cdodkin

You can enjoy the significant benefits (including security) of running Mac OSX as your daily OS, but still run a full version of Windows for those apps not ported to Mac.

It allows you to run both OS's with one platform - very popular with researchers in Bio-tech, and NASA for example.

As for the mouse, you can choose one or two button, both work just fine.

http://www.apple.com/mightymouse

Again, it's all about not limiting your choices because of the platform you choose.

cdodkin

Macs are only exposed to 0.04% of security vulnerabilities currently, and are not effected by any of the top 100 exploits which cause 99% of the issues on Windows systems.

If you take that to mean that Windows is as secure as OSX, then best of luck to you!

icon

would this not open you up to all the viruses you speak of?

cdodkin

Yeh, bummer that!

But you can always flick over to OSX and keep on working, the Windows exploits do not touch the OSX partition.

If you use parallels, you can install multiple iterations of your Windows OS, and just wipe the one that's become infected.

1999Porsche911

You obviously are not familiar with XP as with 3 clicks of the mouse, you can put your software and registry back to a previous date anytime you want. So in fact, even if you are infected, it doesn't matter. You also don't have to sign on as an administrator and most viruses can't do a thing to your computer, even it you let them in.

cdodkin

I have XP on my work laptop. (Dell)

I've seen XP boot on power-up with malware on board, and completely trash the hard drive.

No recovery possible.

Three clicks means **** at that point.

And that's with my IT department doing the service packs, patches, updates, firewalls etc.

Of course, they're probably just not up to your standard - but that's been my experience.

Blue screen O'death

shustermeister

I've actually been around awhile, just not a post *****. Also, though I've been around Porsches for the last 33 years or so (I'm only 36) and the last one I owned was a 951 about 9 years ago, I am still a Porsche nut. Hey, the Carolinas Region PCA folks know me as I've instructed for their DE's the past year or so, despite my driving a Z06 (sold in October).

Ain't no thang!

I'll be a Porsche owner within the next 6 months or so. Have a new baby in the house, so had to put cars on hold for a little while... I'll be sure to post pics of the car when I finally get her - really want a 997S!

OCBen

Nope, you're wrong there.

The legal case against Microsoft led by Janet Reno was not because MS was becoming a monopoly, which, by the way, is not in and of itself illegal by any means.

The case against Microsoft was quite simple, really. The gov't alleged that since MS was the developer of the Operating System used by nearly 95% of the world's computers, and that since this OS was not an open system but closed to outside software developers [true], Microsoft had an unfair advantage in developing software that runs on its operating system since they alone were privy to the workings of the OS and could work on new software for new releases of its OS ahead of the official release and ahead of the competition [true], thus giving them an unfair advantage.

The gov't wanted to split MS into two main divisions. The OS Division (Windows etc.). And the Software Applications Division (MS Office, etc.) which would not be allowed to know ahead of the competition when a new release of the OS was available until everybody else knew.

That was the legal case against Microsoft. Providing MS Office for the Mac did nothing to mitigate that, and never factored into Billy G's decision.

I used to be an advocate for Apple, believe it or not. In B-School we studied the decline of businesses and why businesses failed. Our professor challenged us to come up with a business plan for saving Apple if we were brought in as the CEO in charge of turning them around.

My thesis centered on the core competency of Apple, which was its ability to design innovative hardware and architecture. I recommended that they dump their Mac OS and focus instead on building an innovative platform to run Windows OS. The Mac OS was an anchor and a dead weight that was holding the company back, since very few developers were willing to write software for Mac OS and selection was limited (a problem still to this day). And once they were no longer encumbered by their OS, they could now compete on the basis of hardware design and performance, which was after all their core competency.

The era of the old paradigm - the computer and the OS manufacturer being one and the same - died when the Commodore and the Atari computers died. The new paradigm was the way of the PC - machine and OS separate - and Apple needed to fall in step with this new era if they wanted to survive.

I recommended that they focus on sleek designs so as not to compete with the plain boxes of Gateway and Dell computers, who would eat them alive if they did. They would be a niche player, catering to those who wanted high end innovative products and were willing to pay a premium for them.

That was over ten years ago. And now it seems like Apple has finally realized what they do best. Witness the i-pod and other innovative products that have proved successful for them.

cdodkin

Interesting what Bill and the execs had to say at the time:

http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150..._3-202143.html

Wikipedia appears to back that up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable...d_feel.22_suit

So we were both off a little - it was at least in part a settlement for the look and feel case.

500

Janet Reno, I remember her, Chelsea Clinton's Father....

OCBen

Nope, I was not off at all. You're confusing the legal cases, of which there were many.

You had brought up the monopoly legal case, remember?

And that case was the case of United States v. Microsoft, which I was specifically addressing to show you that Gates was not motivated by fear of legal action based on monopology charges to continue to support Mac OS.

The "look and feel" lawsuits were baseless, as Apple had in turn copied the GUI interface of Xerox. I hope you realize that.

The agreement was based on packaging IE along with MS Office that made it a deal, as your quote there shows. MS was bent on making IE the one and only viable browser.

cdodkin

Ben, as ever you fly in the face of the evidence - Both the PC press at the time, and wikipedia disagree with you.

That's why I posted the links and quotes.

I didn't add the pieces about the look and feel case, they had that in there already.

But if you want to rewrite history, go ahead.

OCBen

Now you're being completely and utterly absurd.

Anyway, we've pretty much




..... check please!

cdodkin

No Ben - please let me get the check - It's the least I can do for all the stress I've put you through

OCBen

LOL

I said I'll get the check, and that's that!

Yeah, you wanna do something about it, huh, huh?

C'mon, put 'em up....put 'em up.