Well, in defence of Windows, if the Mac OS was 1/2 as popular as Windows you can bet that people with nothing better to do would be doing their best to make Viruses and Trojans for it too. There are definite advantages to being “not” popular.
That being said, I can’t remember the last time I got a virus with either XP or 98.
I still maintain this is a fallacy perpetuated by Windows users as consolation for all the bugs they get. 
From an operating-systems-design POV, a UNIX-based OS (such as Linux or MacOS X) is a lot harder to exploit than Windows (which has proven itself to be highly insecure over time). Citing “what if” scenarios based on marketshare is (1) technically dubious and (2) not provable.
rjung: If you watch securityfocus or bugtraq, you’ll see major security holes for *nix-based server operating systems and applications with regularity. I am obviously not going to argue that windows is an inherently secure operating system, but the largest reason that windows gets more exploits IS because there’s more kiddies out there developing and implementing exploits for windows. A contributing factor is that no one, even those who should know better (like admins), patches their windows installations. The most recent Blaster worm has had a patch available for a month. Since no one applied it, we now have half a million or more exploited boxes set to toss a few terabits of DDoS powuh at Microsoft this Saturday. When you market your OS to the lowest common denominator, you have the unfortunate side effect that the OS installations are adminned by the lowest common denominator:)
I’m not claiming that a UNIX-based OS will never be exploited, only that it’s far more difficult to do so than for a comparable Windows OS, because of its fundamental design.
Citing market share as an excuse for the high number of Windows viruses/worms/whatnot is mental laziness; it assumes all OSes are fundamentally the same, which is unarguably false after a moment’s thought.
Oh, I have no doubt that *NIX is inherently more secure than Windows. However, I still believe that the influence of market share on the number of exploits implemented is extremely significant, and probably the largest single factor in virus and exploit production. Ignoring the effects of a population of kiddies that is ten times larger is silly.
I never said nor assumed that they are fundamentally the same and you sure as hell know better than to “assume” that is what I meant. You can bet your ass that the Mac OS has exploits that nobody is aware of. While it is more secure, it sure as hell isn’t unbreakable. And yes, what I said earlier still stands, if it was more popular you’d have the geeky geniuses that Windows is plagued with that make it their goal in life to wreak havoc.
And I really don’t appreciate the condescending tone.
Based on evidence, or based on your love for your computers?
My point is that there’s not enough benefit to getting a Mac for video editing to justify having to put the effort into “making the shift”, as long as one is happy with a PC with XP. If the OP hates Windows’ interface, then go nuts… Mac with OSX (as opposed to a PC with Linux) would be the choice. However, the OP said nothing about being unhappy with PC/Windows, so suggesting that he get a Mac does him a grave disservice.
So you’re saying that, if OSX had 90% of the market share, people won’t be spending all their time trying to hack and crack it?
Bullshit. Any software can be defeated. It just requires a clever enough mind.
It’s certainly true that switching platforms is no easy task, and the OP very well may not want to do that.
However, people (and companies) have switched to Mac, simply because they want to use FCP. It’s not exactly an insane or outrageous proposition.
As a side note, how many times have Mac users been “encouraged” to ditch the Mac and switch to the PC? Frequently, I’ll warrant. I am always being encouraged to do so (even though I already have a PC, never mind that little detail). Would you also consider any such suggestions (to dump the Mac and use a PC) to be doing the Mac user a “grave disservice”?
Based on the evidence I’ve seen, and my understanding of how operating systems work. My “love” :rolleyes: doesn’t enter into it.
Consider this: if a hacker really wanted to make a name for himself, he should consider targeting all the commercial and corporate web servers out on the internet that are running Apache on Linux and UNIX – after all, wouldn’t taking down 70%+ of the internet be a major coup d’grace, worthy of screaming headlines across the nation? And yet, somehow, no one has managed to pull off such a hack yet…
People will try. Whether they’ll succeed – and how many of them actually do – is another matter. I seriously doubt we’d get situations similar to the current “Blaster” worm, where Microsoft has to take down their WindowsUpdate.com domain in order to “secure” it…
A ‘grave disservice’? Please notice that the OP also doesn’t mention specifically wanting to stay with Windows.
Look, if the OP were, “I want the best PC for playing games”; yeah, it’d be silly to recommend a Mac.
If the OP were “I want the best PC for doing some hard-core CAD work”, it’d be pretty silly to recommend a Mac.
If the OP were “I want the best PC to work with my company’s proprietary software that only runs on Windows”; it’d obviously be silly to recommend a Mac.
Hell, I’d be the first to admit there are many situations where it would be silly to recommend a Mac, especially if, like you say, they want to stay in the Windows world. No problem there.
But, the OP is “I want the best PC for video editing.” For video editing. No mention of wanting to stick with Windows only. Come on now, it’d be silly for Macs to NOT be brought up. Why? iMovie and iDVD for novices. Final Cut Express for mid-level work. Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro for professional work. All excellent programs for different levels of usage, and absolutely worth a serious look for someone serious about video editing. Apple has sought out this specific market, and done a damn good job of it.
Even though I’m a Mac user, I would never blindly tell someone they should buy one. Get the right computer for the right job, and consider all the factors. But a ‘grave disservice’ would be telling someone to ignore some options, of which, in this specific case, a Mac system is a very good one.
Moving on from that… I have a question about the benchmark tests – and this really is a question, not a statement disguised as a question, because I really don’t know the answer. It’s also a question that yes, I’d still be wondering about even if after the G5s are released they are the clear leader in these tests.
Do a few notches one way or the other on a benchmark test really make a real-world difference to 99% of computer users, other than bragging rights? I mean, yeah, if you’re doing hard-core Photoshop filters all day long, or something that intensive for long periods of time, that extra time that the extra speed buys is going to add up. But does this make a difference to most of us? To put it in terms of the OP, unless he’s going to be using his computer to render the next Pixar film, is it really going to make a difference to him (speaking purely in speed terms here, no other factors considered) if a top of the line Pentium is proven to be a little bit faster than a top of the line G5? My creaky, old, low-end G4 runs Final Cut Pro just fine. Some rendering could certainly be faster, but I know it would be just fine on a newer system. As long as it runs the programs you need just fine, and isn’t slow enough that it’s costing you time, does it really matter to most of us?
I agree - you’re only the fastest machine for about a month these days anyway. And eventually (in about three years), it will be annoyingly slow.
(Typed by keithnmick on his “adequate” dual xeon workstation)
I agree with that too.
I have a reasonably new PC (not the fastest CPU, but pretty fast) and a 2001 model G4 PowerMac. Both have 1 GB of RAM.
I can see differences in speed between these two machines, sort of, but really, it’s not that big of a deal. Take for instance the CD burners–my PC has a 48x CD-RW drive, while one Mac (yeah, actually I have two G4s) has a 24X and another has a 12x. The speed difference isn’t that much different between all three of these drives. For instance, the 12x still seems blazingly fast compared to my first CD-RW drive, a USB 4x. (Now, that was slow. :eek: ) But if one drive finishes a CD a minute or two before the other? Do I notice or care? Not usually.
Add to that the fact (and this is just my experiece) that Nero (software burning software) on the PC is giving me fits, and XP’s CD burning software is also sporatic. (I’m sure it’s not this way with everyone, but it is for me at this time.) I find Roxio’s Toast for Mac to be far less troublesome, so whatever time I “saved” by using the PC’s faster CD burner is somewhat offset by having to fight the software. Once again, just my experience, but these elements do contribute to a person’s concept of “saving time,” do they not?