# Need a new, RELIABLE computer.



## AlexInsane (Nov 24, 2008)

I have a Dell laptop and while it has faithfully served me for about three years now, I'm realizing what a piece of shit it is. Just overnight, the sound system up and quits and with laptops you have to ship the damn things in so they can replace the entire screen which contains the speakers and all this other shit and I REALLY don't feel like spending two and a half hours trying to get a point across to some guy in Bangladesh or wherever the hell he is.

I mean, at this point, I may as well just buy a new laptop, amirite? Once one thing breaks, then the whole laptop tends to go to shit pretty quickly. 

I'm just looking for a new laptop. Most good laptops are going to run you around a thousand dollars if not more if you go for a name brand. I know I could easily get a laptop for cheaper if I had one custom built, but that's just too much dicking around for my liking.

I dunno what to do. Should I just get a new laptop altogether or see if I can replace the screen?

EDIT: Tried calling customer service. Apparently, Dell has it now so that you can't get even the most basic help unless you pay out the ass for it. Isn't it bad enough that I'll end up paying for the repairs I want done? Do you really have to charge me just to tell me that I need to get it fixed? Fucking doodleshit.


----------



## ZentratheFox (Nov 24, 2008)

Go for a new laptop. You can get a damn good one for cheap these days, provided you can live with Vista. And honestly, it's worth living with Vista now that SP1 is out.

On the other hand, my Dell Inspiron 9300 from Dec 2003 is still kicking strong, and I'm loading Left 4 Dead on it as we speak.


----------



## AlexInsane (Nov 24, 2008)

I dunno. Aside from the whole sound thing, the computer works fine. 

Besides, this was an expensive computer; all told it cost about a thousand dollars just to get.


----------



## net-cat (Nov 24, 2008)

What type of laptop? (I/E: Specific model. I don't see many that have speakers built into the screen unit...)



ZentratheFox said:


> On the other hand, my Dell Inspiron 9300 from Dec 2003 is still kicking strong, and I'm loading Left 4 Dead on it as we speak.


I've still got my Latitude C640 from September 2002. People wonder why I pay extra for the small business versions of laptops and warranties...


----------



## ZentratheFox (Nov 24, 2008)

AlexInsane said:


> I dunno. Aside from the whole sound thing, the computer works fine.
> 
> Besides, this was an expensive computer; all told it cost about a thousand dollars just to get.



If it was me, and the speakers were the only broken item, I'd use some external speakers and wait for an excellent deal or something comes my way. If the sound card itself was kaput, then I'd have to get a new computer. I'm a music guy, I have to have music on all the time.


----------



## AlexInsane (Nov 24, 2008)

My computer is an Inspiron 710m.

I think the reason it was so expensive is because I have a lot of RAM and it cost extra to put it in there.


----------



## Xenofur (Nov 25, 2008)

If you want a *reliable* laptop, get a Lenovo Thinkpad. It'll cost you a good bit, but you're paying for quality both in manufacturing and electronics. I have a T61 and i would have no qualms about dropping it from my table, while running, and i have not experienced a single crash that i didn't produce myself.

You can visit the Lenovo website and fit together a custom system as you'd like it and balance the price to the power you get.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 25, 2008)

Xenofur said:


> If you want a *reliable* laptop, get a Lenovo Thinkpad.


^This.

Indeed, the ThinkPads are built like tanks, and they're probably the most reliable laptops you can get right now aside from something like a ToughBook. They've usually got a lot of neat features like fingerprint readers, a keyboard light, and generally good specs. You'll pay more for it than for a comparable HP or Dell, but it's really quite good. The only downside is that they _look_ like they're built like tanks. They aren't really very pretty, and I've had many customers turn them away based on that alone.

Aside from that, HP (and by extension, Compaq) tends to have a good track record as of late, and LG is really going strong nowadays. I've got an LG, myself, second-hand and beat to crap, and it still runs like a top. The thing's sturdy, reliable, and though the plastic outer shell is falling apart, it has an aluminum frame beneath it. We've sold newer LG's at the shop quite a lot, and they've always been the nicest laptops we've brought in. I mean, we don't normally bring in many thousand dollar plus laptops for shits and giggles, but every LG we've brought in has been solid, even the ones that are under a grand, like the R400.

I guess the best thing I can tell you is where _not_ to look for a reliable notebook. And that would be: Acer (low-mid range), Dell (non-XPS), eMachines (all models), Gateway (they're nice, but reliable?), no-names like Averatec...

But, if your current notebook is great aside from the sound issue, are you sure it's a hardware issue? It's possible that it could be something to do with the driver. Can you still hear with the headphones or with speakers plugged in?


----------



## net-cat (Nov 25, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Gateway (they're nice, but reliable?)


I'm going to disagree with this. I've had a Gateway tablet for about two years now and never had a hardware problem with it. I've also rarely seen Gateways come into the shop I work at for hardware issues. (Never go with the OEM Windows install, of course.)


----------



## Runefox (Nov 25, 2008)

Well, I don't have any experience with the tablets, but out of the new systems we've sold at our shop, the Gateways have come back the most often. I guess it's a case of YMMV... The newer Gateways are really nice, and I honestly would like one, but I'm not really 100% on their reliability. That said, I don't exactly have a huge sample size...

And we usually format them as soon as they come in. XD We've got our own OEM install with an assortment of free software and a remote help app.


----------



## ZentratheFox (Nov 25, 2008)

Also, if you want to stack "awesome" with your "new" and "reliable", I'm about to buy this. And if you want a little cheaper, there's also this.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 25, 2008)

ZentratheFox said:


> Also, if you want to stack "awesome" with your "new" and "reliable", I'm about to buy this. And if you want a little cheaper, there's also this.


Ah, ASUS. They're really quite good, and looking at the first link, you get more power than the MacBook Pro and yet at half the price tag.  Oh, Apple.

Anyway, ASUS has pretty legendary reliability in their screens, but I don't have enough info on their laptops to acknowledge or not. That said, I would place them way higher up on the food chain than, say, Acer or Dell.


----------



## AlexInsane (Nov 30, 2008)

Runefox said:


> But, if your current notebook is great aside from the sound issue, are you sure it's a hardware issue? It's possible that it could be something to do with the driver. Can you still hear with the headphones or with speakers plugged in?



No, it's just the same with headphones and speakers.

And NOW the computer decides to allow me to hear sounds, but if I tilt the screen all the way back, the sound is reduced to only the left speaker, which coincidentally is also the weaker speaker I have on this computer.

The sound quality has always been kinda shitty with this laptop: really high pitched sounds make the speakers crackle and hiss.

I'm going to call a couple people in town and see if they can't replace the speakers in my laptop with something else. I know it would void the warranty, but the thing is, I don't have any warranty!


----------



## dietrc70 (Nov 30, 2008)

AlexInsane said:


> No, it's just the same with headphones and speakers.
> 
> And NOW the computer decides to allow me to hear sounds, but if I tilt the screen all the way back, the sound is reduced to only the left speaker, which coincidentally is also the weaker speaker I have on this computer.
> 
> ...



I'd get a USB sound adapter.  There are some nice ones that are very small and will still be better than any onboard laptop sound.

Trying to do that kind of repair on a laptop is pretty tricky.  I'd avoid that unless you are willing to sacrifice the machine if something goes wrong.  Also, it sounds like there are more problems than simply the speakers.

On the other hand, maybe it's just a bad connection that you can reach easily in your particular laptop--it's hard to generalize about them because they are all different.

I agree with the Xenofux and Runefox about Lenovo, I think they make some of the best quality laptops.


----------



## Irreverent (Dec 4, 2008)

Runefox said:


> The newer Gateways are really nice, and I honestly would like one, but I'm not really 100% on their reliability. That said, I don't exactly have a huge sample size...



Based on a sample size of 6, (all open-box/factory refurbs from www.tigerdirect.ca) I'm quite happy with the reliability of the newer Gateway machines.   In 2007 I upgraded the 4 home machines, and two close family machines.  All desktops, can't comment on the laptops/tablets.  All XP/Vista, Office suit of tools and light gaming/surfing.  Nothing taxing.  Ask me in a year.  So far, its been a good risk..

At work we run a mixed Dell/IBM shop, about 20,000 of each; exclusive of servers.  Personal preference is for the Dell Latitude D620, but the IBM T61 do have a biometric authentication feature that we use for some applications.


----------



## mrredfox (Dec 4, 2008)

get a macbook


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Dec 4, 2008)

mrredfox said:


> get a macbook



NO


Unless you are gonna be a DJ or something


----------



## Biles (Dec 5, 2008)

Kitstaa (S.L.A.B) said:


> NO
> 
> 
> Unless you are gonna be a DJ or something



You might be thinking of the MacBook Pro? Anyways he can simply try and test one out if there's an Apple store nearby since he is trying to find a reliable computer. Apple customer support has a better track record compared to other OEMs. The MacBook is something he could consider.

The only drawback might be for him is the expensive price tag, not just in the computer itself, but also additional software if he's looking to find Mac equivalents, or buy another copy of Windows to bootcamp onto the Mac to run the Windows software that he does already own. Another would be to learn a complete different GUI and the basic functions, but from what I heard, it takes only a little to see past it to get the hang of it.

Yet with the expensive price tag and learning to navigate in a different OS, you're likely to get a stable platform, as well as possibly save money and time in the long run. But such a decision to go for a MacBook is more of a big leap of faith. That's why I recommend that if you find an Apple store, or a dealership, you tinker around with it for as long as you can before you make a decision.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 7, 2008)

a bit of advise for you

don't use Dell IMO
don't get Gateway

use Sony,HP,Toshiba
those three make excellent computers

never had a problem with e-machine either.
lol

heck the comp i'm on right now is a old e-machine
T1440
its hog wash compared to my MSI made computer.
the processor is the only thing i liked.
1.8 ghz AMD athlon 2800+
lol
other then that i'm contempt with what i have.


----------



## AlexInsane (Dec 7, 2008)

I had a Mac before. They're nice looking, but that's about all they're good for. Considering that my only uses for a computer are movie-playing and typing and perhaps a bit of fiddling with Photoshop, I don't really need a whole lot.

Sound is still fucked up. I'm thinking it must be a connection problem, like dietrc said.

What does a sound adapter do, pray tell? Is it like a portable set of speakers or does it just improve sound?


----------



## Raithah (Dec 7, 2008)

If I'm reading that correctly, he's talking about a [USB Sound Card]. It provides the features of an internal sound card, only externally. Bear in mind that the one I linked isn't the only model out there, they go plenty cheaper (and also far more expensive).

Just wondering, but have you isolated the problem to your speakers, ie. have you tried plugging a set of headphones into the headphone jack? I know I'm just being Captain Obvious here, but it doesn't hurt to check.


----------



## mrredfox (Dec 7, 2008)

Kitstaa (S.L.A.B) said:


> NO
> 
> 
> Unless you are gonna be a DJ or something


no im saying that because apple's hardware is very reliable and less prone to damange than any other hardware.


----------



## AlexInsane (Dec 7, 2008)

Raithah said:


> Just wondering, but have you isolated the problem to your speakers, ie. have you tried plugging a set of headphones into the headphone jack? I know I'm just being Captain Obvious here, but it doesn't hurt to check.



I did before and it didn't work, but I just did it again and it IS working.

I don't get this. This is just plain fucked up right here.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 7, 2008)

its most likly the drivers

also
are you using vista?


----------



## AlexInsane (Dec 7, 2008)

Nanakisan said:


> its most likly the drivers
> 
> also
> are you using vista?



Not using Vista. I'd be an idiot to use it on a computer that came out before Vista did.

But what about the screen positioning then? I mean, if I have it tilted a certain way, the sound just dies completely.


----------



## Raithah (Dec 7, 2008)

Oh that definitely sounds like a bad connection. You say you've had that laptop for three years? After that much use, the insulation around your speaker wires may have worn out - although that's simply an educated guess, as the only laptops I've opened have speakers around the keyboard. If it is as simple as a broken connection, with a soldering iron, some spare wire and a little time you should be able to fix it by yourself. Besides, there's not much to lose if you're going to buy a new one anyways .

If you Google it or check your manual, there should be guides specific to opening your laptop. Remember: opening it isn't hard, it's putting everything back together that's the trick .


----------



## Biles (Dec 7, 2008)

mrredfox said:


> no im saying that because apple's hardware is very reliable and less prone to damange than any other hardware.



That's one of the advantage of an OEM like Apple that designs vertical integration instead of horizontal ones. Granted some components comes from different companies such as Intel and Nvidia, but the overall assembly and the designs themselves to tie hardware and software together all comes from Apple.

At this point, having a reliable computer with some restricted upgradability through quality control is a higher factor for choosing a computer than having one not so reliable because of the deadly concoction mix of hundreds of hardware brands even though it can be customized in hundreds of ways.



AlexInsane said:


> I had a Mac before. They're nice looking, but that's about all they're good for. Considering that my only uses for a computer are movie-playing and typing and perhaps a bit of fiddling with Photoshop, I don't really need a whole lot.



I currently own a Mac Mini which has less specs compared to the entry level $999 MacBook, and I can do all the things you just listed, plus more.

What Mac did you have before? If you're more concerned about reliability than any other factors, the Macs are known for reliability. I agree they look good, but that's not really Apple's main primary selling point.


----------



## AlexInsane (Dec 7, 2008)

I had a iMac, one of the classic ones way back in the late 90's. It was my pride and joy but it was also a huge pain in the ass, namely because of things like specialized software and the fact that a disc got caught in the drive once and wouldn't eject it.

The Macs look flashy, but as far as I'm concerned they perform no better or worse than my Dell does. 

Besides, Dell supposedly has the best customer service, which is useful in case shit gets broken. Of course, they conveniently forget to tell you that if you don't renew your warranty constantly that you won't get jack shit.

Anyway, I'm not about to go fiddling with my computer. If it's so simple, I may as well just find someone here who can open it up and do the repairs; I'm not about to go to all the trouble of buying soldering irons and wires and things. If it can't be fixed with duct tape it's beyond my repair.


----------



## Nanakisan (Dec 7, 2008)

AlexInsane said:


> Besides, Dell supposedly has the best customer service, which is useful in case shit gets broken. Of course, they conveniently forget to tell you that if you don't renew your warranty constantly that you won't get jack shit.



since when has this been a factor?

Dell screwed my grandparents over the Inspiron 1000 model Laptop for 1k$

after all the crap they put us through.
argh
they didnt even refund all the money

they kept a good half of it in their pockets and claimed it was for service fees and other bullshit they told us.


----------



## rollabottom (Dec 7, 2008)

I have to agree with the Macbook.  Its rock solid hardware, and it last for YEARS.  Lot of old iBooks still being used.  And the older (white/black) ones are discounted a LOT to make way for the Aluminum ones.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 8, 2008)

I still say a Lenovo is probably the best way to go. Macs are insanely expensive for the laptops (MacBooks cost at least $1,100, and their Pro cousins start at $2,100), and used/old hardware is far from what I'd call reliable, no matter who makes it (not that Apple hardware would be any more reliable than Lenovo hardware; I'd actually probably put it at about the same level between the Macbook Pros and the Lenovos). For your money, you're getting more laptop out of a Lenovo, and you're not looking at wasting it if all you're doing is looking for a reliable system to browse, play music, e-mail, etc.

See for yourself; Identically-priced systems from Lenovo and Apple (this is Apple's lowest-end notebook):

http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/...0019E0:&smid=EA9FF8465DFE45ED847C7CAF8F79F973

http://store.apple.com/ca/configure/MB402LL/B?mco=MTkzOTI0Nw

The Lenovo blows the MacBook away on all fronts but the hard drive capacity and sports only a CD-RW/DVD-ROM combo while the MacBook has a DVD-RW-DL drive. Faster processor, faster, future-proof (and less energy-hungry) RAM, a FAR superior video card to anything in the Apple lineup within $1000, and many more upgrade options. Actually, for *precisely* the same price, you could get this one, which has vastly superior specs in every way (though it's slightly bulkier and has a lesser video card as compared to the other model above).

They're a reliable brand with laptops built like tanks. That's only one of the units available, and there are other series that might suit you better, but in the end, again, I would highly recommend against an Apple. OS X just isn't worth the hardware premiums.


----------



## Biles (Dec 8, 2008)

Runefox said:


> I still say a Lenovo is probably the best way to go. Macs are insanely expensive for the laptops (MacBooks cost at least $1,100, and their Pro cousins start at $2,100), and used/old hardware is far from what I'd call reliable, no matter who makes it (not that Apple hardware would be any more reliable than Lenovo hardware; I'd actually probably put it at about the same level between the Macbook Pros and the Lenovos). For your money, you're getting more laptop out of a Lenovo, and you're not looking at wasting it if all you're doing is looking for a reliable system to browse, play music, e-mail, etc.



I agree that Macs are expensive, but overprices is something else entirely different. If AlexInsane is serious enough to shell out more for the sake of having a very reliable and stable computer, then it's worth more than the price tag itself.



			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> See for yourself; Identically-priced systems from Lenovo and Apple (this is Apple's lowest-end notebook):
> 
> http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/...0019E0:&smid=EA9FF8465DFE45ED847C7CAF8F79F973
> 
> http://store.apple.com/ca/configure/MB402LL/B?mco=MTkzOTI0Nw



The link you provided for the MacBook comes from the Canadian site. Unless AlexInsane lives in Canada, the entry-level MacBooks is $999 when you order it from the States. Am I right to assume the link to the Lenovo displays the price if ordered from Canada?



			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> The Lenovo blows the MacBook away on all fronts but the hard drive capacity and sports only a CD-RW/DVD-ROM combo while the MacBook has a DVD-RW-DL drive. Faster processor, faster, future-proof (and less energy-hungry) RAM, a FAR superior video card to anything in the Apple lineup within $1000, and many more upgrade options. Actually, for *precisely* the same price, you could get this one, which has vastly superior specs in every way (though it's slightly bulkier and has a lesser video card as compared to the other model above).
> 
> They're a reliable brand with laptops built like tanks. That's only one of the units available, and there are other series that might suit you better, but in the end, again, I would highly recommend against an Apple. OS X just isn't worth the hardware premiums.



Having higher hardware specs alone doesn't run the computer by itself, the OS makes a very big difference. When you compare Windows Vista and Mac OS X, you find that the Mac OS X takes up less resource, less space, and is less strenuous on the hardware. These are what provide the Mac platform stability and reliability to which is exactly what AlexInsane is looking for.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 8, 2008)

> I agree that Macs are expensive, but overprices is something else entirely different. If AlexInsane is serious enough to shell out more for the sake of having a very reliable and stable computer, then it's worth more than the price tag itself.


But the point is, a Lenovo is a very reliable and stable computer (with, in my opinion, a much more rugged and reliable frame), and at the same price, much faster and using overall better components. There IS a large premium for Mac Store-purchased upgrades versus everywhere else (and indeed buying RAM off the shelf, for example, as compared to their RAM upgrades), and there is definitely a premium on the hardware that you don't find anywhere else. Mac enthusiasts I've talked to about this laugh and call it the "Apple Experience", which in other words means that it's universally ludicrous.



> The link you provided for the MacBook comes from the Canadian site. Unless AlexInsane lives in Canada, the entry-level MacBooks is $999 when you order it from the States. Am I right to assume the link to the Lenovo displays the price if ordered from Canada?


They are both Canadian sites with Canadian pricing; If you were to look, the USD equivalents should also be identical to one another.



> Having higher hardware specs alone doesn't run the computer by itself, the OS makes a very big difference. When you compare Windows Vista and Mac OS X, you find that the Mac OS X takes up less resource, less space, and is less strenuous on the hardware. These are what provide the Mac platform stability and reliability to which is exactly what AlexInsane is looking for.


Assuming that Mac OS X truly is less intensive on the system (which is highly debatable, and from what I've heard and read, performs about equally to Vista), even if you were to factor the OS into the debate, the hardware is lesser, and paying a premium for the OS (to the tune of about $300 in the difference when you account for the extra hardware) is simply not worth it. He's consistently said that he's no fan of the Mac OS X interface, and furthermore if he wanted to go ahead and install Windows XP or Vista onto it after the fact, he would not only need to purchase a license for said software, but also a license for Parallels (or maybe Boot Camp is still available?). Why is it worth paying extra for a lesser computer when all you're getting is the OS? Hell, if he really wanted to, the specs are similar enough that he could purchase a cheaper Lenovo and make it a Hackintosh for the same amount of cash, and he'd still have a more reliable computer in terms of hardware, and identically in terms of software if you consider Mac OS inherently more reliable than Windows.

Bottom line is, both are reliable machines - I'd peg the Lenovo higher due to its hardy frame, but as far as the quality of internal hardware goes, they're identical in reliability. As far as value goes, an identically-priced Lenovo will outperform its Apple competitor hands-down, and indeed should also have slightly better battery life thanks to its DDR3 memory (which is much faster than the DDR2-667 in the MacBooks). Further, that identically-priced Apple laptop happens to be the standard MacBook, which I wouldn't consider to be outstanding in terms of ruggedness (if we were talking the MacBook Pro, on the other hand, that'd be a different story).

So, if you're willing to sacrifice performance and ruggedness at the cost of having Mac OS X and a prettier, glossy frame, then sure, go for the Apple. Otherwise, the Lenovo is waiting for you, and it won't let you down.


----------



## AlexInsane (Dec 8, 2008)

Well, I'm going to start saving up for a Lenovo, then. 

A thousand dollars minimum....which means if I took home 40 dollars a week (trust me, it's a shitty part-time, minimum wage job), which becomes 120 a month, which turns into 720 in 6 months and then which turns into 1440 at the end of the year....

Add into the cost of having to get external hard drives to put all my shit on and then stick it into the new computer...probably an extra 300...unless I can somehow get my internal hard drive ripped out of this computer and put into the new one....

Such a mess.


----------



## Biles (Dec 8, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Assuming that Mac OS X truly is less intensive on the system (which is highly debatable, and from what I've heard and read, performs about equally to Vista), even if you were to factor the OS into the debate, the hardware is lesser, and paying a premium for the OS (to the tune of about $300 in the difference when you account for the extra hardware) is simply not worth it.



If you compare the hardware requirement to run the OS's, the latest Mac OS X requires less compared to Vista, although it comes with a variety of flavors.



			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> He's consistently said that he's no fan of the Mac OS X interface, and furthermore if he wanted to go ahead and install Windows XP or Vista onto it after the fact, he would not only need to purchase a license for said software, but also a license for Parallels (or maybe Boot Camp is still available?). Why is it worth paying extra for a lesser computer when all you're getting is the OS? Hell, if he really wanted to, the specs are similar enough that he could purchase a cheaper Lenovo and make it a Hackintosh for the same amount of cash, and he'd still have a more reliable computer in terms of hardware, and identically in terms of software if you consider Mac OS inherently more reliable than Windows.



Which is why I said earlier before that he has to take into account what would be required if he was going to switch to a different platform. If the investment is too much and not worth his effort, then he doesn't need to buy himself a Mac, simple as that. And yes, Bootcamp is always available for free.



			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> .
> So, if you're willing to sacrifice performance and ruggedness at the cost of having Mac OS X and a prettier, glossy frame, then sure, go for the Apple. Otherwise, the Lenovo is waiting for you, and it won't let you down.



Again, good looks and pretty designs aren't Apple's main primary selling point. If they just made "designer computers", as some people are lead to believe, Apple wouldn't have the highest record of customer satisfaction they have over all other PC OEMs.

Keep in mind though I had no intention of being a Apple salesman here in this thread, I'm trying to provide AlexInsane more choices, to keep an open mind about other viable alternatives, and not to dismiss them so quickly as you wanted him to do so, Runefox.


----------



## AlexInsane (Dec 8, 2008)

How is it that Macs don't get viruses? I'm curious to hear about this.


----------



## Runefox (Dec 8, 2008)

Different architecture; A Windows program won't work on a Mac (at least, not without a lot of work or a virtual machine), and vice-versa, so if they're going to make a virus for Windows, they can't have that same virus attack a Mac, since the program won't run on the Mac. Same goes with Linux; If you truly wanted to make a virus that could attack everything, you'd (usually) need to write a separate version for each type of computer you want to infect, and then there are different nuances regarding how to infect.

Windows computers are typically vulnerable to viruses via things like using Internet Explorer for any reason, randomly clicking through prompts (as most computer users are trained to do), or downloading from seedy websites (eg. Porn or Warez). Usually, a Mac won't fall prey to the same tricks (mostly because Safari isn't as poorly-coded (though it's a possible vector) and most warez sites have no Mac-related files to begin with - That and the Apple market share doesn't really make for a good virus, since most viruses aim to make botnets, and the biggest target there are Windows boxen), but you're definitely trading functionality for it. One customer of ours was so far out of his element on a Mac that he installed Windows XP in a virtual machine and then got said machine infected with a virus.


----------



## Biles (Dec 8, 2008)

If you want to learn more about reasons why Macs do not get viruses, I suggest you watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bocwCV3GuCE


----------



## Irreverent (Dec 8, 2008)

Biles said:


> If you want to learn more about reasons why Macs do not get viruses, I suggest you watch this video:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bocwCV3GuCE



Wishfull thinking.  A quick google of CERT/CERN shows about 900+ Apple viruses in the wild.  Not as many as in the wintel-space, maybe as many on a per capita basis.  And then there's always the possibility of a zero-day event.

Apparently, Apple's taking some heat for this.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/154850/will_mac_become_a_virus_trap.html


----------



## Runefox (Dec 8, 2008)

Biles said:


> If you want to learn more about reasons why Macs do not get viruses, I suggest you watch this video:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bocwCV3GuCE


Yes, market share has everything to do with why Mac OS X doesn't get viruses, because, in fact, several viruses have been released into the wild this year targeting the platform. There is no inherent security advantage in using OS X, except security by obscurity; Any extra security gained is because of its BSD roots, and BSD is not inherently secure, either, just like Linux isn't inherently secure (in fact, it's quite insecure with a basic setup, just like Windows is). Most viruses nowadays tend to be used for the creation of botnets and other related activities (SPAM relays, etc), which is very worth the time investment on the Windows side of things, and not so much so on the Mac/Linux side of things. Viruses nowadays aren't written to be deliberately destructive - There's money to be made with SPAM and data mining, not to mention having a massive force of broadband-connected PC's with which to blast something off the face of the internet. As I recall, the last person to write a widespread destructive virus was outed by the (Russian?) mob to the authorities shortly after its release. It just no longer makes sense to write destructive code.

Now, with regard to the video, if you look at all of this guy, mrbit10's posts on Youtube, it very quickly becomes obvious that he's what you call a Mac fanboy - One with a predisposed bias towards Apple products (which he often flaunts), and one with a predisposed hatred for all things PC. This sort of individual is far from being an authority on security, and is far from being an authority on operating systems or computers in general. Anyone with such a bias has no business in talking about these things, unless of course he's an Apple employee.

As for myself, I stand by my words above regarding the pros and cons of a Lenovo vs an Apple product. The price is high for the hardware you get, and really the shell and the OS are the only things that differ between them aside from the Lenovo having higher-end guts for the same price, and a sturdier frame. It seems pretty logical to me.


----------



## jagdwolf (Dec 9, 2008)

Before I would spend a lot of coin on a new machine, that is if you cant afford it right now, I would take the laptop to a repair shop.  What it really sounds like is that the speaker cable is shorting or grounding out and you are getting feed back.  Because it happens at random moments but generally happens when you move the monitor, I would look there before I would look at drivers.

Paying a shop 45 bucks to look at it and perhaps be able to fix it is a whole lot cheaper than buying a new laptop.

But if your gonna get a new one, before you buy ask yourself these very basic questions.  Then start looking

What am I gonna do with this machine.
If gaming...........video ard, processor, ram HD
If graphic editing.........video card,ram,HD processor
If school work/job.........processor,HD ram, video card.

but let them take a quick look.  might solve a lot of your problems really fast.


----------



## Biles (Dec 9, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Yes, market share has everything to do with why Mac OS X doesn't get viruses, because, in fact, several viruses have been released into the wild this year targeting the platform.



But they have yet to do the types of damages that Windows users usually face. If they have, then this whole incident would have been made a big stink out of it by now.



			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> There is no inherent security advantage in using OS X, except security by obscurity; Any extra security gained is because of its BSD roots, and BSD is not inherently secure, either, just like Linux isn't inherently secure (in fact, it's quite insecure with a basic setup, just like Windows is). Most viruses nowadays tend to be used for the creation of botnets and other related activities (SPAM relays, etc), which is very worth the time investment on the Windows side of things, and not so much so on the Mac/Linux side of things. Viruses nowadays aren't written to be deliberately destructive - There's money to be made with SPAM and data mining, not to mention having a massive force of broadband-connected PC's with which to blast something off the face of the internet. As I recall, the last person to write a widespread destructive virus was outed by the (Russian?) mob to the authorities shortly after its release. It just no longer makes sense to write destructive code.



Whether there is security built in or the existence of "obscurity" you claim Mac OS X has, that does not make that platform inferior, and neither does the marketshare it has. An average home-consumer is not going to care too much to have the full detail indepth knowledge as to exactly why Macs are very less prone to virus attacks compared to Windows. If they are fed up with viruses and other crapwares, they will likely make a switch and it would be their worthwhile investment for their money in the end.



			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> Now, with regard to the video, if you look at all of this guy, mrbit10's posts on Youtube, it very quickly becomes obvious that he's what you call a Mac fanboy - One with a predisposed bias towards Apple products (which he often flaunts), and one with a predisposed hatred for all things PC. This sort of individual is far from being an authority on security, and is far from being an authority on operating systems or computers in general. Anyone with such a bias has no business in talking about these things, unless of course he's an Apple employee.



Yes, MrBit10 does appear bias towards Apple. However, much of that fanboyism attitude comes from the fact that he himself was a WinPC user from what I understand, so it's not surprising there. In fact, most Mac users are former WinPC users as well. Switchers continue to be a common occurrence, and the surge was greater back when Microsoft dropped the ball on the Vista project over the last year, otherwise others simply migrated back to XP.


----------

