either. Do I still have protection software installed? Of course I do. I know what and what not to do on a PC, but I am human and make mistakes. I also advise my Mac users/friends to load AV. Lots of free AV for PC and Mac.

enocheed said,

Let me see I pay 1000 pounds for the Mac and I have no anti virus subscription no firewall for $100000 to keep hackers out and no $400 windows software to buy every 3 years to try to stay in front of hackers and their new old toys. And no cpu upgrade and memory upgrade to speed my windows down after all the spyware has slowed it down. No weekly reinstalls for corrupted files by virus or other windows glitches no weekly visit to the store tech to fix my crapy windows. Ah well I can live with that. Sting me once and i am happy for the rest of my life. But windows keep stinging you for the rest of your life. Good luck to you with that.


What?

a) I dont have an Anti Virus Subscription either its called Microsoft Security Essentials and its............wait for it................... free!
b) I dont have a firewall either i use a router, well technically i do its the one built into Windows 7
c) I didnt pay $400 for Windows, the reason OSX is so cheap is because its subsidised by the cost of the Mac hardware, Microsoft doesnt make PCs which is why their software is relatively more expensive
d) Why would you upgrade your CPU and RAM when you get spyware? Are you serious? There are any number of free spyware removing tools and you could argue that you shouldnt have to use them but when you have one of the most popular platforms on the planet virus/malware/spyware programmers target such a platform, if Mac were more popular you would see more spyware and virii for it
e) I havent formatted in over a year, I dont get Windows glitches, i dont need to visit a tech store and for point A. you said that you would have to buy a virus scanner so why would you have virii if you pay for a scanner, its called common sense, dont run email attachments, dont download files from torrents and dont run programs you are not sure of, simple.

You are clearly biased against Windows because of some past bad experience, dont blame the OS because of PEBKAC. For the record I actually prefer OSX to Windows and would be running OSX if it werent for PC Games. I even run Windows 7 on a 900Mhz Celeron single Core Tablet PC with 512mb of RAM and its suprisingly usable. Hows Snow Leopard going for you on that G3/4/5, oh wait.

enocheed said,

Let me see I pay 1000 pounds for the Mac and I have no anti virus subscription no firewall for $100000 to keep hackers out and no $400 windows software to buy every 3 years to try to stay in front of hackers and their new old toys. And no cpu upgrade and memory upgrade to speed my windows down after all the spyware has slowed it down. No weekly reinstalls for corrupted files by virus or other windows glitches no weekly visit to the store tech to fix my crapy windows. Ah well I can live with that. Sting me once and i am happy for the rest of my life. But windows keep stinging you for the rest of your life. Good luck to you with that.

Been using Windows 7 since release, no viruses, didn't need to upgrade, the license came with the Sony laptop which costed me 600$ and is quite good (4GB RAM). It runs smooth and I never had any problems.

I doubt you can get a Mac laptop for 600$ anyway. Enjoy your wasted money on something worse. I'll have fun playing my games.

enocheed said,

Let me see I pay 1000 pounds for the Mac and I have no anti virus subscription no firewall for $100000 to keep hackers out and no $400 windows software to buy every 3 years to try to stay in front of hackers and their new old toys. And no cpu upgrade and memory upgrade to speed my windows down after all the spyware has slowed it down. No weekly reinstalls for corrupted files by virus or other windows glitches no weekly visit to the store tech to fix my crapy windows. Ah well I can live with that. Sting me once and i am happy for the rest of my life. But windows keep stinging you for the rest of your life. Good luck to you with that.

My router was given to me for nothing by my ISP, my antivirus software was free, and Windows also includes a firewall. BLNT troll

Jenson said,
How is it a viable alternative to Windows considering you have to buy the £1000 mac that goes with it.

A Ferrari is an alternative to a Kia. Doesn't matter about cost. I can afford a Mac. I have one. I love it. (I also have multiple Windows 7 systems) End of subject.

techbeck said,

Wait, what? Why did you get a firewall for 100k?

He embellished the figure for emphasis. And while it wont cost an individual that, it most certainly could for a large business if you include anti-virus licences. Maintenance and security costs for deploying/managing Windows systems are astronomical.

techbeck said,

And if anyone doesnt have AV on a Mac, they are not very bright IMO.

You know as well as I do that Macs just aren't as susceptible to viruses as Windows is; for what reason is debatable, but the fact of the matter is, if you use a MAC, the chances of you getting viruses, malware, or becoming part of a real botnet are slim to none.

While the ant-virus companies are pushing hard to create the impression OS X is just like Windows when it comes to the aforementioned security threats, the truth is it isn't, and most likely never will be. OS X has had the Unix security model since the beginning, whereas in Windows it's a new edition (Vista+). Not to mention, most of the software/tools for botnets, rootkits etc are written for Windows, so it's self propagating to a certain extent.

techbeck said,

And most people I know, even the non tech people, do not make weekly visits to the store to fix their machines.

I'm often the designated "fixer" for my friends and family, and let me tell you, at least from my personal experience, non-tech people do tend to either run to the store to get them fixed, or simply buy a new one because they can't be bothered with the hassle of dealing with a virus infested machine. Often a perfectly good machine can be relegated to the scrap heap just because of an instance of malware has rendered it unusable. You don't see that with Macs.

techbeck said,

Your whole post is just wrong and to be honest, sounds just like a troll remark.

You and other Windows proponents love to throw around the troll word when often the description most aptly fits yourself.

The reality is, it's impossible to defend Windows when it comes to Viruses, Malware, Rootkits, and Botnets, because it has the market cornered on them. No other OS can even get a look in, which is a good thing All of us Linux and Mac users can rest securely in the knowledge that our OS's will never suffer the same problems that Windows and its users do.

Spirit Dave said,

A Ferrari is an alternative to a Kia. Doesn't matter about cost. I can afford a Mac. I have one. I love it. (I also have multiple Windows 7 systems) End of subject.


The only problem with that argument is, Mac is not a Ferrari. Probably a fully loaded version in the same lineup. But you keep believing that.

Spirit Dave said,

A Ferrari is an alternative to a Kia. Doesn't matter about cost. I can afford a Mac. I have one. I love it. (I also have multiple Windows 7 systems) End of subject.


Hardly end of subject, its not an apt analogy because Microsoft doesnt make computers OSX isnt a viable alternative because you cant run OSX on non-Mac computers (yes yes i know osx86).

Jenson said,

Hardly end of subject, its not an apt analogy because Microsoft doesnt make computers OSX isnt a viable alternative because you cant run OSX on non-Mac computers (yes yes i know osx86).

Any off the shelf system comes with Windows ... Dell, Acer etc ... So in many respects it's completely fine as an analogy. Fact is, it's a ludicrous thing to say it's not an alternative. That was my point. The subject ended long ago. The arguments for and against are old, worn out, and pointless. You want Apple? Go Apple. You want Microsoft, go Microsoft. It's choice. Sure, one comes with hardware by default ... but at the end of the day, you have a computer on your desk right? You can't run Windows without a computer. So while MS doesn't MAKE computers, you still HAVE to have one. Alternative.

Flawed said,

He embellished the figure for emphasis. And while it wont cost an individual that, it most certainly could for a large business if you include anti-virus licences. Maintenance and security costs for deploying/managing Windows systems are astronomical.

Of course costs for deploying/managing windows are a lot. If OSX had the market share and was incorporation in to corporations like Windows...they would have the same costs. And embellishing is just plain stupid as it shows people that you dont know what you are talking about.


You know as well as I do that Macs just aren't as susceptible to viruses as Windows is; for what reason is debatable, but the fact of the matter is, if you use a MAC, the chances of you getting viruses, malware, or becoming part of a real botnet are slim to none.

Chances are low but there are still chances. I for one will not let my company take those chances or my friends/family.


I'm often the designated "fixer" for my friends and family, and let me tell you, at least from my personal experience, non-tech people do tend to either run to the store to get them fixed, or simply buy a new one because they can't be bothered with the hassle of dealing with a virus infested machine. Often a perfectly good machine can be relegated to the scrap heap just because of an instance of malware has rendered it unusable. You don't see that with Macs.

If you know anyone who buys a new computer becise of issues, they are either not very bright or have a lot of money to spend. And EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION. I dont have any family/friends/coworkers that pull this crap because I talk to them and educate them. It really is that simple.


You and other Windows proponents love to throw around the troll word when often the description most aptly fits yourself.

I tossed out the word TROLL because he is one. Look at his posts and what he has said and if you dont think he is one, then you must be one in the same. And call me a troll all you want if it suits you. At least I stayed on topic, made sense, and didnt spew nonsense all over the place and go out of my way to bash something that has no place in this thread.


The reality is, it's impossible to defend Windows when it comes to Viruses, Malware, Rootkits, and Botnets, because it has the market cornered on them. No other OS can even get a look in, which is a good thing All of us Linux and Mac users can rest securely in the knowledge that our OS's will never suffer the same problems that Windows and its users do.

But then again Apple products get rapped first and quickest in the yearly contests. the comment that you all can rest securely is an arrogant comment and typical of Mac users who think they are 100% safe because big daddy Jobs tells you so. Nothing is safe and 100% secure. If you think so and think you will never suffer the same or similar problems as windows...then you are delusional.

dhan said,

The only problem with that argument is, Mac is not a Ferrari. Probably a fully loaded version in the same lineup. But you keep believing that.

Well, obviously ... it's a computer, not a car. And what do you mean keep believing it? I'm not deluded about anything. Read my post and you'll see I have various systems. I am not dumb. I don't believe that Apple hardware is faster than the exact same hardware from other companies. I just like my iMac a lot more than my Windows systems. Doesn't mean Apple is right for everyone. I think I'm probably the most on the fence person here. I argue good and bad points for both systems when I discuss with people. So far, my iMac is doing the job I need it to do, and it's doing it well. I enjoy using the Apple system more. Doesn't mean I think my Windows systems are crap.

Jenson said,
How is it a viable alternative to Windows considering you have to buy the £1000 mac that goes with it.

>fail<

How is Windows a viable alternative to Linux considering you have to buy a $300 license for it?

.Neo said,

Personally I like having an all-in-one desktop. So far I haven't seen a single other PC company offer something similar to my 27-inch iMac for less.

I believe no PC manufacturers make 27 inch all in one systems for other OS's ... maybe I'm wrong. But I'm pretty sure they don't.

Spirit Dave said,

Well, obviously ... it's a computer, not a car. And what do you mean keep believing it? I'm not deluded about anything. Read my post and you'll see I have various systems. I am not dumb. I don't believe that Apple hardware is faster than the exact same hardware from other companies. I just like my iMac a lot more than my Windows systems. Doesn't mean Apple is right for everyone. I think I'm probably the most on the fence person here. I argue good and bad points for both systems when I discuss with people. So far, my iMac is doing the job I need it to do, and it's doing it well. I enjoy using the Apple system more. Doesn't mean I think my Windows systems are crap.


You pretty much said this, all Macs are Ferraris (high end,quality) and all PCs are Kias (low end,quality). I have seent his argument many times (mostly as BMW ) and objected to that part.

James Riske said,

It is useless to point out any facts to the isheep, they will just pretend they didn't hear you, rational thought is not one of their strong points.

Mate, leave it out. If it's not a constructive comment it's probably not worth posting at all.

On topic: Congrats to Mac OS X!

dhan said,

You pretty much said this, all Macs are Ferraris (high end,quality) and all PCs are Kias (low end,quality). I have seent his argument many times (mostly as BMW ) and objected to that part.

Well, you're clearly reading too far into my post then. But it's ok, maybe I chose bad wording or examples. The variables involved in the whole VS. argument are just too many, and when someone says something as dumb as "It's not an alternative to Windows" without factoring in the NEED for a computer, they're open to be argued against. If Windows ran on thin air, you could very well say it's not an alternative. But the fact is... it is an alternative. Plain and simple. My iMac was worth the money I paid. Every penny.

Flawed said,

The reality is, it's impossible to defend Windows when it comes to Viruses, Malware, Rootkits, and Botnets, because it has the market cornered on them. No other OS can even get a look in, which is a good thing All of us Linux and Mac users can rest securely in the knowledge that our OS's will never suffer the same problems that Windows and its users do.

ALERT: Long rant ahead.
The real reality is that it is impossible to make ANY os impervious to infection.

There are a few ground rules for an attacker.
1) The infection has to be coded for the target platform.
2) The infection has to be able to infect a large number of people. This is important if the goal was a botnet.
3) There has to be a vulnerability that the attacker can exploit to gain the required privilages. If attack needs only the current user rights then that's easy. If the attack needs higher rights and the current user doesn't have it then a privilege escalation attack will need to be coded into it. If one doesn't exist then it will need to be found.

For those that don't know. Privilege escalation attacks exist for all platforms. It happens when input and other parts of the code are not checked well enough. An attacker may figure out a way to take advantage of these flaws to gain higher access than would normally be accessible. These attacks can bypass any normal prompts produced by the os so if a loophole in Mac OS X that allows this is ever discovered then there can be issues including infections. Both Linux and Windows environments have been victims of such attacks. Mac OS X is built on top of Darwin which contains bits of various unix environments including BSD.

At this point Windows is the leading platform so it is only natural to develop infections to target Windows. This is harder now with Windows Vista and Windows 7 thanks to UAC and Data Execution Prevention but it is still possible. Microsoft has been quick to release patches for critical issues but I have not seen this from Apple. If a critical level vulnerability should occur on Mac OS X then I wonder how long they will take to release an update to patch it? Not only that but how many users will actually install it seeing only "security fixes" as the release reason?

Anooxy said,

Been using Windows 7 since release, no viruses, didn't need to upgrade, the license came with the Sony laptop which costed me 600$ and is quite good (4GB RAM). It runs smooth and I never had any problems.

I doubt you can get a Mac laptop for 600$ anyway. Enjoy your wasted money on something worse. I'll have fun playing my games.

Worse? That's subjective. I prefer OSX by far to Windows. And I have Windows systems too. Also, games? haha ... who cares? Games should be played on consoles, not sat at a desk. Desks are for work I will have fun playing games on my sofa with a beer on my huge television. And don't give me the crap about your system being better than my console. I dunno if you saw Killzone 3, but when you're blasting enemies on a monstrous screen you can't take time to analyze the slight differences from PC to console graphics

I hate people pulling the games thing out of their ass anyway. Since there's a lot of games on the Mac. Not that I play them, but the support is getting heavier.

Shadrack said,

>fail<

How is Windows a viable alternative to Linux considering you have to buy a $300 license for it?

A windows 7 license does not cost $300. home premium is $179

Spirit Dave said,

And I love idiots that jump on a comment and don't read the replies Oh wait ... I don't.

I hate people who use a Mac. Linux, no... Windows, no... but I despise Mac users and their stupid arrogance. I wish we could put them all on an island somewhere.

Flawed said,

OS X has had the Unix security model since the beginning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2Own#Contest_2011

Apple's complete disregard for actual security when originally developing OSX frequently comes back to haunt them. Yeah, Unix and Linux are among the most secure operating systems in the world, but only if you use the security features. I mean Apple has only just added stuff like ASLR and DEP (Actually ASLR is in Lion which is still unreleased), Windows has had them since 2007 and 2002 respectively. Combined with apple's historically sluggish reputation for patching security holes, If Apple commanded enough of a market share malware writers would move to the platform, but at 7% of the global market share, why would they bother. It's the same as saying if I choose to run windows 95 I'm probably pretty secure since there's probably no win9x viruses in circulation anymore. I choose to run windows because, in my opinion, being non locked down and the most popular OS has many advantages (a piece of software for any task, games, I can choose which hardware I want, economy, etc, etc).

So yeah, you're may be more secure, but it's only out of obscurity. But on the other hand it's pretty hard to infect a Windows 7 computer with Microsoft's security essentials (Or any other decent AV I guess) through every day use (Or even Vista for that matter) The last time I accidentally contracted a virus/malware was XP SP1 from a dodgy download.

So get off your high horse.

Jenson said,

What?
a) I dont have an Anti Virus Subscription either its called Microsoft Security Essentials and its............wait for it................... free!

Try installing the TDSS rootkit and see if MSE detects it. I'll give you a hint, you'll be waiting a very long time. But if you want to delude yourself, go right ahead

Jenson said,

b) I dont have a firewall either i use a router, well technically i do its the one built into Windows 7

Your router firewall only partially protects you from incoming attacks, not ones originating from your own machine, which is the main reason for installing a firewall (botnet/trojan prevention).
Jenson said,

c) I didnt pay $400 for Windows, the reason OSX is so cheap is because its subsidised by the cost of the Mac hardware, Microsoft doesnt make PCs which is why their software is relatively more expensive

That doesn't mean others haven't and wont in the future. Paying $350+ for Windows 7 Ultimate for instance is quite possible for a retail copy. In terms of cost, there's one simple reason Windows is so expensive, and that's because it has a monopoly. Do you think Microsoft would charge the same amount if Linux and OS X made up a greater portion of the marketshare?
Jenson said,

d) Why would you upgrade your CPU and RAM when you get spyware? Are you serious? There are any number of free spyware removing tools and you could argue that you shouldnt have to use them but when you have one of the most popular platforms on the planet virus/malware/spyware programmers target such a platform, if Mac were more popular you would see more spyware and virii for it

You assume everyone knows how to remove viruses/malware; most simply don't. The numbers of users no doubt influences malware writing, but existing codebases and skill sets also play a big part, that is, many more programmers know the Win32 API, and have their tools written specifically for Windows. This has been the case since the mid to late 90's. I would posit that this keeps malware restricted to Windows more than marketshare. The problem for Microsoft is that this is a vicious circle; for even if Windows lost half its marketshare overnight, the impact on malware targets would be negligible.

Jenson said,

e) I havent formatted in over a year, I dont get Windows glitches,

This is a typical argumentum ad generalem, or Anecdotal Evidence (weak induction logical fallacy). Your assertion implies that your experience is universally true for everyone, one which is clearly fallacious.

dagamer34 said,

That extra money goes to paying for hundreds of retail stores that can give you free support, even after your warranty may have expired.


Not to mention being an optimized platform were the os (osx) will perform better than windows would on the same hardware.
Great design, few laptops can beat the macbooks unibody. Personally i think the iMacs are ugly but that's preference still good deisgn.
Long battery life.
There is a reason the newest macbook pro is always in the top ranked laptop by cnet (with the macbook air not far behind now).

It's fine if you don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad and nobody can see a benefit in it even if it does have a higher cost or not and this goes for a lot more than macs, specially in the tech world but in different areas too.

azure.sapphire said,

Dumb ass comment of the day award! I love car analogies... no, wait... I don't.


So what if you dont like them? Still true in a way

Oh and nope, no need to play the fanboy card on me, have never owned a single mac, used one in school for studio recordings but that's it, I am a windows guy.

Flawed said,

Try installing the TDSS rootkit and see if MSE detects it. I'll give you a hint, you'll be waiting a very long time. But if you want to delude yourself, go right ahead

Why there are many otheR FREE programs that will remove the TDSS rootkit. If you know anything about Windows, you know that malware comes out all the time and no one product can detecet it all.


Your router firewall only partially protects you from incoming attacks, not ones originating from your own machine, which is the main reason for installing a firewall (botnet/trojan prevention).

There is a router firewall and the firewall that comes with windows. Double protection and doesnt cost that much at all. Lots of people alreay have a router. Plus, ISP does its own thing to help filter out email.


Paying $350+ for Windows 7 Ultimate for instance is quite possible for a retail copy.

Ultimate only costs $275.

techbeck said,

Why there are many otheR FREE programs that will remove the TDSS rootkit. If you know anything about Windows, you know that malware comes out all the time and no one product can detecet it all.

That's precisely my point. He thinks because he has MSE installed, he's insuperable.; clearly that isn't the case.

techbeck said,

There is a router firewall and the firewall that comes with windows. Double protection and doesnt cost that much at all. Lots of people alreay have a router. Plus, ISP does its own thing to help filter out email.

None of which can match permission based firewalls such as sygate, zone alarm etc (free examples).

techbeck said,

Ultimate only costs $275.

Not in the UK. Multiply that by 1.5

Flawed said,

That's precisely my point. He thinks because he has MSE installed, he's insuperable.; clearly that isn't the case.

He never said that...you assumed. He was stating that protection doesnt cost as much as you stated and that it was free.


None of which can match permission based firewalls such as sygate, zone alarm etc (free examples).

Most users dont need the feature sygate or zone alarm have. And they are free...no cost no big deal.


Not in the UK. Multiply that by 1.5

Taxes and other fees in the UK is not MS' fault.

Flawed said,

That doesn't mean others haven't and wont in the future. Paying $350+ for Windows 7 Ultimate for instance is quite possible for a retail copy.

Why would you need Windows 7 Ultimate? Windows 7 Home Premium is suffice for normal home user. You're just picking on it aren't you?

Flawed said,

In terms of cost, there's one simple reason Windows is so expensive, and that's because it has a monopoly. Do you think Microsoft would charge the same amount if Linux and OS X made up a greater portion of the marketshare?

So why does a similarly configured Mac cost more than Windows? Mac doesn't have monopoly, yet it's much more expensive than Windows-based configuration. I can't think of one simple reason as to why Mac is more expensive. Can you?

FarCry3r said,

Why would you need Windows 7 Ultimate? Windows 7 Home Premium is suffice for normal home user. You're just picking on it aren't you?


So why does a similarly configured Mac cost more than Windows? Mac doesn't have monopoly, yet it's much more expensive than Windows-based configuration. I can't think of one simple reason as to why Mac is more expensive. Can you?

Because Apple's market share is increasing rapidly. Also, because Apple hardware is packaged into cases that require a lot more money to design, engineer, and manufacture. My iMac is a few inches deep, including screen. And it's got a full 27 inch IPS LCD glass display, and a full aluminium body, with just one piece making it up. These things cost Apple more than the average computer costs Dell or whoever else. All these things make costs rise. And of course, since market share is increasing, they don't need to lower prices. People are paying. They wouldn't pay if it was a thousand dollars more. They're priced where they can make good profit, and still sell a good number.

Spirit Dave said,

Well, for one ... Apple hasn't turned anyone against anyone. That's personal choice, and if someone is stupid enough to be shouting and attacking others for their choice of system (which is exactly what you're doing AND complaining about at the same time), well, it's a sad thing for them.

The vocal ones are only vocal on sites like this. I've never EVER stumbled on a hate site for Windows or Mac at all ... and if you have, it's because you were looking for it. I really don't ever see hater sites. I see 'news' sites and I follow some. But they don't hate on other systems. That's childish and pathetic.

Clearly Apple wants Microsoft's market to lower. They're a business. But I really don't think people care about that side of things. The masses just see a product they like, and buy it. Microsoft make competing products in certain spaces to Apple, but fail. Windows Phone which I love, is failing compared to Apple's phone sales. This isn't because Apple makes people HATE Microsoft, because I've watched every single one of their ads and haven't seen any hate.

The PC and Mac ads were amazingly funny. But that was all they were. I loved them. And back then I used Windows exclusively. And I did think what Apple was doing was close to the bone, but it was comedy. And I appreciated it for that. I'm not stupid enough to buy a Mac based on ... "Mac does video and photos really well" ... if someone is, great. But most people don't buy systems for that. They weigh up far more options.

I really just think your reasoning behind your hate is ludicrous and you are hating and being vocal yet saying that's what you hate about Mac people?

No, no... no. Apple has made a history of exploiting people for profit to a level that would make Microsoft blush. They are very good at the divide and conquer strategy. If it was Apple that produced XP (I known, horrible) you would not see it still on the market for two reasons. First, they wouldn't support it (but that is neither here nor there). More importantly, second... they would use peer pressure to force conformity. Of course, we will never really known because Apple has never been very good at enterprise computing.

Again just to reinforce (Mr. Jobs loves to toy with people and play on their emotions):
1). Apple camp Vs Mac camp | i.e. developers in Apple and users in general
2). Apple Vs Microsoft... not talking about the recent puff commercials, think more like >=1990
i.e. when Jobs was not on board but at NeXT
3). Apple Vs Microsoft (again)
1st Mac OS (i.e. classic) was better than Windows 95 and then NT- here is false advertising, but many in the Mac community bought it. I actually had fellow students who believe that their desktop running Mac OS 8 was more stable and superior to my NT4 and Win2k installs.
4). Power PC Vs Intel (through really x86)
Another lie... well mostly. The G3 may have actually been better than the Pentium at the time. This continued, however, all the all through to the PPC G5.
5). OS X Vs Windows Vista
Prototypical PC users as backward, introverted dumb asses.
As for Windows hate sites. I think Macrumors might even qualify. Oh, and they hate WinPhone7 and Android too. I think pretty much all of the Mac sites qualify.

Edited by azure.sapphire, Mar 24 2011, 5:02pm :

Spirit Dave said,

Because Apple's market share is increasing rapidly. Also, because Apple hardware is packaged into cases that require a lot more money to design, engineer, and manufacture. My iMac is a few inches deep, including screen. And it's got a full 27 inch IPS LCD glass display, and a full aluminium body, with just one piece making it up.

These things cost Apple more than the average computer costs Dell or whoever else.

All these things make costs rise. And of course, since market share is increasing, they don't need to lower prices. People are paying. They wouldn't pay if it was a thousand dollars more. They're priced where they can make good profit, and still sell a good number.

I won't comment on the topic. I just want to point something out. I think you might notice how you dismissed Dell and whatever. Whatever. How about Alienware or Falcon or others? You just labeled any entire group of users into a lesser category with two words in a sentence.

I won't even get into the fact that there are a number of high end PCs that use parts that are above Apple so-called quality. Also, they all kind of come from the same factors in Asia. It's not like they each get an individual kiss of approval or something. The quality control is about the same (at least high midrange or greater).

Spirit Dave said,

A Ferrari is an alternative to a Kia. Doesn't matter about cost. I can afford a Mac. I have one. I love it. (I also have multiple Windows 7 systems) End of subject.

And if that Ferrari had exactly the same engine, transmission, tyres, and breaks as the Kia, and only differed in a few minor interior details, and it's outer design, what would your justification for paying an inflated price for it be? The argument that Macs are somehow superior to PCs is absolute bunk, not only do they use the same hardware but more often than not they are supplied with very weak graphics cards

azure.sapphire said,

I won't comment on the topic. I just want to point something out. I think you might notice how you dismissed Dell and whatever. Whatever. How about Alienware or Falcon or others? You just labeled any entire group of users into a lesser category with two words in a sentence.

I won't even get into the fact that there are a number of high end PCs that use parts that are above Apple so-called quality. Also, they all kind of come from the same factors in Asia. It's not like they each get an individual kiss of approval or something. The quality control is about the same (at least high midrange or greater).

No I didn't. Stop lying. I said "Dell or whoever else" ... meaning, Dell was the first manufacturer that came to mind. Apple systems are higher quality builds than ANYTHING Alienware puts out (Not talking about spec) so I don't see what you're talking about here.

Components was not what I was talking about. I was clearly ... CLEARLY ... talking about the engineering and building of the systems, inclusive of components. Not many people cram the amount of stuff Apple does into a small box without noise. That's a fact.

Stop arguing with me. Your argument legitimacy died when you said you despised all Mac owners.

Spirit Dave said,

No I didn't. Stop lying. I said "Dell or whoever else" ... meaning, Dell was the first manufacturer that came to mind. Apple systems are higher quality builds than ANYTHING Alienware puts out (Not talking about spec) so I don't see what you're talking about here.

Components was not what I was talking about. I was clearly ... CLEARLY ... talking about the engineering and building of the systems, inclusive of components. Not many people cram the amount of stuff Apple does into a small box without noise. That's a fact.

Stop arguing with me. Your argument legitimacy died when you said you despised all Mac owners.

Apple designs are not that good. They look nice, but they are not reliable. I've been a network admin in the past. Do you care to guess where the majority of our failures were? The reason as for my annoyance of Mac users is because (grad school) we had to provide support to people who bought in Apple propaganda hook, line and sinker and expected them to be miracle machines... rather than just a tool to get a job done. This was just before their transition to Intel. God how I hated the G5 iMac, though the cheese grater wasn't all that bad.

If you want a thing of beauty. Buy a car, better yet... a house with a garden. That is something with build quality. Tech stuff, not so much. Most of it is rather ugly. Yes, even the Mac stuff.

BTW: "Apple systems are higher quality builds than ANYTHING Alienware puts out, not talking specs." is absolute BS and you know it. The components are half of the most important factor in the so-called beauty of a computer. Crummy parts + so-called beautiful design = flawed mess.

My point by saying is that "I hate all Mac users," was simply to get you to launch into a torrent of the usual propaganda, BS line. I find it amusing. I don't actually hate Mac users. I like the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad with the iOS line, though I think Android is a slightly ugly, but better option for most. I own two out of the three. And yes, I own two Macs (one PPC and one Intel), though the Intel one mostly runs Windows.

Again, my issues is with the Mac community and not the hardware/software. I think both are good, but clearly not the end all, be all of computing. It's just a freaking computer.

Spirit Dave said,

No I didn't. Stop lying. I said "Dell or whoever else" ... meaning, Dell was the first manufacturer that came to mind. Apple systems are higher quality builds than ANYTHING Alienware puts out (Not talking about spec) so I don't see what you're talking about here.

Components was not what I was talking about. I was clearly ... CLEARLY ... talking about the engineering and building of the systems, inclusive of components. Not many people cram the amount of stuff Apple does into a small box without noise. That's a fact.

Stop arguing with me. Your argument legitimacy died when you said you despised all Mac owners.

Having a prettier case doesn't make a machine inherently better, FYI

Shadrack said,
How is Windows a viable alternative to Linux considering you have to buy a $300 license for it?

As a cost concious consumer, my time is easily worth $180 (oem licenses are cheaper)

Subject Delta said,

Having a prettier case doesn't make a machine inherently better, FYI

Makes my working environment neater, and clearer. And that does in my book, help But then, I never said a pretty case makes a machine better. You're mis-quoting me.

azure.sapphire said,
My point by saying is that "I hate all Mac users," was simply to get you to launch into a torrent of the usual propaganda, BS line. I find it amusing. I don't actually hate Mac users. I like the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad with the iOS line, though I think Android is a slightly ugly, but better option for most. I own two out of the three. And yes, I own two Macs (one PPC and one Intel), though the Intel one mostly runs Windows.

Again, my issues is with the Mac community and not the hardware/software. I think both are good, but clearly not the end all, be all of computing. It's just a freaking computer.

I'd like to point out that at NO point did you make me "launch into a torrent of the usual propaganda" ... so you and your shockingly childish attempt was seriously flawed from your first post. Now, go back to your life of insulting other computer users and leave this thread. You're bringing the average IQ down here.

Spirit Dave said,

Makes my working environment neater, and clearer. And that does in my book, help But then, I never said a pretty case makes a machine better. You're mis-quoting me.

You were however implying that the build quality of Apple computers somehow makes them better. Personally I actually prefer having my tower and monitor separate.

evn. said,
Please stop being jerks to one another
Keep it on topic and respectable.

This is Neowin, and this is an Apple thread. There's no such thing as respectable.

Flawed said,

All of us Linux and Mac users can rest securely in the knowledge that our OS's will never suffer the same problems that Windows and its users do.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Macs may not have many malware attacks, but Firewire is pretty damn broken with that whole DMA debacle. It's always the first to go in any Pwn2Own contest. And Linux. Sure, it's used on super-computers, servers, whatever. But it's much harder to troubleshoot malware on a Linux box if you get infected because the average malware writer for that is that much smarter. Never say never. When ya'll have your day that Windows is as popular and as usual, it will suffer the same problems, if not worse. Once that garden of security crumbles, you'll just have fences like us. I'd rather have great backwards compatibility, than an OS that I cannot get working properly out the box and have to tinker the hell out of.

Spirit Dave said,

A Ferrari is an alternative to a Kia. Doesn't matter about cost. I can afford a Mac. I have one. I love it. (I also have multiple Windows 7 systems) End of subject.

Ohk. I admit you are very very rich sir but don't waste your money. I can't afford mac(!) but I have a 17" DELL Alienware and I love it. End of subject.

DarkSim905 said,

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Macs may not have many malware attacks, but Firewire is pretty damn broken with that whole DMA debacle. It's always the first to go in any Pwn2Own contest. And Linux. Sure, it's used on super-computers, servers, whatever. But it's much harder to troubleshoot malware on a Linux box if you get infected because the average malware writer for that is that much smarter. Never say never. When ya'll have your day that Windows is as popular and as usual, it will suffer the same problems, if not worse. Once that garden of security crumbles, you'll just have fences like us. I'd rather have great backwards compatibility, than an OS that I cannot get working properly out the box and have to tinker the hell out of.

Most reputable analysts will tell you that Windows is more robust than OSX when it comes to the security of it's design. If OSX were as popular as Windows, I have no doubt there would be a shedload of exploits available for it as well.

Faisal Islam said,

Ohk. I admit you are very very rich sir but don't waste your money. I can't afford mac(!) but I have a 17" DELL Alienware and I love it. End of subject.

No, I'm far from rich. Very very far in fact. My point was, I'm not wealthy, I don't have much money, I just about get by in life financially. But I could still afford a Mac. Sure, I had a reason to get it (I work developing iPhone games and Apple's Xcode is integral to many of the projects I work on), but the fact is ... I don't think you have to be rich to afford one.

And fyi, I'm very glad you're happy with your Alienware machine. Alienware machines are excellent. However, I have been extremely happy with my system and don't feel at any point it was a waste of money. I can say that since I have both a modern PC and a modern iMac. So my judgement is extremely non-biased. Regardless of what people may think from my posts, I still - and have MANY times stated this - think Microsoft have made an awesome OS with Windows 7.

Subject Delta said,

Most reputable analysts will tell you that Windows is more robust than OSX when it comes to the security of it's design. If OSX were as popular as Windows, I have no doubt there would be a shedload of exploits available for it as well.

There's no such thing as a reputable analyst That said, you're absolutely right ... many of the exploits on Windows would be very much present on MacOS if it had the userbase Windows has. I do run anti-virus on my iMac. And I do think people who don't are very silly.

Spirit Dave said,

This is Neowin, and this is an Apple thread. There's no such thing as respectable.

As you have demonstrated for us during your entire pro-Apple rant combined with insult upon insult.

Tim Dawg said,
As you have demonstrated for us during your entire pro-Apple rant combined with insult upon insult.

I was angry for a reason ... did you see the insults I received? Now go back over my entire post history and you'll see how PRO Windows I am too ... I'm pro-using a machine you feel comfortable with. If you think I am pro-Apple, it shows how little you have read. Even my last posts before this are saying how good Windows is!

Spirit Dave said,

I was angry for a reason ... did you see the insults I received? Now go back over my entire post history and you'll see how PRO Windows I am too ... I'm pro-using a machine you feel comfortable with. If you think I am pro-Apple, it shows how little you have read. Even my last posts before this are saying how good Windows is!

May of the insult posts were removed. Just let it go man...not worth it.

techbeck said,

May of the insult posts were removed. Just let it go man...not worth it.

Already let go I'm happier at the mo.

For the record, if anyone else wants to know ...

I LOVE my iMac ... but I also love my Windows 7 PC, which is monstrously powerful, has a lush Samsung 24 inch screen and works like a dream. I just prefer the iMac. It's no big deal. I don't have to love both the same to not be a fanboy. I still think both OS's are great.

Jenson said,
How is it a viable alternative to Windows considering you have to buy the £1000 mac that goes with it.

The cheapest on the website is £867 for a MacBook - if you kept it for 3 years it would cost you around £300 per year, which breaks down into £6 per week; I'm sure you probably spend more on fish 'n chips per week than that.

For most people they're going to spend £900 on a decent computer anyway; be it from Sony, Lenovo etc. So why not purchase an Apple if you're prepared to shell out that sort of money? I swear some people are trying to find all manner of excuses to cover up for the fact that Mac's aren't there thing - why can't people just be honest and state that Mac's aren't there thing and are not interested in purchasing one?

9point6 said,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2Own#Contest_2011
Apple's complete disregard for actual security when originally developing OSX frequently comes back to haunt them. Yeah, Unix and Linux are among the most secure operating systems in the world, but only if you use the security features. I mean Apple has only just added stuff like ASLR and DEP (Actually ASLR is in Lion which is still unreleased), Windows has had them since 2007 and 2002 respectively.

I'm talking about real user authentication, not some glorified hacking content where the participants come with pre-designed exploits.

9point6 said,

So yeah, you're may be more secure, but it's only out of obscurity.

I suppose Linux is obscure in the server market, and Android/iOS is obscure in the phone/tablet market is it? Give me a break. Windows is the target for malware because 99% of the virus writers know the win32 api and have codebases/tools specific to it. That wouldn't change even if Windows lost half its user base. And in the end we're talking about actual malware, viruses, and rootkits, not some imaginary exploit/vulnerability that isn't even used. Just look at the numbers on each platform, then it becomes clear that Window
is the one and only mecca for malware. Good luck disproving that fact.

Edited by Flawed, Mar 26 2011, 1:58am :

enocheed said,

Let me see I pay 1000 pounds for the Mac and I have no anti virus subscription no firewall for $100000 to keep hackers out and no $400 windows software to buy every 3 years to try to stay in front of hackers and their new old toys. And no cpu upgrade and memory upgrade to speed my windows down after all the spyware has slowed it down. No weekly reinstalls for corrupted files by virus or other windows glitches no weekly visit to the store tech to fix my crapy windows. Ah well I can live with that. Sting me once and i am happy for the rest of my life. But windows keep stinging you for the rest of your life. Good luck to you with that.

My points to unvalidate your argument

1. Antivirus = £30 a year/Free as MSE (No viruses get past MSE in my testing)
2. Software, yes they release updates every two years like OS X. But they SUPPORT it still. Nearly most software still runs on XP nearly 10 years old. Say Word 2010/IE8 and the other web browsers. How many modern programs still run on 10.1/10.2./10.3/ Heck, most applications released by Apple require 10.6.4 or above. You HAVE to upload to continue using it, Windows you can stay till your ready.

3. Windows has glitches, so does OS X. If it did not, why do they have Apple Repairs and genius bars for Macs??? Huh?

4. Hardware, at least we can swap components/build our own/personalize it to our needs. Not pay £1000 for predetermined stuff, and have to buy set stuff. And can't easily change it to our needs. You could keep a Windows PC and swap out the RAM,and other components and keep it for years.

For a mac, you need to upgrade it after a while or it get's slow.

Flawed said,

I'm talking about real user authentication, not some glorified hacking content where the participants come with pre-designed exploits.


I suppose Linux is obscure in the server market, and Android/iOS is obscure in the phone/tablet market is it? Give me a break. Windows is the target for malware because 99% of the virus writers know the win32 api and have codebases/tools specific to it. That wouldn't change even if Windows lost half its user base. And in the end we're talking about actual malware, viruses, and rootkits, not some imaginary exploit/vulnerability that isn't even used. Just look at the numbers on each platform, then it becomes clear that Window
is the one and only mecca for malware. Good luck disproving that fact.

....show me one exploit anywhere in all of computer security that isn't pre-designed in some way?

and no, Mac OSX is obscure in the personal computer market. And there's less Android/iOS devices put together than even OSX. Why would anyone target any of those platforms when 87% of the world uses Windows? And your point about having the tools and the win32 api is kinda null because everyone is encouraged to install decent AV software, so most conventional ways of creating malware get caught out that way.

And my point is that if someone seriously targetted OSX, it'd be a comparatively easier job than targeting windows 7 (especially x64 for which there are currently no known functioning rootkits) because of the egotistical neglect apple's given OSX's security, but people don't because the hit rate for these things is probably less than a percent on PC so the amount of work which goes into creating an effective malware would be wasted on the comparatively negligible reach of OSX.

Regardless, you can't cite iOS (Based on the OSX kernel) in this since it's had a number of viruses already (some quite bad ones, such as the SMS virus which could make calls and access data). And before you say "Why haven't they done this for the desktop OSX then?", there's a lot more value in being able to dial a premium number than someone's iPhoto album.