The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
How Do I Setup/Configure a PC to Run Like a Mac
Old 12th September 2011
  #31
Lives for gear
 
valis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
???
Of course OS X builds a search index. I wrote that it does not use scheduled indexing, which is tech from the 90s. You can try it yourself: create a smart folder that searches for the term 'music', file type pdf, created today. Open the smart folder. Now open Text Edit, create a new document, type music, and save it as a .pdf. As soon as you save, you see the document appear in the window of the smart folder. You do not have to wait for the next scheduled indexing. I also wrote about metadata based search (bit depth, composer etc as search criteria). This depends on how the file system handles metadata, and how the search engine interacts with it.
Because it's NOT the kernel doing the indexing, it's the mdworker process. Win7 doesn't just have a 'scheduled' index, the indexing service is also a process (C:\Windows\system32\CISVC.EXE ) and is active in the background just like mdworker. The difference that you're perceiving is entirely one of process priority, as Win7's indexing service runs with a low i/o priority and low process priority, so unless you've got 8-16 cores available and multiple drives (or an SSD) then end user foreground operations may delay the index update.

As for 'scheduling' both OSX and Windows have background scheduling for mdworker and the Win search index anyway. Under OSX it's called launchd, and it certainly does call mdworker/mds. In fact BOTH Win7 and OSX can also suffer index corruption which can cause their indexing services to run rebuilding the index, which is why Win7's runs at a lower priority. I don't know if yuo've ever checked and seen a core at 100% for 10-15 minutes on a mac only to check and see mdworker running at 100% cpu, but it's annoying and Win7's will simply get out of the way until done. This most frequently occurs under OSX with things like corrupted PDF files, corrupted audio files and so on (which will cause the index to fail and start over repeatedly). A good example of how OSX is no more perfect than Win...and that they trade off on good and bad points.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Are you saying that System Restore, or any other feature of the OS, can go back 2 weeks, restore only 1 audio project, then go back 3 weeks, and restore the 3 week old version of the same audio project in addition to the other version?
You're cherry picking your arguments now. You mentioned Time Machine and I gave a good summation of where both OSes converge & diverge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Disk Utility is good for clones, not for any regular backup.
The point of Time Machine is that you plug in an external disk once, click 'yes' and forget about it. You will always have a current back up. How many users realistically have the discipline to back up on a regular basis?
I mentioned Disk Utility because I mentioned Win7's backup, and for no other reason than to be complete in what I'm saying. Time Machine will only work if you boot into OSX to begin with, which you can arguably do via an install CD if your Mac happens to have one (hello Macbook Air...) Again cherry picking...


Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
???
What does Automator have to do with scheduled tasks? Automator is a tool that allows average users to build automated scripts, it's an easy to use GUI scripting tool. A scheduled task is just one example of what you can create. You can create droplets (that resize all images that you drop on them etc) or contextual menu items (e.g. right click on a file to compress, rename and upload via ftp, in one step)
And I can point out tasks that I can achieve with Windows Powershell that even with the BSD command line tools available in Darwin/OSX you can't do. Cherry picking again, but I'll grant you that automator has nothing comparable *by default* in Win7. However since you're using ftp in your example, are you using a 3rd party app or terminal? Neither are 'easy' for new OSX users, nor is automator until someone has had to 'read up on it' (as in your example above).


Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Are you saying that, realistically, there are PC users who do not run antivirus software? Disconnecting a PC from the internet is not a way to achieve security, viruses can be transferred in other ways (USB sticks etc.).
Out of 5 Windows machines here I only run Nod32 on 2 of them, as they're the only machines that ever access client files. I have *never* had a virus or worm infection on any Mac, PC or (other) operating system in the decades I've been using computers. As in *ever*, and I gave the only 2 examples I can think of from the past decade where I've even had AV software flag anything. I run AV software on Windows for the same reason I pay for iStat Menus Pro, Tinkertool System, Lion Cache Cleaner and other utilities under OSX. The cost is minimal compared to the potential time savings should something happen that I'm not prepared for. Anyway I think you're overstating something Mac users like to overstate, and again given my familiarity with both OSX and Windows it's easy to see...

You're going to have to admit at some point that you're simply expressing a personal bias or even worse fanboyism. And anyway we're headed down the SAME path that leads to the 'no mac versus pc threads' rule here to begin with. Stupidity and ignorance repeated ad nasuem doesn't win any arguments or friends. How about we let this point go since I'm 100% sure my familiarity here (with OSX, Windows, Linux, BSD, IRIX, HP/UX and SunOS) will easily counter whatever points are brought up, it's not as if one product is made by beings of light while the other by apes...regardless of how one feels about a choice that was made.
Old 12th September 2011
  #32
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Exactly, you have to search for defrag apps, install them, and configure them, instead of having the OS take care of it.
Wrong. Win 7 defrags automatically in the background. What I meant is that there are applications to do that instantly, and some of these are free.


Quote:
The point was, on OS X you don't have to do anything. You don't have to babysit the OS to keep the performance in shape for audio.
You don't have to do anything on Win 7 either. Clearly an OS you have proven to not be familiar with. But, of course, since Win 7 allows a knowledgeable user to go deep into the system, you can tweak it to your particular needs, unlike OSX.

Quote:
Not sure which part of "you don't have to run any antivirus software on OS X" is so hard to understand.
Not sure which part of "Win 7 is less vulnerable than OSX" is so hard to understand. Seems like your information on Windows needs some updating...

Windows 7 is MORE Secure Than Apple MAC OSX - Up & Running Technologies Calgary

Quote:
- you can have a Mac connected to the internet without having antivirus SW installed, because there are no viruses, and about 3 Trojans (that require severe user stupidity to get installed)
Once again, your information on windows is really really obsolete. Virtually every piece of malware for win 7 needs user stupidity to get installed.

Quote:
whenever you run antivirus software, there is a perfomance impact. There is no way around that.
Hmm, yes, there is. You can turn off the antivirus before you use your DAW and turn it back on when you surf the internet. ONE CLICK.

Quote:
- to test which OS is more secure: take either OS out of the box, clean install it, without installing additional antivirus software, antispyware etc., and connect the computer to the internet.
Security tests on Win 7 and OSX have been conducted for over two years. Win 7 has always won. Once again, refer to the above link.

Quote:
There are 2 versions of Windows, 32 bit and 64 bit. There is one version of OS X, that runs all OS X apps, 32 bit or 64 bit.
Once again, you really don't know what you're talking about. Win 7 x64 runs virtually every 32-bit app compatible with Vista/7 and even a good many of older XP apps.

To conclude, you have proven to not know anything about Win 7 and only be able to rehash old prejudices from the era of XP that no longer apply. In other words, you're uninformed and not contributing anything of value to this thread. Please refrain from trolling in PC threads.
Old 12th September 2011
  #33
Lives for gear
 
phas3d's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaPi61 View Post
Incidentally, Win7 does multitasking much better than OSX, so, there goes another lie.Security tests on Win 7 and OSX have been conducted for over two years. Win 7 has always won.
Man, I laugh my head off with your posts. Keep it up!!! Can't get enough of it ;-)
Old 12th September 2011
  #34
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by phas3d View Post
Man, I laugh my head off with your posts. Keep it up!!! Can't get enough of it ;-)
Off topic and hominem. Reported.

BTW, risus abundat in ore stultorum.
Old 12th September 2011
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaPi61 View Post
Not sure which part of "Win 7 is less vulnerable than OSX" is so hard to understand. Seems like your information on Windows needs some updating...

Windows 7 is MORE Secure Than Apple MAC OSX - Up & Running Technologies Calgary
I don't know if you read the article and the link that it refers to .. but it was a singular "security" expert that made this claim. It was virtually devoid
of any statistical analysis that would show Win7 was any more or
less susceptible to being compromised than MacOS.

Jeff
Old 12th September 2011
  #36
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarkham View Post
I don't know if you read the article and the link that it refers to .. but it was a singular "security" expert that made this claim. It was virtually devoid
of any statistical analysis that would show Win7 was any more or
less susceptible to being compromised than MacOS.

Jeff
That's because you're unaware of other tests and experiences. Like these:


Vista/7 more secure than Linux and Mac OS X | ZDNet

Hacker: Windows More Secure Than Mac OS X

http://www.ghacks.net/2011/08/08/win...ter-than-os-x/

Hacker Pwn2Own organizer: Windows 7 is safer than Snow Leopard - Computerworld Blogs


Like I said, Win 7 has consistently scored better than OSX on security over the last couple of years.
Old 12th September 2011
  #37
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Old 12th September 2011
  #38
Lives for gear
 
valis's Avatar
The whole point is that modern technology isn't specific to a single company or developer. In fact often these things come out of research groups (Xerox/PARX developing the GUI anyone?) or educational institutes, and while the funding for those efforts may determine who benefits initially from a new development it isn't long until the other players in a given market match new features. Linux/GPL, Gnu/BSD/OSX and Windows all progress in parallel and while specific releases may leapfrog over one another, and you can cherry pick individual differences, any reasonably knowledgeable user can make their OS do most of the things the other ones from the same era can do.

Couple that with the fact that almost everything runs on X86/64 now and the differences are minor and purely up to chosen applications (some of which may not be cross platform) and user familiarity/preference.

Any other argument where you can't admit to user preference or very narrow definitions of things is blind, pigheaded or just obtuse for the sake of it. If you prefer OSX or Win7, who cares? Use what gets your stuff done, it's the results that count imo not the path you took there. And again I say that as an owner and user of multiple platforms...
Old 12th September 2011
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
That's simply not true.
If you have read my post a bit more open-minded, we could have saved ourselves from the Windows vs. OSX debate here, which is boring and never-ending:
I did not claim Windows is the better OS for audio generally, I only stated that if you intend to use your system for more than audio work, OSX does a better job out-of-the-box.

I leave it to the user to decide which OS they prefer. However, the nonsense being told about W7 by Mac power users really has no place here.
I build Windows based systems on a daily basis, for all kinds of media areas. Our customers are more than satisfied, no issues.

PS: If you buy your Mac from a turnkey provider (Apple), you can do the same for Windows systems, can't you? Similar price point. No tweaks needed.
Old 12th September 2011
  #40
Lives for gear
 
inthere's Avatar
 

To the OP: if your Dell was running Vista, it was a buggy mess for audio. Windows 7 is much more stable.

Windows has always been the more secure platform. Apple probably spends less than 1% of the resources Microsoft spends on security. Problem is, for the average non-expert user that knows nothing about Windows crushing OSX in security tests, the overwhelming majority of the world's viruses are written for computers running Windows, and the overwhelming majority of virus infected computers are Windows computers.

Last week my car got jacked in the ghetto, alarm was on, club was on, but when we came out it was missing the a side window, muffler, catalytic converter, and hub caps. Now the same thing can happen in a good neighborhood, but it's less likely because you have fewer criminals.

Well, on Macs you also have fewer criminals. Sure it's no problem on Windows if you know what you're doing, but for the non computer savvy user, even though Windows is way more secure, it's not really the safer platform.
Old 12th September 2011
  #41
Lives for gear
 
phas3d's Avatar
 

Bottom line, if you prefer Mac OS X, get a Mac. If you prefer Windows get a windows system. Both will run fine if you just install what you need for your work. Don't install a bunch of things that you don't need. In the end it will turn your system unstable.

Cheers
Old 12th September 2011
  #42
Lives for gear
 

"I did not claim Windows is the better OS for audio generally, I only stated that if you intend to use your system for more than audio work, OSX does a better job out-of-the-box." Why does it?

Before I wanted to make production my career, I was and still am a PC technician and graphic artist. The school I learnt graphic design on used Macs, and I've used them extensively for quite some time. There is a lot of misconceptions and misinformation about these two OS's. If you plan on using your system for more than audio work, Windows is clearly the victor. Why? Because more programs are developed for it. Windows is THE better OS in general, and I'l give my factual reasons for saying this.
Why are Macs considered superior? Because they're marketed as such, and anyone who does not have some knowledge about these two OSs or computer history will naively believe the marketing. FACT: OSX is more stable than Windows; this is true. Why it's true is a matter that needs to be discussed.

From its conception, Windows has always been the most popular OS in human history, and still is to this day. But, its popularity is both a blessing and a curse for Microsoft. Because it's so popular, it supports the most programs/software and most developers put more focus on it than they do on other OS's. That is no hidden agenda, it's business. You want to be where the consumers are, and most consumers are on Windows. Because of this, the OS has to support more code and all the errors that come with them. Some programs are also conflicting. If you understand the amount of processing needed to accommodate all of this, you will understand why so much can go wrong too. Couple that with the people who misuse/mistreat their systems and the consumer is in for more headaches. Not to mention the numerous amount of cracked software that writes/rewrites and sometimes totally f**** up the registry; Windows is a compatibility host that takes a lot of misuse, by consumers and manufacturers. Now, when I said developers, I'm not only speaking about the good guys, I'm speaking about the bad guys too, i.e, the black hat hackers. They too are not going to develop malicious software that reaches a minority of people, they will target what is popular and what is popular is Windows. It is why OSX users can get away without installing any antivirus programs. Knowledgeable Windows users can get away with this too, but the average consumer cannot!

Now, let's take into account some history that further deals with Microsoft's blessing and curse of popularity, we come to compatibility. Apple understood one of the cons with Windows was its support for backward compatibility. You see, it's hard enough developing stable code for new technology, but it's even more difficult when you have to cater to the need of so many users who use older tech and older software as well. The fact is, they're also your core users, so ignore them and you risk losses. Windows has been cursed with trying to keep things backward compatible for consumers. So much virtualisation is employed to ensure that your old stuff still works decently enough in newer OS's. Any developer of software or hardware knows that when you have to create a balancing act between old and new compatibility, your product cannot function at its best, ask Crysis developer Cervat Yerli of Crytek. Because PCs and their graphic rendering are so powerful, but consoles aren't, developers have to stay within the console limits so all users have a fair and similar gaming experience. However, it is actually to the disadvantage of PC gamers. Battle Field developers feel the same way. And it happens within native PC systems too. Apple knows this and does not focus on backward compatibility as extensively as Microsoft does. Unfortunately Microsoft can't afford to neglect it, despite its blow to performance. It's a serious catch 22; we suffer some performance to use our older stuff. I remember when Windows Vista was being developed, Microsoft initially took the stand to part ways with backward compatibility to truly offer better performance...but the consumers weren't having it. It was a bad idea...and they tried so very hard to KILL Windows XP, even publishing several PC games to work exclusively with Windows Vista and DX10. They even said they will stop supporting it, forcing people to make the switch to Vista. But, the uproar from XP users was too much. With XP, Microsoft made a machine they can't kill to this day. XP is still the most used operating system, with nearly 60% market share. Microsoft extended it's deadline to stop supporting XP to 2014 (I believe 2010 was the initial deadline, correct me if I'm wrong). Windows 7 is catching up though and doing a lot better than Vista ever did.

Now, I'll touch on components. Someone said on the first page that Apple is better because they use higher quality products. I nearly died laughing when I read that. Apple is better because they tell you they're better and you believe them because they look the part. When dealing with "better" in terms of build quality, we have to consider two things; parts and price. Any PC can be built to run with as high specifications as the most expensive Macs and it will most certainly cost you about half the price of the Mac. So re-evaluate something...why are the Macs better? If it's a store-bought system, it will cost you more, maybe 1/4 less the price of the Mac. The system I currently use cost me around 5000TT dollars. Converting that to US dollars, and it's exactly $787.392 and you're looking at a Phenom II x4 955 BE, OC'd to 3.6Ghz, 16 GB of RAM, Gigabyte 990FXA U3 with 3TB of 7200rpm HDD space and other parts that don't affect speed. Guaranteed to out perform any Mac Apple can peddle to you for a fraction of the cost. Not to mention when something goes wrong with a PC, it's usually cheaper and easier to fix. Something goes wrong with your Mac? Good luck with that. Again...the PC seems to be the "better" choice. Okay, "better" may be debatable, but it's definitely the smarter choice. Mac's are ideal for power users because of their price. The average consumer can't afford a high-end Mac. The other people who buy Macs are those who love to stroke their egos or are easily duped.

With all that said, most people's problems on computers (Windows, Mac, etc) are caused by their own misuse and ignorance. People buy into the hype; they read about multitasking processors, make a purchase that some store clerk recommends, abuse the system, surf the net unwisely, bloat the system and registry with cracked software or poorly written software (and there are many), try to do a million things at once, abuse their HDDs...then scream and bangs on the system when it starts coughing. It doesn't matter what type of car you let an ape drive, they'll wreck it regardless.

As Macs become more popular, believe me when I say the hype will fade. As popularity increases, so does software, bloating and virus attacks. People already think it's bullet proof, so the abuse is already happening, and with time the complaints will rise higher. All these irresponsible consumers hurrying to pick up Macs will eventually be screaming and kicking them just as they did their PCs. It's not so much the system, but the user.
Old 12th September 2011
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenVile View Post
"I did not claim Windows is the better OS for audio generally, I only stated that if you intend to use your system for more than audio work, OSX does a better job out-of-the-box." Why does it?

Before I wanted to make production my career, I was and still am a PC technician and graphic artist. The school I learnt graphic design on used Macs, and I've used them extensively for quite some time. There is a lot of misconceptions and misinformation about these two OS's. If you plan on using your system for more than audio work, Windows is clearly the victor. Why? Because more programs are developed for it.
While I do agree with some statements you made, this I don't agree on. I was incomplete, by stating "more than audio" I meant office stuff. Graphics and 3D software usually doesn't interfere in the background for realtime streaming, contrary to office applications.
On OSX, most office software seems a lot more forgiving, and this is what I meant.
The fact that more software is available is maybe a deciding factor for some users, but it does not make the OS better because of it. 90% of all software made is not even worth installing in the first place.
Old 12th September 2011
  #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarkham View Post
I don't know if you read the article and the link that it refers to .. but it was a singular "security" expert that made this claim. It was virtually devoid
of any statistical analysis that would show Win7 was any more or
less susceptible to being compromised than MacOS.

Jeff
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaPi61 View Post
That's because you're unaware of other tests and experiences. Like these:


Vista/7 more secure than Linux and Mac OS X | ZDNet

Hacker: Windows More Secure Than Mac OS X

http://www.ghacks.net/2011/08/08/win...ter-than-os-x/

Hacker Pwn2Own organizer: Windows 7 is safer than Snow Leopard - Computerworld Blogs


Like I said, Win 7 has consistently scored better than OSX on security over the last couple of years.
And if you don't trust those guys, how about MacWorld:

Quote:
Windows 7 is actually more secure than OS X
Mac Defender: Pay attention but don't panic | Antivirus & Security | Macworld

It may also be worth noting that MS actively supplies security patches for their OS versions going all the way back to XP (introduced in 2001). Apple tends to focus their patch attention on the latest OS version, as I understand it.


Security, for the most part, for those running properly patched machines/software and not engaging in 'risky' behavior (warez sites, pron, opening email attachments from strangers, etc), will likely be of minimal realistic concern.


Back to performance and efficiency, as noted above, these benchmarks reveal relative strengths and weaknesses of the platforms using different cross platform apps and drivers: http://www.dawbench.com/win7-v-osx-1.htm
Old 12th September 2011
  #45
Lives for gear
 
inthere's Avatar
 

More secure? Yes. Safer? No.

Viruses and malware written for Windows outnumber those written for OSX by up to 500 to 1. Windows has a much larger hacker base than OSX, which could change as Mac popularity grows but as long as Macs are the more expensive computers, hackers will have easier access to PCs.
Old 12th September 2011
  #46
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthere View Post
More secure? Yes. Safer? No.

Viruses and malware written for Windows outnumber those written for OSX by up to 500 to 1. Windows has a much larger hacker base than OSX, which could change as Mac popularity grows but as long as Macs are the more expensive computers, hackers will have easier access to PCs.
You can sort out the semantics with MacWorld if you want -- I'm just relaying what they wrote. heh

FWIW, while there is, indeed, a large body of malware extant out there, almost none of it is a threat to a properly patched setup run by a user who doesn't engage in risky behavior. That's why it's crucial to stay up to date with your OS and other software patches. Sadly, to do so on the Mac, you pretty much have to have their current OS version, as you can note from the coverage of the Mac Defender threat.
Old 12th September 2011
  #47
Gear Nut
 
jalguitarman's Avatar
 

I would have to ask this. Whether you own a Mac or PC and your software is installed running with no issues, and you just want that computer to be used for music; is there really a need to have it connected to the internet. I mean I could see having an internet connection available if the software developers update the software and, you want that update. Other than that why would there be a need for an internet connection?
Old 12th September 2011
  #48
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jalguitarman View Post
. Other than that why would there be a need for an internet connection?
I used to have a laptop DAW that was disconnected from the internet and it required me to physically pack it up and take it to another room for web access. Because the procedure was a hassle, it was easy to remember some of the reasons why the internet connectivity was important.
  • research google, or ask question on a forum about using the DAW software
  • watch online tutorial videos (youtube, macprovideo, etc)
  • email a mix (file attachment) to a colleague
  • upload a mix to a website

I'm sure others can think of more reasons.
Old 12th September 2011
  #49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalguitarman View Post
I would have to ask this. Whether you own a Mac or PC and your software is installed running with no issues, and you just want that computer to be used for music; is there really a need to have it connected to the internet. I mean I could see having an internet connection available if the software developers update the software and, you want that update. Other than that why would there be a need for an internet connection?
To be sure, you don't need to be on always-in the 'net if you're primarily using your machine for audio production. And only going on the 'net when you have to (and not for idle surfing, etc) will certainly minimize whatever small risk you might face. Unless you were trying to update software from a manufacturer site that had, itself, been hacked, you would likely face virtually no threat.


Another thing -- not necessarily security related so much as operating efficiency/latency related -- to consider: how your connected machine does hook up to the net. If your machine has built-in or add-on WiFi, chances are any drivers you have enabled for the WiFi adapter are going to be sending up latency spikes at regular intervals -- which will be noticeable if you use something like DPC (Windows only, I think) to check your system latency at the microsecond level.

I'm a bit obsessive about keeping my very modest, older hardware (a 2.8 gHz single core Pentium 4 with the HT hyperthreading extention) lean and mean. But I had found it convenient to ditch the Ethernet cable I'd used to connect it to my cable modem and use a USB WiFi adapter.

But when I checked my DPC latency scores -- which tend to be quite low in the 5-35 µs range -- I noticed they were spiking up into 3 figures (probably a more typical range for users of post-XP OS's) at regular intervals. It occurred to me to turn off my WiFi drivers and the spikes disappeared. So I got the ol' Ethernet cable back out and re-routed it.


FWIW, while I have 3 machines, one is a bit of a joke, a thoroughly broken Gateway laptop that I 'rescued' from a friend after controller chips that ran onboard WiFi, DVD drive, and onboard audio died (rescued by using the thankfully working USB system for audio, WiFi, and external drive access); one is an otherwise very decent laptop but bogged down with the horribly inefficient, background-resident iTunes software I need to submit podcasts to iTunes; and the last is my trusty 5+ year old refurbed desktop that is the center of all my audio production, video editing, web developing and graphics work -- not to mention all my entertainment, Netflix, MOG, surfing, etc.
Old 12th September 2011
  #50
Lives for gear
 
inthere's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
You can sort out the semantics with MacWorld if you want -- I'm just relaying what they wrote. heh
Ok, right after the line you quoted:

Quote:
Windows 7 is actually more secure than OS X
came this:

Quote:
And there simply isn’t the same attack ecosystem for Macs, nor are we likely to see one develop.
Old 12th September 2011
  #51
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthere View Post
Ok, right after the line you quoted:



came this:
Absolutely, and hopefully, his surmise is correct. I was seriously disheartened to see the Mac Defender threat arise -- and far more so when I saw the subsequent "MacGuard" exploit that one-upped Mac Defender by automatically starting the malware installation without an admin password.

It would be great if Apple had the resources to provide security patches to their old OS versions as MS does, but I thought they did yeoman work in keeping up with almost daily patches for the latest OS version during the worst of the Mac Defender/MacGuard business.

It's worth noting that there was much, quite lively debate in the comment section of that article about that general statement about relative security. In response to one commenter, the author wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
FrankStallone said
When you say, " ... Windows 7 is actually more secure than OS X ... ", that's a pretty bold statement considering there's no sources or evidence shown in the article to back that up. If Mac OS X had worse security than Windows 7 then we'd surely see more than a few viruses spreading wildly on Mac OS X after over a decade.


Marketshare is too low, you say as a so-called security expert? Sorry, that doesn't fly. Mac OS 9 had over 40 viruses in the wild when Apple had far less marketshare. So that destroys your marketshare incentive myth right there. There was incentive to make viruses for the Mac when it had much less marketshare than it has today. Mac OS 9 had an inferior architecture to Mac OS X for security. Very much like how Windows has an inferior architecture to Mac OS X for security.


Gee... maybe it has something to do with UNIX underpinnings in OS X? Research is your friend.


To blindly state that Windows 7 is "actually" more secure than OS X isn't factual and is simply spewing link-bait instead of practicing decent journalism. Sad.


Meanwhile, for jeebus sake there is THIS "MS Removal Tool" that can hijack your Windows computer without ANY interaction whatsoever. Read about that and then see if your "bold", link-bait is anything but laughable.

Frank, this is a legitimate question and I didn't have space to address it in the article.


Windows 7 includes a series of anti-exploitation technologies that are ahead of Snow Leopard. Specifically, the combination of DEP + ASLR. OS X was slower to implement both, and still hasn't implemented a full ASLR (Library Randomization). Apple doesn't (yet) randomize the location of the dyld library, and having a fixed location to the dynamic loader allows an attacker to easily bypass the other protections.


I have seen demonstrations of exploitation of Macs using the same techniques used on Windows (fully patched Macs) so I know there isn't a technical obstacle. I also confer regularly with the top vulnerability researchers to make sure my information is up to date.


I highly suggest you read the Mac Hacker's Handbook to perform your own research. It appears you are relying on anecdote without understanding the technical underpinnings of OS X or the current attack techniques used in exploitation.
He also noted that the rate of infection on Windows machines is probably far less than many folks assume:
Quote:
Microsoft recently reported that only 4 out of 1000 32-bit [Win 7] PCs are infected by malware—and only 2.5 out every 1000 for 64-bit.
I followed that link and found:

Quote:
The infection rate of Windows XP SP3 -- the spring 2008 upgrade to the aged edition -- fell from a 2010 high of nearly 18 per 1,000 in the first quarter to just over 14 per 1,000 in the fourth quarter, a 22 percent drop.


Windows XP's infection rate decline was responsible for the global drop that Microsoft charted last year. According to its data, the infection rate for all Windows machines fell from a high of 10.8 PCs per 1,000 in the first quarter to 8.7 per 1,000 in the fourth quarter.


But as Williams pointed out, Windows 7 and Vista are still much less likely to be compromised by malware than Windows XP. Windows XP SP3 had an average infection rate for all of 2010 of 15.9 machines per 1,000, almost five times Windows 7's and double that of Vista SP2's.
Old 12th September 2011
  #52
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalguitarman View Post
I would have to ask this. Whether you own a Mac or PC and your software is installed running with no issues, and you just want that computer to be used for music; is there really a need to have it connected to the internet. I mean I could see having an internet connection available if the software developers update the software and, you want that update. Other than that why would there be a need for an internet connection?

To check Gearslutz during a break. :-D

Alistair
Old 12th September 2011
  #53
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenVile View Post
Now, let's take into account some history that further deals with Microsoft's blessing and curse of popularity, we come to compatibility. Apple understood one of the cons with Windows was its support for backward compatibility. You see, it's hard enough developing stable code for new technology, but it's even more difficult when you have to cater to the need of so many users who use older tech and older software as well. The fact is, they're also your core users, so ignore them and you risk losses. Windows has been cursed with trying to keep things backward compatible for consumers. So much virtualisation is employed to ensure that your old stuff still works decently enough in newer OS's. Any developer of software or hardware knows that when you have to create a balancing act between old and new compatibility, your product cannot function at its best, ask Crysis developer Cervat Yerli of Crytek. Because PCs and their graphic rendering are so powerful, but consoles aren't, developers have to stay within the console limits so all users have a fair and similar gaming experience. However, it is actually to the disadvantage of PC gamers. Battle Field developers feel the same way. And it happens within native PC systems too. Apple knows this and does not focus on backward compatibility as extensively as Microsoft does. Unfortunately Microsoft can't afford to neglect it, despite its blow to performance. It's a serious catch 22; we suffer some performance to use our older stuff. I remember when Windows Vista was being developed, Microsoft initially took the stand to part ways with backward compatibility to truly offer better performance...but the consumers weren't having it. It was a bad idea...and they tried so very hard to KILL Windows XP, even publishing several PC games to work exclusively with Windows Vista and DX10. They even said they will stop supporting it, forcing people to make the switch to Vista. But, the uproar from XP users was too much. With XP, Microsoft made a machine they can't kill to this day. XP is still the most used operating system, with nearly 60% market share. Microsoft extended it's deadline to stop supporting XP to 2014 (I believe 2010 was the initial deadline, correct me if I'm wrong). Windows 7 is catching up though and doing a lot better than Vista ever did.
And yet despite all this backwards compatibility, Win 7 beats OSX in most benchmarks. Go figure!

Alistair
Old 12th September 2011
  #54
Lives for gear
 
inthere's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post

He also noted that the rate of infection on Windows machines is probably far less than many folks assume:

Those numbers are misleading, because they only count infections that were dealt with by MSRT. Infections cleaned by Norton, McAfee, Nod, etc were not counted.
Old 12th September 2011
  #55
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
And yet despite all this backwards compatibility, Win 7 beats OSX in most benchmarks. Go figure!

Alistair
The goal -- some might call it almost an obsession in MS's case -- of backwards compatibility carries, as noted, benefits and -- for the OS developer -- a large burden.

(Although it is a burden that is relieved to some extent by having good foundational design precepts -- something that has been something of a problem for Apple with its 'cobbled together' OS, which features the open-source derived and 'old-fashioned' serial-messaging-oriented Darwin Layer running on top of the more modern, parallel messaging oriented Mach kernel -- which has apparently been at least partially responsible for Apple's problems in implementing efficient multi-threading important for properly exploiting multi-core hardware.)

There are times (at least in 'old' XP, which is what all my machines run) when MS drives me nuts with some of the backwards compatibility angles (particularly in 'small things' like some [thankfully increasingly rarely seen] system windows which are not resizable -- yet which attempt to display information which doesn't fit in the window, requiring absurd maneuvers in order to see all the content)...

... but reading GearSlutz assiduously, particularly in regard to OS X and Logic issues (because, I dunno, Apple fascinates me in many ways*), I'm often bemused by the obstacle course that many Mac users must wend in order to make use of new or updated hardware and software.

*Not so much, though, that I've been willing to take up one of my web dev clients' ongoing offers to give me one of his Macs.
Old 12th September 2011
  #56
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthere View Post
Those numbers are misleading, because they only count infections that were dealt with by MSRT. Infections cleaned by Norton, McAfee, Nod, etc were not counted.
Granted.

That said, in my personal experience, I've never seen Norton or McAffee actually clean an infection. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying I haven't seen it happen -- and I have been pressed into service on several occasions in the now receding past to unscrew a small handfull of machines that had become infected -- all of which had Norton or McAffee or both on them, if memory serves -- although not necessarily updated. Seriously, I won't use that crapware. And, in fact, on one nightmare system, Norton had actually been 'coopted' by the malware and was literally protecting it from removal. That was a real TPITA.

[I should, however, hasten to say that my deep antipathy to Norton and McAffee is strictly based on personal experience; it is not based on any sort of objective, third party survey or analysis. FWIW, when I set up machines for other, not necessarily sophisticated users, I've tended to set them up using AVG Free, which has often seemed to be a consensus choice. I've also set up machines with MS's Security Essentials -- and I understand it's quite good as these things go -- but it definitely is a resource hog, as they all are to varying degrees. As I noted above somewhere, I don't, myself, use background running security software, other than XP's built-in firewall -- which should be considered a bare minimum for an online machine.]

However, those numbers do presumably reflect the probably extremely large majority of users who have not turned off Windows Auto Update, which defaults to on and whose machines are updated regularly.

Don't bet me wrong, inthere, I'm not suggesting that Mac folks should be shuddering in their boot-up profiles. Far from it.

I'm just passing along the info from MacWorld that Win 7 is more secure than OS X and that OS X has structural and feature problems that make it more vulnerable than Win 7. But, of course, historically, there is no question that Windows has been and probably continues to be the focus of more targeted attacks.
Old 12th September 2011
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

To the OP:

I had the same dell...1.6gHz Pentium M, although I had 2GB of ram. It worked flawlessly for years, with Cubase (3, I think) and an RME Multiface via PCMCIA. In fact, it was reliable enough to do 8-track location recording.

Not sure how you could have hardware conflicts, unless the OS was reinstalled, and you did not download appropriate drivers from Dell's website.

The biggest issue these days with a PC laptop computer is power management. A new machine can have amazing specs, but if it's constantly throttling down to save power, audio performance will suffer. Personally, for reliability, I avoid FW/USB interfaces. Either PCIe on a desktop, or PCIexpress interface on a laptop will give you lowest latency and highest reliability.
Old 12th September 2011
  #58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jalguitarman View Post
I would have to ask this. Whether you own a Mac or PC and your software is installed running with no issues, and you just want that computer to be used for music; is there really a need to have it connected to the internet. I mean I could see having an internet connection available if the software developers update the software and, you want that update. Other than that why would there be a need for an internet connection?
No, unless you want some new applications/plugins badly, which might not run on an older setup. I work with a producer who works on Logic. On XP. And he keeps on producing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Porto View Post
To the OP:
The biggest issue these days with a PC laptop computer is power management. A new machine can have amazing specs, but if it's constantly throttling down to save power, audio performance will suffer.
The "new" Sandybridge CPU's do this much better, the throttling doesn't really bother realtime applications anymore.
Old 12th September 2011
  #59
Lives for gear
 
beyondat's Avatar
 

Just get a Hackintosh, $800

Sent from my HERO200 using Gearslutz.com App
Old 13th September 2011
  #60
Gear Nut
 
jalguitarman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
To check Gearslutz during a break. :-D

Alistair
I can just use this computer for that,heh and most of the applications others have suggested. The only thing I couldn't do is download software updates.

I have also thought about the fact that wndows likes to update when your on the web. I have had issues with windows updates causing non-music programs to go screwy. Then I would have to go in and find the latest update. Once I would get rid of it, boom! Problem solved. Windows update as of late have not caused me any hassles.

I tend to wonder if windows updates could cause issues with music software as well? I ask my original question because I am seriously thinking of not having my Custom built PC connected once it arrives. All my software will be installed and registered so I wont need to go on the web for that.

I have bought a Rack XT from Sweetwater and that has no WiFi so that wont be an issue. I don't see a real need to always have that computer connected to the web. My Dad thinks I am nuts and that I should have it connected for windows updates. I don't agree. I am buying a computer that has been optimized for music production, why would I want a bunch of what someone referred to as "bloatware" on my music production computer? Because the more places you go the more things you do, like playing games for example. The more processor hogging crap you get on your computer. Like cookies and stinkin adware!! I know these things can be dealt with but frankly, I don't to have to mess with it on a machine that I am buying for serious music production, not farting around on the web. Like I said I have this computer for web-surfing.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump