Mac OS 10.4 Vs. Windows

[Vuldari]

Their marketing department has nothing to do with it.

Nope...just ignorant Mac users who assume that, just because they have never gotten a virus, that it means that they CAN'T.

...which simply is not true...

...but they flaunt their false conlcusion around, sharing it with their mac-using freinds, and rubbing it in the faces of Windows users anyway.



There is allways a way. NO mainstream OS in existance is unbreakable.

No perfectly "secure" OS could ever run the kind of automatic, 'does everything for you' software that consumers want...which is really part of the problem.

[Lupin]

No. The statement I made had nothing to do with their marketing department. It came from actually using UNIX systems long before Apple considered turning one into a product for the average consumer.

[Vuldari]

No. The statement I made had nothing to do with their marketing department. It came from actually using UNIX systems long before Apple considered turning one into a product for the average consumer.

I know Apple is not claiming to be "Immune" to viruses. It's all overzealous Mac users who spread this idea...I said that allready, but apparently you were not listening.

So you are claiming to have been using computers and being intimately familiar with the unix kernel before Personal Computers were on the market?

...oh really?...

And just who are you? ...Steve Jobs?...

My freind is in charge of upgrading, testing and buying all of the coputers and technology for several large buisnesses...including at least one airline...I have no reason to believe he has been giving me false information.
(It is part of his job to know how to crack every piece of software they buy, so he can know how to protect them against it)

If you are you wagering your word against his, I trust Him.

...or are you talking about the "old, old, so old and basic that there is nothing to crack, because they don't do much of anything", OS systems?

What ARE you talking about anyway?

Mac OS , Windows and Linux are All based off the "Unix" kernel...as I understand it.

[Lupin]

I know Apple is not claiming to be "Immune" to viruses. It's all overzealous Mac users who spread this idea...I said that allready, but apparently you were not listening.

So you are claiming to have been using computers and being intimately familiar with the unix kernel before Personal Computers were on the market?

...oh really?...

And just who are you? ...Steve Jobs?...

Don't be so foolish. Apple didn't consider using UNIX as a core for their operating system until the late 90's with Rhapsody. (A/UX wasn't really an operating system for the normal consumer.)

My freind is in charge of upgrading, testing and buying all of the coputers and technology for several large buisnesses...including at least one airline...I have no reason to believe he has been giving me false information.
(It is part of his job to know how to crack every piece of software they buy, so he can know how to protect them against it)

If you are you wagering your word against his, I trust Him.

Sorry, but your "friend" sounds like he's posturing.

...or are you talking about the "old, old, so old and basic that there is nothing to crack, because they don't do much of anything", OS systems?

What ARE you talking about anyway?

I am talking about the fact that in Unix-like operating systems, the permissions system is setup so they just cannot do the same level of damage as a user on a on a Windows system can.

Mac OS , Windows and Linux are All based off the "Unix" kernel...as I understand it.

Then you understand incorrectly. While Windows, MacOS X, and Linux are all POSIX complant, the only one of the three that is acutally a descendant of UNIX, is Mac OS X, which is BSD-based. Linux is only Unix-like, and Windows is based on someing completely different.

[Scott Gardener]

By the way, "LINUX" stands for Linux Is Not UniX." It's licensing entity, GNU, stands for "Gnu, Not Unix."

[Vuldari]

Don't be so foolish. Apple didn't consider using UNIX as a core for their operating system until the late 90's with Rhapsody. (A/UX wasn't really an operating system for the normal consumer.)

You were talking about how "Unix" systems are soo impenitrable...what are you complaining or ranting about here?

The quote this is responding to said nothing about apple computers. The reference to "Steve Jobs" was merely a random name of a early-gen computer guy.

...your response isn't even relevant to my question and statement you responded it to...
I was talking about exagerating Mac users, not OS systems never designed for Consumer use

WHEN and HOW were you working with Unix OS systems prior to the existance of the Personal Computer?

Sorry, but your "friend" sounds like he's posturing.

Just what is that supposed to mean? No really...I have no Idea what you are trying to say.

He explained to me exactly how he can break into and gain complete access to ANY computer, running ANY OS with almost no effort whatsoever. ...it takes only the simplest of programs...(He told me he has a copy that fits on a floppy that he uses to crack older computers)

One needs only to get one of these tiny, protection ignoring, programs into the computer one way or another and everything is open. Having the best security software in the world cant help you when the invading program is, in essence, it's own OS...effectively bypassing everything because the Core OS does not even know that it is there.

He uses them by being physically present and running them at boot up...but there are other ways to get such programs into the computer...and once it's in, the game is over...no matter what the OS's "permission systems" allow.

...or are you talking about the "old, old, so old and basic that there is nothing to crack, because they don't do much of anything", OS systems?

What ARE you talking about anyway?

I am talking about the fact that in Unix-like operating systems, the permissions system is setup so they just cannot do the same level of damage as a user on a on a Windows system can.

Systems designed to do one dedicated task, and not do anything else are hardly part of the equation here.

A Computer, being run by a regular person, running consumer software, is vunerable to hackers and viruses like any other, no matter whether they are running Windows, Mac OS, or whatever.

...the whole point of my argument has been that, if you are a regular consumer, and you are using a computer, you are being completely Naive if you think you are "Invincible" because you are running a Mac, or one of the other OS's instead of Windows.



If you are actually USING the computer, rather than bottling it up like a fortress ...it is Vunerable.


That is all I have been trying to say all along...

...but you keep butting in to flex your geek muscles and show that you can talk more technobabble than I can...complely missing and ignoring the POINT of my messages each time, because you noticed some minor mis-fact in my statement and feel the need to lecture me about it.

(Thank you for clearing up the Unix/Not Unix facts...but that utlitmately was not the main subject of this discussion, and correcting that has no effect on the point I was trying to make.)


An average consumer running a Mac, or Linux, or some Unix besed OS, actually USING it for normal purposes (surfing the web, running comercial software, etc.) IS vunerable to Virus's, almost as much as the average Windows user...exept for the fact that they are mostly ignored by hackers because of being significantly in the minority.

Having more security measures in place that, sensibly, should (but don't) exist on PC's as well, is NOT the equivilant of being perfectly impenitrable.

[Lupin]

The quote this is responding to said nothing about apple computers. The reference to "Steve Jobs" was merely a random name of a early-gen computer guy.

I am well aware of who Steve Jobs is.

WHEN and HOW were you working with Unix OS systems prior to the existance of the Personal Computer?

Until you can actually read, comprehend, and not draw bizarre meanings from the statements I make, this discussion can not continue. (Hint: Once again, I said that I had been using UNIX products before Apple started on Raphsody, which became OS X. Apple only considered using UNIX as a base for the OS, in the project codenamed 'Raphsody', in the late 1990's. So it's compltely plausible that I used Unix, and Unix-like stuff before that.)

Oddly enough, that's not impossible. UNIX was first developed in the 1960s, and the first "Personal Computer", the Altair 8800, was developed in 1975.

[white]

Whee. Little bit of a misconception going on here, Vuldari. If you have unrestricted physical access to a machine, no software security really matters. This is what people like security guards, and things like locks are for. On the other hand, if you don't have physical access to a machine, an ideal *nix system IS secure, be it a corporate mainframe or some naive user's laptop. Of course, that relies upon the assumption that there are no exploitable flaws in the security-related portions of the machine.

A tool like your friend describes, by the way, is highly unlikely. While physical access to a machine does pretty much guarantee access if you try hard enough, you can't just boot a floppy and replace the kernel without breaking most non-windows systems, and the locations, names, sizes, contents, etcetera of kernel images varies so largely that it'd take a fine toothed comb to even find it, assuming that you have the tools to mount the filesystem it's on. The tools necessary for this do NOT fit on a floppy, and are not simple. I might give your friend a tiny bit of potential credit if he had an array of bootable CDs, but a floppy and claims about "the simplest of programs" doesn't cut it. Even windows rootkit, which is similar to what you're describing, is pretty complex, and not all of that is just to hide itself. Such things don't work so well on *nix systems, as a normal user account doesn't have permission to make the necessary changes. If you're going to rely on them to do something stupid like type in their root password for an untrusted program, though, you might as well just write a small shell script to start an ssh server change the root password, and phone home, and hand it out to people as a solitare game. The biggest security hole is always a careless and/or unknowledgable user.

Another thing: Unix systems are NOT designed to do "one dedicated task." They are, in fact, very very good at doing a large number of things at once, and one of the best selling points (so to speak) is flexibility. If you can get thing ranging from OSX to Solaris to IRIX to Gentoo to Ubuntu to the thing that operates your LAN's router from the same base, it's got to be. And they're also very good at handling the security necessary for a multitasking and multiuser system.

Using something for normal purposes doesn't make you any more or less vulnerable. On a correctly set up (read: default settings for most mainstream distros) Linux box, a user won't be any more at risk than the maintenance team of some university's server network.

No OS is invinvible, and for one reason: Human error. The best designed system will have a mistake somewhere in its code, have some small thing overlooked, and a way in will be found. If the devs are any good it'll be patched before the week's out, too. However, to be frank, windows has a nasty habit of giving everything access to everything. There was even a proof of concept web page I ran into once that, on windows systems, ejected the CD tray.

More about this friend of yours. If he claims literally "any," to be frank, he's full of it. Binaries are not crosscompatible. Libraries vary, processor instructions vary, standards vary, filesystems vary, myriads of basic hardware varies... He's right that it's pretty easy to get into most any machine if you have physical access. He's wrong about how it's done, and it /can't/ be done in that manner without physical access.

Oh, and stop complaining about offtopic things. This is the internet, ffs. Be glad we're still talking about operating systems

[Vuldari]

The quote this is responding to said nothing about apple computers. The reference to "Steve Jobs" was merely a random name of a early-gen computer guy.

I am well aware of who Steve Jobs is.


(Hint: Apple only considered using UNIX as a base for the OS in the late 1990's.)

Oddly enough, that's not impossible. UNIX was first developed in the 1960s, and the first "Personal Computer", the Altair 8800, was developed in 1975.

Are we speaking different languages or something?

Somehow you seem to be completely missing the subject of my posts each time and are commenting on things that I was not talking about, exept as convenient examples.

I allready recognised that you were likely correct in correcting my "Unix" statement, and then tried to make it clear that this fact is not, Nor Ever Was the subject of this discussion...

... and yet you are repeating yourself and carrying on as if my uncertain statement of beliving that all Mainstream OS's were based off the same origin program (which I'm still pretty sure they were, and I thought it was called "Unix"...or so I remembered it. I don't know anything about a NEW, 'late 90s' program by that name.) has been the only thing I've said at all.


I also never even suggested in my post that I thought you didn't know who Steve Jobs is.


I just can't quite figure out what you are rambling about.

WHEN and HOW were you working with Unix OS systems prior to the existance of the Personal Computer?

Until you can actually read, comprehend and not draw bizarre meanings from statements I make, this discussion can not continue.

Bizarre meanings from your statements?

What, praytell, did you mean by this then?

The statement I made had nothing to do with their marketing department. It came from actually using UNIX systems long before Apple considered turning one into a product for the average consumer.

This statement sounded to me like you were saying that your stance comes from having personally experienced using Unix systems before apple considered releasing a consumer product.
(I still had the idea in my mind that the core program that Mac's OS was based off of was known as "Unix"')

Stop dragging the subject off course because I possibly mis-remembered a name.

Both Windows and Apples first respective OS's were copies of a program that neither Microsoft or Apple created. If that program was not known as "Unix" (which "Linux" was an open-source version of...or so I thought), then what was it?

If you must make such a fuss about the details, answer that one question and forget everything else, so this thread can get back on subject.

...please...

[Vuldari]

Whee. Little bit of a misconception going on here, Vuldari. If you have unrestricted physical access to a machine, no software security really matters. This is what people like security guards, and things like locks are for. On the other hand, if you don't have physical access to a machine, an ideal *nix system IS secure, be it a corporate mainframe or some naive user's laptop. Of course, that relies upon the assumption that there are no exploitable flaws in the security-related portions of the machine.

A tool like your friend describes, by the way, is highly unlikely. While physical access to a machine does pretty much guarantee access if you try hard enough, you can't just boot a floppy and replace the kernel without breaking most non-windows systems, and the locations, names, sizes, contents, etcetera of kernel images varies so largely that it'd take a fine toothed comb to even find it, assuming that you have the tools to mount the filesystem it's on. The tools necessary for this do NOT fit on a floppy, and are not simple. I might give your friend a tiny bit of potential credit if he had an array of bootable CDs, but a floppy and claims about "the simplest of programs" doesn't cut it. Even windows rootkit, which is similar to what you're describing, is pretty complex, and not all of that is just to hide itself. Such things don't work so well on *nix systems, as a normal user account doesn't have permission to make the necessary changes. If you're going to rely on them to do something stupid like type in their root password for an untrusted program, though, you might as well just write a small shell script to start an ssh server change the root password, and phone home, and hand it out to people as a solitare game. The biggest security hole is always a careless and/or unknowledgable user.

Another thing: Unix systems are NOT designed to do "one dedicated task." They are, in fact, very very good at doing a large number of things at once, and one of the best selling points (so to speak) is flexibility. If you can get thing ranging from OSX to Solaris to IRIX to Gentoo to Ubuntu to the thing that operates your LAN's router from the same base, it's got to be. And they're also very good at handling the security necessary for a multitasking and multiuser system.

Using something for normal purposes doesn't make you any more or less vulnerable. On a correctly set up (read: default settings for most mainstream distros) Linux box, a user won't be any more at risk than the maintenance team of some university's server network.

No OS is invinvible, and for one reason: Human error. The best designed system will have a mistake somewhere in its code, have some small thing overlooked, and a way in will be found. If the devs are any good it'll be patched before the week's out, too. However, to be frank, windows has a nasty habit of giving everything access to everything. There was even a proof of concept web page I ran into once that, on windows systems, ejected the CD tray.

More about this friend of yours. If he claims literally "any," to be frank, he's full of it. Binaries are not crosscompatible. Libraries vary, processor instructions vary, standards vary, filesystems vary, myriads of basic hardware varies... He's right that it's pretty easy to get into most any machine if you have physical access. He's wrong about how it's done, and it /can't/ be done in that manner without physical access.

Oh, and stop complaining about offtopic things. This is the internet, ffs. Be glad we're still talking about operating systems

At least You, Ralith, seem to understand what I was talking about.

Yes..."one dedicated task" was a bit of an exageration. I meant more along the lines of, stipped of the excess bells and whistles of consumer level products that most malicious programs take advantage of, and designed for specialized uses.

Much more secure, certainly, but not relevant to my main point, as I assume that we are talking about "Consumer" product OS's in this thread.

As for not beliving that the program in question can do what he claims...I don't know him as the kind of person who would ever brag about imaginary things.

The point of the program is (As I remember him explaining it to me)...the existing OS is irrelevant, because it does not run within it, but rather Parallel-To/Instead-Of The OS.

...maybe it was a thumb-drive, or something other than a floppy, but I know it wasn't a boot-CD. I distinctly remember him talking about how amazingly small, and incomparably powerful it was. It could crack and read any computers files like an open book.

...okay fine...so maybe I was getting carried away in thinking such a program could be installed remotely...but the concept seems simple enough to me.



*Sigh*


This was all just supposed to be a simple statement. Mac's and other Non-Windows 'Consumer' OSs are NOT "IMMUNE" to viruses.

This is a fact.

That is the only point I have been trying to stress this whole time...and it is the one subject that no one has been responding to.

I was just trying to provide an explanation for why Mac viruses are nigh unheard of, and the entire conversation went completely out of controll from there.

...for goodness sake...

[psiguy]

Both Windows and Apples first respective OS's were copies of a program that neither Microsoft or Apple created. If that program was not known as "Unix" (which "Linux" was an open-source version of...or so I thought), then what was it?

I thought that the early versions of windows came from D.O.S.
Back then, they just added a graphical interface and mouse usability.
And that probbably lasted till Windows 95 when they were trying to move from 16 bit archetecture to 32 bit archetecture. But I could be wrong...

[Lupin]

Bizarre meanings from your statements?

What, praytell, did you mean by this then?

The statement I made had nothing to do with their marketing department. It came from actually using UNIX systems long before Apple considered turning one into a product for the average consumer.

This statement sounded to me like you were saying that your stance comes from having personally experienced using Unix systems before apple considered releasing a consumer product.

It means, as I have explained multiple times, that I have been using Unix since before 1998, which is when Apple started developing Raphsody, which is the BSD-derivative operating system, that became Mac OS X.

(I still had the idea in my mind that the core program that Mac's OS was based off of was known as "Unix"')

Stop dragging the subject off course because I possibly mis-remembered a name.

Both Windows and Apples first respective OS's were copies of a program that neither Microsoft or Apple created. If that program was not known as "Unix" (which "Linux" was an open-source version of...or so I thought), then what was it?

Short answer:
There was no single OS.

Long answer:

A Brief History of Modern Personal Computing

Microsoft: Licensed DOS from, Seattle Computer Products, created Windows as a graphical shell to DOS, which includes Windows 1.0 through Windows ME. Everything else came from NT:
Microsoft also partnered with IBM to develop another OS called OS/2 NT, but eventually the two companies had a falling out. Microsoft then hired several engineers from DEC, most notibly, Dave Cutler, to develop Windows NT.

Apple: Developed Macintosh System Software 1.0 in-house, due to the fact that the original Macintosh had limited memory (128KB) and no permanent storage. Many parts were directly written in assembly because of this size constraint. System 2-7.1 and Mac OS 7.5 through 9 were all based upon this, adding spport various things like multitasking, hard drives, TCP/IP, color, the PPC processor, and whatnot.

In 1998 Apple, having canceled the next-generation operating system known as Copland, aquired NeXT, the company that Steve Jobs formed after he was forced out of Apple. Eventually they started on a project, Raphsody, that became Mac OS X.

Neither the first nine versions of Mac OS, nor any part of Windows is a Unix derivative. Because of the engineers from DEC and Dave Cutler, Windows probably has more in common with VMS, if anything, than it does with Unix.

However, what you might be thinking of, is the fact that idea for the GUI as we know it didn't come from Apple/Microsoft, but from Xerox.

[Vuldari]

Both Windows and Apples first respective OS's were copies of a program that neither Microsoft or Apple created. If that program was not known as "Unix" (which "Linux" was an open-source version of...or so I thought), then what was it?

I thought that the early versions of windows came from D.O.S.
Back then, they just added a graphical interface and mouse usability.
And that probbably lasted till Windows 95 when they were trying to move from 16 bit archetecture to 32 bit archetecture. But I could be wrong...

I Have been doing a bit of research, and I have found where I have been getting my ideas from, but that it is far more complicated than I realised.

...basically...I've been partially right in my assumptions and understandings...but I have been working with a highly incomplete version of the history of the modern OS in my head.

I'm going to read more into This article for a while to brush up on my facts so I don't confuse anyone else with my partially mis-remembered details.

I would like to share a little bit of what I have read so far, however...

...The Rise of Apple Computer:
In 1975, two computer enthusiasts, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, founded a
company called Apple Computer. This was nothing extraordinary by itself, as there were
numerous small companies assembling computers were popping up all over. But, what
distinguished Apple from others was its vision and determination to make microcomputer
a consumer product for a much greater market of households and non-expert individuals.

For this purpose, they packaged the product as a self-contained unit in a plastic case, able
to be plugged into a standard household outlet like just any other appliance; it was to
incorporate a keyboard to enter data, a screen to view the output and some form of
storage to hold data and programs. Jobs and Wozniak also realized that the machine
would need software to appeal to anyone other than a computer enthusiastic. With this
vision, Apple I came out in 1975, which could plug into a television set display (Young,
1988).
In 1977, a much improved version of Apple called Apple II came out. It used
MOS Technologies’ (a spin-off of Motorola) 6502 chips rather than Intel 8080, the
standard chips at that time. It used fewer chips than the comparable Altair machines, yet
it outperformed them due to superior circuit design. It had excellent color graphics
capabilities, which made it suitable for interactive games. Although Apple I’s BASIC
was written by Steve Wozniak, for Apple II, Microsoft was contracted out for a better
version. The fee from this helped Microsoft to overcome the threat of bankruptcy at that
time given it had only few contracts for writing software at that time (Manes and
Andrews, 1993).
Initially, Apple II used a cassette tape but by the end of 1977, Wozniak designed a
disk controller that simplified floppy disk drives that were much more simpler than the
ones that were used by Altair and others at that time. Apple’s floppy-disks were 5.25
inches and could hold 113 KB of data. The disk drive sold for $ 495 which included an
operating system software and a controller that plugged into one of Apple II’s internal
slots. The operating system was written by Jobs and Wozniak. It was written in UNIX
which enabled it to be portable. In 1980, Apple used an attachable card called Soft Card
25
from Microsoft which allowed Apple II to run CP/M. For Microsoft, this piece of
hardware was one of the best selling products at that time (Williams and Moore, 1985)....

I Knew I remembered both Microsoft and Apple using software called "UNIX" prior to 1990.

...I just didn't fully understand what it was, or how both OS lines had evolved after that point.

[Vuldari]

Neither the first nine versions of Mac OS, nor any part of Windows is a Unix derivative. Because of the engineers from DEC and Dave Cutler, Windows probably has more in common with VMS, if anything, than it does with Unix.

However, what you might be thinking of, is the fact that idea for the GUI as we know it didn't come from Apple/Microsoft, but from Xerox.

Ahem...

...see above quote and source article...

THIS is what I have been talking about...not buisnes OS's from the late 90's ALSO evolved from the Unix program.

[Lupin]

Neither the first nine versions of Mac OS, nor any part of Windows is a Unix derivative. Because of the engineers from DEC and Dave Cutler, Windows probably has more in common with VMS, if anything, than it does with Unix.

However, what you might be thinking of, is the fact that idea for the GUI as we know it didn't come from Apple/Microsoft, but from Xerox.

Ahem...

...see above quote and source article...

THIS is what I have been talking about...not buisnes OS's from the late 90's ALSO evolved from the Unix program.

Yeah, the article you quoted above is misleading at best:

The operating system was written by Jobs and Wozniak. It was written in UNIX

As UNIX is an operating system, and not a programming lanugage, one cannot write an operating system in UNIX. One can however write an operating system with Unix, using a text editor running within it. That wouldn't make it based on Unix anymore than writing an OS using notepad running in Windows would make it based on Windows.

[Vuldari]

Neither the first nine versions of Mac OS, nor any part of Windows is a Unix derivative. Because of the engineers from DEC and Dave Cutler, Windows probably has more in common with VMS, if anything, than it does with Unix.

However, what you might be thinking of, is the fact that idea for the GUI as we know it didn't come from Apple/Microsoft, but from Xerox.

Ahem...

...see above quote and source article...

THIS is what I have been talking about...not buisnes OS's from the late 90's ALSO evolved from the Unix program.

Yeah, the article you quoted above is misleading at best:

The operating system was written by Jobs and Wozniak. It was written in UNIX

As UNIX is an operating system, and not a programming lanugage, one cannot write an operating system in UNIX. One can however write an operating system with Unix, using a text editor running within it. That wouldn't make it based on Unix anymore than writing an OS using notepad running in Windows would make it based on Windows.

You just LOVE finding the one word in any message that was poorly choosen and using that single word as your entire counterpoint...don't you?

First it was "Unix" (which, regardless of whether the person writing the article meant "In" or "With", this history prooves that they were using the program LONG before 1998) and now it is the word "IN" ? ?

You are a great word-checker...good for you...


The point is...when both Microsoft and Apple were writing their early OS's, they were using "UNIX".

...that is what I remembered...that is what I was talking about...


What does any of this have to do with the vunerability of Windows, Mac OS's and 'Consumer' Unix based OS's to virus's and other security leaks anyway?


I think you just like flexing you geek muscles too much...

...would you just give it a rest?

(...of course you won't...you seem more intent on informing me that Apple released a different Unix based OS in the late 90's, off the consumer radar, and completly having nothing to do with this topic, than you are of actually contrubiting to the core purpose of this thread.

...which is weighing the pro's and con's of the available "Consumer" Level OS's on the market at this time. ...Windows XP and OS X, specifically...)

[Vuldari]

Here is a link to one of surely THOUSANDS of similar Mac vs. Windows articles on the net.

[ To get this thread back on topic ]

http://www.jmusheneaux.com/


As for personal preference on OS's...

I don't buy a computer for the OS.

I buy it for the 3rd party software I plan to run on it, and therefore, use the program that is compatable with what I want to use...which is allways Windows.

It may not be the best, in terms of security and efficiency...but it is the ONLY option if I want to do anything besides run professional, proprietary software. ...like play the newest, greatest PC games...

If Mac's did everything that PC's do (which they are fully capable of, but DONT) then I would probobly be using one.

...but they don't...

So I am running my Frankenstien PC instead. (Which I named "Nick")

[Lupin]

You just LOVE finding the one word in any message that was poorly choosen and using that single word as your entire counterpoint...don't you?

First it was "Unix" (which, regardless of whether the person writing the article meant "In" or "With", this history prooves that they were using the program LONG before 1998) and now it is the word "IN" ? ?

You are a great word-checker...good for you...


The point is...when both Microsoft and Apple were writing their early OS's, they were using "UNIX".

It's not a word choice error, it's a blatant factual one. Operating systems are written in progrmming languages, whether they be assembly, C, C++, Pascal, or something else.

Unix back then was reserved for big machines, things that usually looked like refrigerators, and usually several people attending to the computer. There isn't any way Unix at that time could have been run on an Apple II computer. Unix is a multi-tasking, mult-user environment, and has been since the 1960's. The hardware on an Apple II would not have been able to cope with in any way, shape, or form. That's the only article that I can find anywhere that mentiones the Apple II and Unix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_DOS

Notice how this doesn't mention Unix at all.

Either way, they weren't marketing Unix as a consumer OS, so my point still stands: I've been using Unix since before Apple started using it as a base for their consumer-level OS.

...that is what I remembered...that is what I was talking about...

Then I suggest you actually read a source that is correct:

http://folklore.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows

Your knowledge on this is seriously flawed.

[Vuldari]

You just LOVE finding the one word in any message that was poorly choosen and using that single word as your entire counterpoint...don't you?

First it was "Unix" (which, regardless of whether the person writing the article meant "In" or "With", this history prooves that they were using the program LONG before 1998) and now it is the word "IN" ? ?

You are a great word-checker...good for you...


The point is...when both Microsoft and Apple were writing their early OS's, they were using "UNIX".

It's not a word choice error, it's a blatant factual one. Operating systems are written in progrmming languages, whether they be assembly, C, C++, Pascal, or something else.

Unix back then was reserved for big machines, things that usually looked like refrigerators, and usually several people attending to the computer. There isn't any way Unix at that time could have been run on an Apple II computer. Unix is a multi-tasking, mult-user environment, and has been since the 1960's. The hardware on an Apple II would not have been able to cope with in any way, shape, or form. That's the only article that I can find anywhere that mentiones the Apple II and Unix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_DOS

Notice how this doesn't mention Unix at all.

Either way, they weren't marketing Unix as a consumer OS, so my point still stands: I've been using Unix since before Apple started using it as a base for their consumer-level OS.

...that is what I remembered...that is what I was talking about...

Then I suggest you actually read a source that is correct:

http://folklore.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows

Your knowledge on this is seriously flawed.

Yup...

Once again, Completely Off-Topic, purely for the excuse for you to make us believe that you are the smartest, most knowlagable Geek here...

...even going as far as to claim that everything that goes against what you say is a complete LIE.


Give it a rest allready...

...all you are prooving here is that you are a J***@** "Knowitall", and that the exact details of the origins of both Microsoft and Apples early OS's are not as clearly known as they should be.

Are you going to shut up yet, and realise that it is perfectly understandable that we have been misunderstanding each other, given how much conflicting Information there is out there?...

Or are you just going to quote something else and continue turning this thread into a "Lupin is right and Vuldari is Stupid" vendetta...

...completely ignoring the point once again over a petty dispute over fine details?

-------------------------------------------------

...ahem...

Getting back on topic again. (I HOPE)


All of our opinions are unavoidably influenced by our personal experiences.

Who here uses a PC as thier primary Computer?

Who is using a MAC?

...and who regularly uses both?


Personally, learned how to use a computer by running my fathers old Commodore 64 back in the 80's, and did not have a personal Windows based PC untill 1997.

I used the old Apple II's back in my elementary school years, and I-macs in High School, but that is mostly the extent of my personal experience with Apple computers.

Most of my knowlage of Computers in general is HearSay from my father, brother, sisters boyfreind, Internet, and Telivision (such as the now lost "Tech TV" channel), combined with trial-and-error messing with windows 95, 98, and XP.

How about you?

[Lupin]

...even going as far as to claim that everything that goes against what you say is a complete LIE.

It's a basic fact:

operating system
n.

Software designed to control the hardware of a specific data-processing system in order to allow users and application programs to make use of it.

programming language
n.

An artificial language used to write instructions that can be translated into machine language and then executed by a computer.

UNIX (yū'nĭks) pronunciation

A trademark used for a computer disk operating system.

Give those three definitions, explain how this can be factually correct, or even makes sense:

The operating system was written by Jobs and Wozniak. It was written in UNIX which enabled it to be portable.

[Shadow Wulf]

OMG this turn out to be a computer war!!!

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20020109l.gif

[geekboy1500]

Here is a link to one of surely THOUSANDS of similar Mac vs. Windows articles on the net.

[ To get this thread back on topic ]

http://www.jmusheneaux.com/


As for personal preference on OS's...

I don't buy a computer for the OS.

I buy it for the 3rd party software I plan to run on it, and therefore, use the program that is compatable with what I want to use...which is allways Windows

It may not be the best, in terms of security and efficiency...but it is the ONLY option if I want to do anything besides run professional, proprietary software. ...like play the newest, greatest PC games...

If Mac's did everything that PC's do (which they are fully capable of, but DONT) then I would probobly be using one.

...but they don't...

So I am running my Frankenstien PC instead. (Which I named "Nick")

MACS CAN RUN WINDOWS
(without viruses)

P.S. i am dying in flames pleasssssssssseeeeeeeeeee don't nitpick

[geekboy1500]

i use both i use windows at school and was an avid windows fan until about 3 years ago

i went to an apple store (then 9) and figured out how to use the programs in roughly 2 hours, i even made a [very limited] song. (note this was with no prior experience) the main visual difference is that the task bar is located on the very top of the screen instead of within the window and of course that there is no start button all your frequently used programs are in a dock that you can put in multiple locations

look to me (apart from debatable viruses) macs are simply more logical [ex. to log off on a windows you have to click START]

[geekboy1500]

Once again, Completely Off-Topic, purely for the excuse for you to make us believe that you are the smartest, most knowlagable Geek here...

...even going as far as to claim that everything that goes against what you say is a complete LIE.


Give it a rest allready...

...all you are prooving here is that you are a J***@** "Knowitall", and that the exact details of the origins of both Microsoft and Apples early OS's are not as clearly known as they should be.

Are you going to shut up yet, and realise that it is perfectly understandable that we have been misunderstanding each other, given how much conflicting Information there is out there?...

Or are you just going to quote something else and continue turning this thread into a "Lupin is right and Vuldari is Stupid" vendetta...

...completely ignoring the point once again over a petty dispute over fine details?

that is seriously uncalled for

It means, as I have explained multiple times, that I have been using Unix since before 1998, which is when Apple started developing Raphsody, which is the BSD-derivative operating system, that became Mac OS X.

[quote/]

That is also completely uncalled for

[Shadow Wulf]

I personaly like both, I like PCs a little better, but I got nothing on mac except the one click mouse. otherwise macs are better for graphics software.