I work for Apple and yes, we get viruses. But it is extremely uncommon- I have had my MacBook Pro for over 3 years, and not once did I encounter it; and I download tons of stuff!
OK, I use a Mac. My username says it all. Some facts: * While you can get a cheap PC, even the most EXPENSAVE PCs don't have as good of specs as a Mac. * Macs have better, more reliable, hardware. You'd almost think PCs are meant to be disposable. PCs last, on average, a couple years. My iMac Summer 2000 (350MHz, 320MB RAM) still runs 10.4.11 just fine. It's actually gotten FASTER with OS upgrades. Compare that to upgrading a WinBlows 2000 or WinBlows ME computer to Vista and it still running nice and speedy. * Macs from ~2006 and newer can run WinBlows apps. You could even use something like VMWare Fusion in Unity mode to have it so the WinBlows apps are pretty much indistuingwishable from the Mac apps - disregarding the cruddy WinBlows UI. * Macs have better keyboards. Apple Pro Mouse and Apple Pro Keyboard (from ~2000, my favorite mouse/keyboard EVER!) Nuff said. * Macs are more stable. My iMac only gets restarted for power outages. * Networking is easier on a Mac. Vista doesn't have a "DCHP with manual address" setting, does it? On vista, if you want a static IP, you have to set the router address, subnet mask, dns servers, etc. * On WinBlows, you don't get to choose what OS components are installed. On a Mac, you do, which makes it MUCH faster and ess bogged down. There's lots more that I don't have the time to type out, but Macs are better than PCs. (Unless it's a Linux PC, Xubuntu is the only OS I know of that even compares to Mac OS X.)
False. Macs cost more than an equivalent PC and are of inferior specs to the really high end PCs. False. It's exactly the same hardware that you can have in a PC, except with added vendor lock-in. False, buy a decent PC keyboard and its just as good. False. I have Windows servers with uptimes of months. False. The point of a static address is its manually set. thats exactly the same on a mac. If you dont want a static address, then its automatic. As it happens you can assign static addresses via DHCP but that is a feature of the DHCP server not the client OS. Having a manual address with everything else provided by DHCP is just stupid. Use a static DHCP assignment. As it happens you can still get the DNS servers from DHCP even if the address is manually set. but its pointless. Either you're using static addressing or you're using dynamic addressing. Mixing them is one of the dumbest things you can do in networking. False. Every version except vista allows that. And in vista you can remove stuff after its installed.
XP Vista? You mean Vista? Wow? All from macgeek417! I have my own server too, but... its not that... easy to make a site, I find... Post Merge: [time]1260462862[/time] Things I marked with this or expanded are not true, that includes somewhat everything, like Loonylion explained. Things I marked with this I want to say something about: In Vista/XP you do not have to, (even on DSi you do not have to) you can set the settings to ''automatically connect'', as my XP says. XP is way better then Ubuntu or something like those. I say XP, because a Mac is somewhat CRAP. A friend I know says it himself: ''You should NEVER get a Mac.''
The only reason I mix static and dynamic addressing on my network is because I want MY machines to have static addressed but noone else cares. I just set the static ones to 192.168.1.128, 129, 130, etc. Can you mention ANY case of a bottom-of-the-line PC from 2000 being upgraded to Vista and being FASTER than it's origional OS? I didn't think so. That's pretty much what I did with my iMac. I upgraded it from OS9.1 (~2000) to 10.4.9 (~2006)
I already told you, thats what static DHCP assignments are for. The way you do it will more than likely result in address conflicts sooner or later, making it a stupid workaround for a problem that already has a perfectly good solution. That's a flaw in that specific OS version. You cannot generalise from that.
Nobody ever really makes programs compatible for macs so for ME being a pc gamer too also makes it pointless for me to ever use a mac unless im making some movie or something and even then you still have a whole bunch of software for pc
I'm using a Mac at the Apple Store that's worth $1700 USD. Don't take it the wrong way, though; I'm a PC. ;D
