Changing from a PC to a Mac ?

Getting fed up with up dating and scanning for Viruses and Spyware

anyone else got a Mac

and are there any draw backs with Macs that I should know off

Thanks Dors

I have a Mac and I just ordered a PC laptop. Not a partisan.

Macs are expensive, but worth it if you have the cash.

Some software is not made for Macs, e.g. voice changing software, which can be fun for SL. (There is a workaround with Garage Band.) Unless you live in a big city, you may not be able to walk into a store and get software that will work on the Mac. I always buy online anyway.

Technically, I guess there are no viruses for Macs . . . yet. Matter of time. You still need protection from other threats. Just not as big an issue.

There is a bit of a learning curve to switch.

Virus/male-ware as well as hacking of Macs is on the rise.........almost to the alarming point. If you are moving to a Mac solely for those issues you're in for a bit of a surprise I'm afraid.

Thanks for replies, I think I need to Lie down. Computers and Tech. Wish I still lived in a cave and just needed to club a woman now and again, was a lot easier them days.

Still undecided

Viruses aren't a big deal on the Mac. There is some malware, but it's still pretty rare. I won't say don't worry about it completely, but it is much less of a hassle than on a PC.

You have as many updates on the Mac as on the PC. I don't think it's a big deal on either, but if you do, you're not going to see a difference.

As far as SL goes, you will spend a lot more money on a Mac to get great performance in SL. At least $1499 for a good iMac (forget the Mac Mini). With anything but a Mac Pro, you're going to have to live with the graphics adapter it comes with for the life of the computer. Even with the Mac Pro, the graphics options are limited and expensive compared to what's available for a PC.

I had heard the Macs were very fast, and the system I was looking at was just over $3700, yea a lot I know but Ime daft with money

You can run MacOS on almost every current PC hardware nowadays. May Apple like it or not. No point in spending 3k+ on something that is crippled to make it artificially incompatible. Why would one prefer a PC? Well, you only need to want to make a website, and if you want it to work for your visitors you need to check it with IE, FF, Opera, and well...your Mac's Safari .

iMacs start at $1199 list price for 21 inch. (You may pick up one cheaper, or get a refurbished one.) I have a 20 inch that is a couple years old. It has no trouble handling 2 SL client windows + iTunes + Firefox + a graphics program, simultaneously. I do Spellfire combat. When everyone else is screaming about lag, I am cruising. (Of course, I turn graphics all the way down and shut down other programs when I am doing this. But so does everyone else.)

There is a great antivirus program by Intego - Mac only. The PC antivirus programs I have used are almost worse than most viruses.

If you are used to Windows, and want to run some programs in it for productivity, you can run them in a Windows partition. I do that for the MS Office programs.

I have heard that Apple is about to come out with even better graphics. You might wait a bit to get one of those or grab one of the current models at a discount.

Most graphic art pros who use a computer as a real workhorse and depend on productivity choose macs for many many reasons. You want to find out why macs are superior? Ask someone who is a creator and works on a computer for their living.

Such as Chosen Few? I've heard him many times claim he's a Windows guy.

I would say 6 or 7 years ago that statement is true. Not so any longer.

I cant really speak for Chosen or what he does for a living, but I can reliably deliver statistics on computer usage in various fields. As a creative director for various multi national ad agencies primarily handling accounts like IBM, Gateway, Microsoft for over 20 years, I can tell you without a doubt that Macs still rule in graphics and many other creative production areas. And I can tell you that most of the advertising done for those accounts is originally created on Macintosh There are different tools people use, Macs are just the best tool for some things. If you are a graphic content creator, Macs are simply the best tool.

Second Life has more characteristics of a high end video game than a graphic design program, and gamers use PCs, not Macs.

Yes, simply using a puter for SL as a game player, most any modern machine can handle it well given proper specs. My discussion is really about serious content creation in SL (and in RL) using graphic art tools and the resultant higher productivity and performance of a mac. Just adding my 2 lindens in case the OP had interests in SL beyond being a player and was interested in being a creator.

Not true.

Google up Hackintosh and read the many many attempts on the many varied systems. Some successful, some, not so much, and they all have many many hoops required for one to jump through.

I have researched running Mac OS and it looks to be a real hassle.

I am getting my my Mac Pro in the Fall. <3 I can't wait!

Blaze, while you're partially correct on the statistics, don't confuse what's common with what's best. Fact: There is not a Mac available on this planet with anything close to the hardware power that I can get in a PC, for half the price of a high end Mac. Fact: The most sophisticated version of Photoshop currently available is PC-only. Fact: Apple puts 3-year-old mid-level graphics cards in their machines, and misleadingly slaps the words "High Performance Graphics" in all their advertising.

Look, if you happen to like the Mac OS, then sure, you could argue that its particular interface is "best" for your own personal work habits. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the Mac itself is inherently better (or worse) than the PC at performing any given task, in any measurable sense. With comparable hardware, they're totally equal.

The main reasons I use PC's are threefold:

1. I can put whatever hardware I want into a PC. There are infinitely more options available to PC builders, and to buyers of custom-made PC's, than there are to Mac buyers.

2. It just so happens that PC's are less expensive than Mac's, not only for comparable hardware configurations, but also for far more powerful setups. I can pack a lot more horsepower under the hood in a PC, for a heck of a lot less money than it would cost me to get a Mac.

3. This one has nothing to do with the product, but it's perhaps the most important one. I can't stand the way Apple does business. You'll never ever see an Apple commercial that says anything good about their own products. All they do is badmouth the competition, often in very misleading, if not downright dishonest, ways. I won't do business with ANY company that can't look me in the eye and tell me why I should. And I certainly won't buy anything at all from someone who tries to make me feel stupid for having bought from someone else in the past. I realize not everyone cares about this sort of thing, but I most emphatically do. Scruples matter.

If Apple could bring themselves to start running positive ad campaigns instead of all the mudslinging, if they would open up more hardware options so I could configure one of their machines to be as powerful as I need it to be, and if they would make their prices reasonable, I'd consider buying one. But all signs are they'll probably never do even one of those things, let alone all three. So, the Mac isn't for me.

As for the usage statistics, here's where you're partially right. A lot of graphic designers do use Macs. This is primarily due to historical patterns. Long ago, Apple used to market itself as the premiere solution for artists. 20 years ago, they were right to make that claim. It was absolutely true that the Mac was superior to the PC for artistic work. But that did not remain the case, and in the here and now it hasn't been true in a very, very, very, very long time. Today, a moderately equipped workstation PC or mid level gaming rig will be every bit as good as a Mac for this kind of work, and a well equipped one with ultra high end components will run circles around it without breaking a sweat. Yet the stigma still remains, and old habits die hard. Many of today's young graphic designers were trained by older ones who have been using Macs since the days when they really were the only way to go. Those people have never had any compelling reason, from their own points of view, to swtich to PC, so they continue to this day to tell people the Mac is the only good opiton, even though it no longer is. It's not their fault; they just don't know any different.

Now here's the part where you're a bit off base. In the context of SL, it doesn't make much sense to talk about what graphic designers are using. This is 3D art, not graphic design. There's a HUGE difference there.

In our context here, it hardly matters what any percentage of graphic designers might or might not prefer. Graphic design is not 3D modeling. Graphic design is not texturing. Graphic design is not game development. Graphic design is not special effects. Graphic design is not Second Life. Sure, it's all related, but a salamander is also related to a Komodo dragon. I'm sure you'd agree the differences between those two animals are pretty glaring.

Want an interesting case in point? If you walk into the Center for Fine Arts at the university I went to, and go up to the second floor, you'll find two departments, the Art Department, and the Media Study Department. Go into a computer lab in the Art Department, where they teach graphic design, and it's Macs as far as the eye can see. Now, cross the atrium, and head over to Media Study, where they teach 3D modeling, game development, flim-making, etc. Go into any of the numerous labs there, and you'll see nothing but PC's.

Tell me, if Macs are so superior for all things graphical, why do you think it is that that media study department is full of PC's?

Also, want to hear an interesting story? When I was a student there, I did take graphic design classes, so I did have to spend time in the art lab, using their Macs. The first time it dawned on me that the Mac's "superiority" was nothing but hype was when we got our first Adobe Illustrator assignment. I'll never forget how, as my project grew in complexity, I'd have to sit there and wait, wait, wait, as it slowly filter in, line by line, object by object, every time I'd try to open it on the Mac. But when I'd take it home and open it on my PC, the whole thing would just appear instantly. Again, if Macs are inherently so superior, how do you explain that?

The answer, of course, is my PC had more RAM in it than the school's Macs did, and its CPU was about double the speed of what those Macs had at the time. So it was hardly an apples to apples comparison. But that goes back to my earlier point about PC's having more options. Can a product whose manufacturer limits its options so much that it can't handle the very task it's supposed to be best at really be called superior to one which can be configured so that it actually does handle the task perfectly well? I think not.

Of course, Macs have improved since then. But so have PC's. So, the same comparisons can likely still be made, albeit with different specific examples.


Now, I realize some may choose to misinterpret this post as some sort of hostility towards Mac users. I can assure you, that's not what I'm trying to do. A claim was made, which I consider to be false, and my name was mentioned in conjunction with it. So I'm refuting the claim with facts. That's it, and that's all.

Blaze, again, if you happen to like the Mac, great. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a fine product, and I hope you continue to enjoy the platform for many years to come. All I ask that you just don't go around saying it's quantifiably better than a good high end PC. It's not. Let's not let brand loyalty (or brand aversion) cloud out logic, reason, facts, and figures.

As for the subject of popularity, since that's where you began your argument, I'll say this much, for whatever it's worth. Of all my colleagues in the 3D graphics industry, I could count the amount of Mac users I know on one hand. Counting the PC users would take a while.



ETA: In case anyone's interested in where this discussion has gone, Blaze saw fit to bring the conversation in-world, despite the fact that my profile specifically asks people not to do that, and the additional fact that he had already written here that he "didn't have time" to keep talking about this. I won't quote the conversation, so as not to breach privacy, but I will summarize a little.

Blaze seemed to indicate that his opinion of PC's was based on past experiences with large scale deployments of business grade IBM machines. Needless to say, these machines, and the nature of their usage, couldn't be more different from the high end gaming rigs we've been discussing here.

So yeah, anyone who wants to say a typical Mac is superior to a typical business grade PC, fine, I'll wholeheartedly agree with you. I'll also agree that a BMW is a better car than a Festiva, even though it's plainly obvious already, and even though I'd never drive either one of them.

It's no secret that buisness grade PC's won't cut the mustard for artwork or for much of anything else, beyond MS Office and the like. No one would deny that. That's why those aren't the kinds of machines we're talking about here. Any attempt at comparing business grade PC's to Macs or to anything else in this context is pointless at best, and perhaps a little self-serving by distraction at worst.

Blaze, if you're still reading, and you'd care to continue the discussion out in the open, where what we say has a chance of being of benefit to a wide audience, you're more than welcome to come on back. Otherwise (and this goes for everyone), please don't waste my time and yours trying to debate me in-world. There's zero value in that.

I really don't have the time for a lengthy discussion. I'm a working grunt here in SL. I've been using both pc and macs for many years. I've been selling pcs with worldwide advertising campaigns I'll keep my mac thankyou. You can keep your pc.

Gee think it has to be the Mac, if it can type all that out. Thanks again every one for your help, I didnt mean to start a fight or World War though. Mind you I heard the Alians have Macs so it could get big, an inter plannet war. Wonder what they were using when they went to Pandora !

There are no active viruses for the Mac in the wild. There are a couple of social engineering attacks that include Mac-specific payloads, but they are only an issue if you think letting someone install a shonky application in exchange for viewing a porn site is a good deal.

I don't know what they used to GO to Pandora (or will use, I guess we should say, since it's the future), but I do know what they used to MAKE Pandora, if that helps. Several effects houses were involved, but the primary one was Weta. From what I understand, most of their shop is PC hardware, some running Linux, and some running Windows, although they do have the odd Mac lying around here and there.

Industrial Light and Magic was also involved. Their setup is similar (but larger).

Also, if you look at any of the on-set behind the scenes photos, it's all PC's.


I'm not trying to knock the Mac. If you want to get one, go ahead. Just make sure you're doing it for the right reasons, not the "it just works" hype, and CERTAINLY not because anyone's made the claim that "it's what all artists use". Neither statement is accurate. All computers "just work" when they're well maintianed, and when they're running good software, and no computer "just works" when it's not. There's no such thing as a secure operating system, or a machine that can't break. As for what artists use, it's a mixed bag, just like it is everywhere else. Many graphic designers (but certainly not all) tend to use Mac's, while 3D work is by far the domain of the PC.

What you say may be true (as far as anyone knows at the present). However, Macs have been targeted for virus and trojans in the past.......not that far in the past either. There have been occassions when Apple has had to issue emergency security patches recently, which leads one to believe that even Apple does not beleve Macs are immune from such attacks. With Macs having something like 20% of the market share and climbing daily they are becoming a much more lucrutive target than they were a couple years ago. After all us Windows users are used to the fact that we are prime targets, being the other 80% of the computers online.........we (at least the smarter ones) take security seriously. We've been schooled and scolded for years about securing our computers.....it's almost second nature. And there are tons of software available to help us in that direction. Not so with Macs.........the Mac population has been neglected by the cyber criminals mostly because of the huge discrepency in the market share. That's changing..........Macs will continue to become more and more tempting for those who make up and spread mayhem on the internet.

Think of a geek crime boss wanting to expand his income (or sick fun) looking around at his "business" dwendling or he has to work harder to maintain his level of crime. Software security developers are pretty damned quick to issue both warnings and defenses against these idiots. Then there's that 20% of the users out there who seldom or even never think of virus, malware, intrusions............heck they are there for the picking. No security, no conscious thought of attack thinking "we're invincible, we are Mac users". False sense of well being...........you're beginning to be targeted. And will be more of a target as you gain popularity among the internet users. Don't stick your head in the sand.

The OP expressed his desire to switch to Mac because he's tired of being a target of such attacks as a Windows user. That's not a bad idea in itself...........but if that is the sole reason (or even the major reason) for the switch I merely pointed out to him that Macs are gaining in popularity among the bad guys as targets. I also did a little looking around for security software developed for Macs............there ain't much out there. And that is a little disturbing.............it will take a while for that software to catch up with the same security available for Windows machines. That puts you out there naked with spears and arrrows coming your way.........think about it.

Word macro viruses can still infect Macs, but they're a minor nuisance.

I didn't say they were immune. They have a lower surface area exposed to viruses than Windows, though, which makes it much harder to create the kind of rich ecosystem for Viruses that Windows created in 1997 with the introduction of Active Desktop.

The market share myth is a popular explanation for Windows relative prominence in the viral market, but it's more than that. Windows market share didn't suddenly shoot through the roof in 1997, but the number of viruses on Windows did. Why? Because of the introduction of Internet Explorer and the integration of the Microsoft HTML control into the Windows desktop in a way that was inherently difficult to secure. Before that point Windows viruses were no worse than anyone else's... if you didn't install shonky software, you were at low risk. After that point they went transcendant.

Market share matter, yes, but exposed surface area matters more. Since 1997, my main antivirus practices on Windows have been simple common sense and not using Internet Explorer. I do not have any antivirus software installed. I do not use Windows Defender. I simply avoid any practices that might lead to infection.

The last time I had to remove an infection from a computer I owned was in 1992. And that was a boot sector virus on MS-DOS.

I'm not talking about 1997. I'm talking about 2010. Nor am I talking about "surface area exposed"..........which I translate to mean vulnerability. Every operating system in existance has vulnerabilities......holes that can be found and exploited. Those holes get plugged and somone comes along and finds another........endless cycle. Add in the advances that the customers of any computer (regardless of it's platform) demand, more holes are created...........to be found and exploited. Your smaller "footprint" or whatever one chooses to call that, is an advantage for the moment.........after all, those who want to find ways to exploit systems still have Windows with it's known vulnerabilities. What you are saying is that that smaller exposed area is your primary defense against attacks or mal-ware/virus. That is a very dangerous (security wise) position to take........it inhibits software developers from creating any defensive software once Macs get higher on the target list (which they will if the present trend in market share continues as it is now). A determined criminal will find an entrance into Mac based systems......be it with the present platform or how the platform will evolve due to customer demands.

Mac operating systems are unix based...........and unix system have holes too. Linux has holes.........otherwise there would be no reason for any business to install security software. All OS's have vulnerabilities..........some more than others. But to flatly state that Macs are safer is misleading......you're leaving out the fact that 80% of the computers on the internet have a know vulnerability and more or less easier targets than the remaining 20%. Just not worth the effort to find and exploit those vulnerabilities. Once that threshold of time and effort vs return is reached that tiny advantage is gone..........and if there are no protections available when that time comes many Macs will be atttacked until such defensives can be put forth. You're depending on "I'm not a target because my numbers are so small no one will even look for me". Poor defense against anything.

And, for the record, I use common sense in my internet activities too. I've been infected by one virus in my entire life. I've never been hacked. I've found very few cookies on any of my computers other than the usual harmless tracking cookies (which are removed about every other day). I use common sense as my main defense against any unwanted software or intrusions into my computer...........but I back that up with security software updated daily. I keep my operating system up to date.........daily. I agree, don't put yourself into a situation where you can have some bad stuff come your way.........but get insurance too. I also have an excellent driving record........but I'm insured.

Microsoft has done nothing to address the fundamental vulnerabilities they introduced in 1997. This isn't a matter of degree, these are complete categories of attack mechanisms that only exist in Windows.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

If I were to say "Macs are safe" I would be misleading, but I'm not saying that.

It's like I'm saying "volvos are safer than motorbikes", and you're coming back and telling me I'm saying you shouldn't drive safely. It's a logical fallacy.

I *am* saying that "macs are safer". Not just "macs are less likely to be attacked", but there are fundamental design flaws in Windows that do not exist in any other OS. Flaws that allow attacks that are not even, in potential, possible on any other OS.

* Internet Explorer and its integration with the desktop.
* The inability to bind services to specific ports.
* The way multiple unrelated services are associated with a few common ports.

Also, UNIX based systems have a much more secure program launching mechanism, one that prevents quoting attacks on helper applications.

Does this mean that you can just say "I'm secure because I've got a Mac"? No. But it does mean that if you're using a Mac you're much less likely to get infected.
I just got through saying, in my previous message, that I'm not depending on that at all. I have been using nothing but normal healthy paranoia as my antivirus protection *on windows* since Windows came out, and I have never had any of my Windows boxes infected.