This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
"The design of the Macintosh operating system and the vigilance of Macintosh users[29] has contributed to the near-absence of the types of malware and spyware that plague Microsoft Windows users."
The preceding is not accurate. Malware/viruses are written for the masses. Whoever has the largest market share will have the most malware. -- DJBryson 06:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"Whoever has the largest market share will have the most malware." Prove this and provide accurate statistics to back it up. Now having said that I think OS X would have SOME spyware etc if it had XP's marketshare. But nowhere near the amount XP has now. A lot of the reason XP has the spyware it does isn't because it's popularity, but how it comes setup by default. And that is on the fault of MS. MS wants people to believe that running virus scanners and malware and spyware scanners on a CONSUMER device is normal behavioral practice. IT IS NOT. MS is trying to fix things now with Vista by using the permission system like OS X and other *NIX oss do. This should help a lot with the virus and spyware issues. 66.76.193.162 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I always thought that it was because no-one made them, since they arn't used much by buisnesses and suchlike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.50.20 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC).
Unix may be more secure, but it would have plenty of viruses if it had the market share that Windows systems have. Apache may have the majority of web servers, but people don't write viruses for web servers most of the time. Most people write malware for PC's, and guess who has the majority of the PC market? Microsoft Windows. The reason that Windows servers have virus issues is that the viruses written for the PC version of Windows work on Windows server OS's. I have a friend who was dealing with virus issues on his Windows based server. He found out the server got the virus form a Windows based PC.
On another note, when a Mac gets a virus (yes they are rare, but there are viruses for Macs) they are totaly screwed. I have seen a computer lab full of Macs that where new at the time(50 or more) go down for a week from a small piece of malware. The virus spread like wild fire. Now on the other hand I've seen a whole network of PC's get exposed to a virus (it was much more robust, and there were 250 PCs) and only three went down. Thet were back up by the end of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.238.17 ( talk) 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The caption for the "MacBook Pro" states "The MacBook Pro is the first Macintosh notebook to use an Intel processor. It was released at Macworld 2006." The first two notebooks had about 80% Intels and on the next two it was an option. Let alone that many people, like those at Pixar changed to Intels on the newer models. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.62.181.199 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
The First Four Sections had been removed. I reverted this change. Camhusmj38 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
With this being a featured article I cringe at reading grammar like this: "Apple didn't use Pentium 4 or Pentium D CPUs because of there power consumption and heating. Also, it didn't use AMD CPUs because Intel's roadmap in 2005, its large factories and because it was capable to offer a complete platform (as AMD can offer after buying ATI)." (BTW, I removed this)
There are also blatant POV issues like: "The design of the Macintosh operating system and the vigilance of Macintosh users[29] has contributed to the near-absence of the types of malware and spyware that plague Microsoft Windows users." (This fact is clearly disputed, IOW POV - The counter argument being marked share and such, and there is no proof that Mac users are any more vigilant than anyone else.)
This is a featured article people; try to not make Wikipedia look bad :-) -- Anss123 16:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-12-19T01:46Z
As Apple's website actually speaks of Macs and compares them to PCs, are Macs PCs? If they are, they are--but I can use a server with two Intel quad-core cpus in it and use it for personal use, so is that a PC too? Only saying because it seems Apple is marketing against PCs and for Macintoshes--and PC originated from IBM PC, making Apple different. Any thoughts? Bourgeoisdude 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-01-18T17:00Z
I've archived old discussions to a new archive page. Also, I've moved all the archives, as they were linked under Talk:Apple Macintosh instead of here. The archives now have a navigation template, making it easier to read from one page to the next. Hope folks find this helpful. -- Kesh 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is very biased. It constantly talks about how great the macintosh is/was and how it is so surprising Mac's have not taken over the world. One example in particular is the article states as a fact that MS Windows' UI was written to be a copy of MacOS'. But hidden later in the article it says that Apple sued microsoft over this and lost. Clearly the first statement is subjective and the second is objective. But the first one is strongly supported in the article. Where the second statement is downplayed and even hinted that Bil Gates used dirty tactics to stop Apple's legal appeal. Now I am not a huge fan of MS or Apple but reading this article was painful because of the slant. The article should be written much more factually. All the subjectiveness of the author should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Goat ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Let me clear this one up for you guys. The first windowed operating system was created by XEROX, not APPLE. So saying Windows stole the idea from Apple is not accurate. The truth is out there. -- DJBryson 06:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Apple Actually didn't STEAL anything from PARC. It was payed well for ideas that Apple itself was already working on. The PARC OS really didn't work or behave like Apple's OS. However, Windows's OS did act like Apple's OS.
Now who copied who? 66.76.193.162 17:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If you don't think this article is biased you have to be practicaly drowning in the Koolaid. This article is biased. Though when something, such as Macs, have a huge cult-like fan base it will be very hard not to make an biased article. The problem is that many times I have tried to edit the article to remove biase and my changes have been reverted. This is the one thing about Wikipedia that I hate. The admins are often not able to over ocme thier biased views to produce an unbiased Wikipedia article.
"Many analysts have stated that certain high-profile programs, such as those from Adobe Systems, should not be used under Rosetta until native versions are released."
"Macintosh systems are mainly targeted at the home, education, and creative professional markets." Perhaps most sales are in these markets (though some hard data would be nice), but is it really certain that they are "targeted" at these markets? Numberp 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither Dell nor HP/Compaq are OEMs. Like Appple, they sub-contract out to Chinese companies like Asus. Frequently, both Dell and MacBook machines roll off the same assembly lines. The section on manufacturing here is a little naive.
This sentence has long confused me: "The Power Macintosh G4 with its SuperDrive introduced the first relatively affordable DVD-R drive in 2001" - so presumably with the "relatively affordable" qualifier, this wasn't the first computer to come with DVD-R as standard, in which case, I'm wondering in what sense this is innovative? Was there some dramatic breakthrough in price thanks to some innovation by Apple, or does this just mean cheaper than before? In what way did the Superdrive effect the computer industry?
There's now a reference for it [1] but that just confirms that it existed, it doesn't explain why it's notable, or provide a reference for an effect on the rest of the computer industry.
Thanks for any explanation. Mdwh 03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
First computer with virtual memory? That's disputed by the Wikipedia article for virtual memory. Mdwh 03:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Heck i think even the Altair 8800 had some virtual memory.
Should there be an article for Mac peripherals (modems, printers, tape drives, storage, et. al.)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 ( talk) 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Under "Storage" the statement is made: "All Macs have one optical drive. The Mac Pro has room for either one or two." Excuse me? My Mac 128 didn't. Perhaps a little qualification is in order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.188.244 ( talk) 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is does the article begin with "The" Macintosh? The article for iPod doesn't and it should be a similar situation here...
Dolbinau 11:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
"The design of the Macintosh operating system and the vigilance of Macintosh users[29] has contributed to the near-absence of the types of malware and spyware that plague Microsoft Windows users."
The preceding is not accurate. Malware/viruses are written for the masses. Whoever has the largest market share will have the most malware. -- DJBryson 06:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"Whoever has the largest market share will have the most malware." Prove this and provide accurate statistics to back it up. Now having said that I think OS X would have SOME spyware etc if it had XP's marketshare. But nowhere near the amount XP has now. A lot of the reason XP has the spyware it does isn't because it's popularity, but how it comes setup by default. And that is on the fault of MS. MS wants people to believe that running virus scanners and malware and spyware scanners on a CONSUMER device is normal behavioral practice. IT IS NOT. MS is trying to fix things now with Vista by using the permission system like OS X and other *NIX oss do. This should help a lot with the virus and spyware issues. 66.76.193.162 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I always thought that it was because no-one made them, since they arn't used much by buisnesses and suchlike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.50.20 ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC).
Unix may be more secure, but it would have plenty of viruses if it had the market share that Windows systems have. Apache may have the majority of web servers, but people don't write viruses for web servers most of the time. Most people write malware for PC's, and guess who has the majority of the PC market? Microsoft Windows. The reason that Windows servers have virus issues is that the viruses written for the PC version of Windows work on Windows server OS's. I have a friend who was dealing with virus issues on his Windows based server. He found out the server got the virus form a Windows based PC.
On another note, when a Mac gets a virus (yes they are rare, but there are viruses for Macs) they are totaly screwed. I have seen a computer lab full of Macs that where new at the time(50 or more) go down for a week from a small piece of malware. The virus spread like wild fire. Now on the other hand I've seen a whole network of PC's get exposed to a virus (it was much more robust, and there were 250 PCs) and only three went down. Thet were back up by the end of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.238.17 ( talk) 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The caption for the "MacBook Pro" states "The MacBook Pro is the first Macintosh notebook to use an Intel processor. It was released at Macworld 2006." The first two notebooks had about 80% Intels and on the next two it was an option. Let alone that many people, like those at Pixar changed to Intels on the newer models. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.62.181.199 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
The First Four Sections had been removed. I reverted this change. Camhusmj38 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
With this being a featured article I cringe at reading grammar like this: "Apple didn't use Pentium 4 or Pentium D CPUs because of there power consumption and heating. Also, it didn't use AMD CPUs because Intel's roadmap in 2005, its large factories and because it was capable to offer a complete platform (as AMD can offer after buying ATI)." (BTW, I removed this)
There are also blatant POV issues like: "The design of the Macintosh operating system and the vigilance of Macintosh users[29] has contributed to the near-absence of the types of malware and spyware that plague Microsoft Windows users." (This fact is clearly disputed, IOW POV - The counter argument being marked share and such, and there is no proof that Mac users are any more vigilant than anyone else.)
This is a featured article people; try to not make Wikipedia look bad :-) -- Anss123 16:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
@ 2006-12-19T01:46Z
As Apple's website actually speaks of Macs and compares them to PCs, are Macs PCs? If they are, they are--but I can use a server with two Intel quad-core cpus in it and use it for personal use, so is that a PC too? Only saying because it seems Apple is marketing against PCs and for Macintoshes--and PC originated from IBM PC, making Apple different. Any thoughts? Bourgeoisdude 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-01-18T17:00Z
I've archived old discussions to a new archive page. Also, I've moved all the archives, as they were linked under Talk:Apple Macintosh instead of here. The archives now have a navigation template, making it easier to read from one page to the next. Hope folks find this helpful. -- Kesh 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is very biased. It constantly talks about how great the macintosh is/was and how it is so surprising Mac's have not taken over the world. One example in particular is the article states as a fact that MS Windows' UI was written to be a copy of MacOS'. But hidden later in the article it says that Apple sued microsoft over this and lost. Clearly the first statement is subjective and the second is objective. But the first one is strongly supported in the article. Where the second statement is downplayed and even hinted that Bil Gates used dirty tactics to stop Apple's legal appeal. Now I am not a huge fan of MS or Apple but reading this article was painful because of the slant. The article should be written much more factually. All the subjectiveness of the author should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Goat ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Let me clear this one up for you guys. The first windowed operating system was created by XEROX, not APPLE. So saying Windows stole the idea from Apple is not accurate. The truth is out there. -- DJBryson 06:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Apple Actually didn't STEAL anything from PARC. It was payed well for ideas that Apple itself was already working on. The PARC OS really didn't work or behave like Apple's OS. However, Windows's OS did act like Apple's OS.
Now who copied who? 66.76.193.162 17:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If you don't think this article is biased you have to be practicaly drowning in the Koolaid. This article is biased. Though when something, such as Macs, have a huge cult-like fan base it will be very hard not to make an biased article. The problem is that many times I have tried to edit the article to remove biase and my changes have been reverted. This is the one thing about Wikipedia that I hate. The admins are often not able to over ocme thier biased views to produce an unbiased Wikipedia article.
"Many analysts have stated that certain high-profile programs, such as those from Adobe Systems, should not be used under Rosetta until native versions are released."
"Macintosh systems are mainly targeted at the home, education, and creative professional markets." Perhaps most sales are in these markets (though some hard data would be nice), but is it really certain that they are "targeted" at these markets? Numberp 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither Dell nor HP/Compaq are OEMs. Like Appple, they sub-contract out to Chinese companies like Asus. Frequently, both Dell and MacBook machines roll off the same assembly lines. The section on manufacturing here is a little naive.
This sentence has long confused me: "The Power Macintosh G4 with its SuperDrive introduced the first relatively affordable DVD-R drive in 2001" - so presumably with the "relatively affordable" qualifier, this wasn't the first computer to come with DVD-R as standard, in which case, I'm wondering in what sense this is innovative? Was there some dramatic breakthrough in price thanks to some innovation by Apple, or does this just mean cheaper than before? In what way did the Superdrive effect the computer industry?
There's now a reference for it [1] but that just confirms that it existed, it doesn't explain why it's notable, or provide a reference for an effect on the rest of the computer industry.
Thanks for any explanation. Mdwh 03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
First computer with virtual memory? That's disputed by the Wikipedia article for virtual memory. Mdwh 03:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Heck i think even the Altair 8800 had some virtual memory.
Should there be an article for Mac peripherals (modems, printers, tape drives, storage, et. al.)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 ( talk) 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Under "Storage" the statement is made: "All Macs have one optical drive. The Mac Pro has room for either one or two." Excuse me? My Mac 128 didn't. Perhaps a little qualification is in order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.188.244 ( talk) 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is does the article begin with "The" Macintosh? The article for iPod doesn't and it should be a similar situation here...
Dolbinau 11:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)