Jim Goldman Is An Idiot


According to CNBC’s Silicon Valley Bureau Chief Jim Goldman, all Macs come preinstalled with Photoshop. Macs also have 4x more battery life than PCs and they come with faster processors. Seriously how did an idiot like this get a job as “Silicon Valley Bureau Chief” for CNBC.

He believes that it will cost you $1,500 to get  a $699 PC  to perform like a Mac because Macs have higher resolution screens, weigh less, and do not need all the software PCs need to do “cool things.”

This guy has probably never used a computer in his life. He has no idea what he is talking about. I would be perfectly okay with a fair fact-based  comparison of the two.  But this idiot literally pulled this information out of his you know what.

Most PCs come preinstalled with anti-virus software. You can also get perfectly good anti-virus free of charge (AVG).  I have no idea what he means by “multimedia software.”  He apparently still lives in 1998. And where the heck can I buy Photoshop for $140?

I could go on and on but you get the point. Jim Goldman is an Idiot.

Seriously CNBC, you would be better off replacing him with a 5 year old.

Jim Goldman Is An Idiot Comments

  1. st says:

    Yah I got photoshop for free, beats me what his problem is.

  2. Rob says:

    Hmm he obviously doesn’t believe that Windows has any Opensource software. AVG is free, no need to have Norton. -50/yr there…Multimedia software…preisntalled as WindowsMediaPlayer/ Windows Moviemaker… -80-104$…Photoshop..not free on a Mac and can be replaced with Gimshop on PC for the common user who just needs basic editing.-140..if you can get photoshop for the cheap with out being affiliated with a school or such…Music software??WTF is that..back to mediaplayer again or does he mean an audio editor..which can be free again with the usage of Audacity…-100 again..GeekSquad visit? How the frick is that included in the price of a PC. If you have a Mac and have an issue youre still paying Geeksquad or whomever to come look at it…

  3. Dustin says:

    the one that really cracks me up is the geeksquad visit…. apparently problems are exclusive to PCs and something that a mac never has. mutlimedia software… winamp – free. antivirus – avast… also free

    photo editing…. gimp. free. and almost as good as photoshop. video editing… there are a multitude of free programs out there. the moral of this story is that for every expensive PC application out there, there is something that does just as good a job, for free. and mac owners are morons

  4. David says:

    Like it or not, Macs come with a more robust software bundle. iPhoto is way better than MS Paint, which is about the only thing you get with a standard Windows installation. HOWEVER, most PC makers bundle additional things that can help to offset this. Goldman does not make a valid comparison, but I still tend to believe that Macs offer a better user experience, until you need to do something esoteric, then TOUGH LUCK mac users. FWIW, I use a PC, and a Mac

  5. Clarkson says:

    David = Mac fanboy. Sorry, 50% Mac fanboy. Ridiculously overpriced computers in this day of economic uncertainy. Everything comes in 2nd place.

  6. runswithscissors says:

    … I have $55 in my server(A64, 4GB Ram, 160 GB HDD) who said PC’s had to be expensive. You just have to know a deal when you see it.

  7. Phil says:

    David: The point is not whether Macs come with a more robust software bundle or not, but whether the comparison above is true. It’s obviously not true and an unfair comparison to make.

    If it was just the robustness of the out-of-the-box software, I know some linux distributions that would be clear winners. User experience? Well, that’s subjective.

  8. Michael McCann says:

    Check out the new Lenovo W700 Thinkpad. As I photographer I wouldn’t even consider a mac over this thing. Why would you?

  9. evil1dwk says:

    I’m sorry but windows sucks. Plain and simple. Mac’s are expensive but look at what’s packaged in a standard Mac. $599 8x dual layer super drive 1gb ddr3 nvidia geforce 9400m. In a solid aluminum case with a decent OS. 20in iMac for $1199. It’s a nice well built machine as well, encased in a 20in display. So Macs may be more expensive than some other cheap laptops and desktop or anything self or custom built but it’s a decent package deal. Now if you start talking about the Mac Pro, you can really build something much more robust for your money.

    By the way I’m not a Mac fanboy I use a dell precision m6400 with 16gb of ddr3 Quadro FX 2700M 512mb with a 20in 1920×1200 display. Nice laptop. Paid almost $2000 plus the memory upgrade. Comparable to a Mac book pro in price and quality. I’m running ubuntu 9.04 on it right now. I have a home NAS/Server running rpath linux. The machine is custom built xeon quad core. I have a 6 drive sata array with 5tb of usable storage. That thing ran me about $2000 to build most of the cost was the hotswap drive bays the sata raid controller and the 1tb hard drives themselves. Everything else in my house are cheap self built core 2 duo pcs. Might have cost me $600 – $700 to build everything else put together.

    I wouldn’t personally buy a Mac. I’ve used them. I don’t generally have an issue with them. If my grandma or grandpa were going to use a computer I would suggest a mac. They are easy to use and stable (face it OSX is by far more stable and reliable than windows). You don’t generally have to worry about viruses or spyware. My parents both use them now and have stopped calling me for support all the time.

    This comparison is a joke though. I could put together a PC on the cheap for a few hundred bucks including a decent flat panel monitor. You could do any of the activities or find substitutes for any of the software listed for free. Including the OS. Why would they include a visit from geek squad? Like it’s some how standard in the price of a PC.

  10. wow says:

    evil, you say you have 16gb of ddr3 and say its comparable to a mac book pro? i smell bs, and 2K? what euros?

  11. evil1dwk says:



    My laptop is through the dell premier site. I also get company discounts because I buy computers, laptops and servers for a health care company. I said $2000 plus a memory upgrade. What about that smells of BS?

    Intel Core2 Cuo T9600 2.8ghz
    16gb DDR3
    Nvidia Quadro FX 2700M
    169 mhz

    Mac book pro $1999
    Intel Core 2 Duo
    2GB Memory
    250GB hard drive
    NVIDIA GeForce 9400M

  12. evil1dwk says:

    I did make a mistake on screen size though. It’s a 1920×1200 17in display.

    My point is you pay for the quality of the product. There are cheap ways to build PCs. You shouldn’t lock yourself into anything proprietary. Macs are just name brand PCs with a different OS but you can’t knock the quality of the product. They use Nvidia not cheaper intel video chip sets amongst other things. At least OSX is better than Windows as far as stability and security (as far as virus and spyware are concerned). If you want to constantly customize or custom build a computer buy a PC and or it’s components. If you really want you can put OSX on a cheap PC although it’s not supported.

  13. Minty3 says:

    As the author has stated before, where the hell can I get Photoshop for $140? I’d take that deal! (Well, unless it’s Ps1 or some crap like that).

    Norton AV – can be replaced for free with avast! AV, which I personally prefer anyway.

    “Multimedia Software” – If you’re looking to play files, Windows Media Player does it… for free. And if you’re looking to edit, there are still free examples (someone else mentioned Audacity, I believe…)

    Photoshop: Since when does Photoshop come installed on Macs? Plus, you can get the GIMP for free, and it’s even open source. It doesn’t do everything Photoshop can, but I’ve used both and I’m fine with it.

    Video Editing: Once more… Windows Movie Maker? Even though it kind of sucks, it’s still free. You don’t have to pay $100.

    Music Software: WMP? Free. iTunes? Free… unless you’re buying music, in which case it’d be the same price on a Mac anyway. Audacity? Free. Why the sam hill would you pay $100? What would you be paying for?

    Geek Squad visit: Like Macs never break. I guess you could say that Windows is far less stable than OSX, but I’ve seen people on both platforms break their computers just as easily. When a PC webcam breaks, you can take it in for service and keep using your computer, but when your Mac webcam breaks, you have to lug the whole freaking thing in there and go without.
    So even though a Geek Squad visit might be merited by quite a few users, the same users might have problems with the Mac anyway. Thus, it’s unfair to include it with only the PC.

    …How did everyone get into hardware? Wasn’t this originally about software, and how much this guy was dropped on his head as an infant? Oh well.

  14. evil1dwk says:

    I got into hardware because I was trying to make an apples to apple comparison (pun intended). If you are going to compare the price of a mac to the price of a pc you need to compare the hardware of the two computers in question.

    A Mac Book Pro 17 in for example starts with a core 2 duo, 4gb of ram an nvidia 9600m 512mb in an aluminum case. Some other nice features stacked on top of a solid OS.

    Take a comparable laptop from any other major manufacturer and it’s going to cost you about the same price. Sure you can buy cheaper laptops but you end up with cheaper hardware or a cheap plastic case. The question never really was about software because either can run comparable software, in some cases the exact same software.

    I choose not to buy a Mac because I want a choice when it comes to OS. I also like a wider range of hardware compatibility. I’m saying the argument is moot because the price of a Mac is not really all that outrageous when compared to a computer of the same quality without OSX. I’m also saying that the man was dropped at least several times on his head as an infant.

  15. crehnke says:

    Very professionally written article. Calling someone an “idiot” really speaks of your skill as a “writer”. Learn some ethics

  16. Vector says:

    @ crehnke

    Sup Jim Goldman.

  17. hobs says:

    @ david, iPhoto and mspaint are not the same type of application, in fact, the mac is not bundled with a decent image editor, and in this specific case, mspaint is probably better for what it does than iphoto could ever be.

    That being said, windows doesnt come with any good photo management software, which IS what iPhoto does, but Picasa etc.

  18. DarkSock says:

    I peed in Jim Goldman once

  19. dion says:

    For the people saying “I got photoshop for free” No one cares, there are a million other people who got it for free also. Your not special.

  20. Djordi Al Arrian says:

    Why not buy a PC with better hardware and specs and install MacOS on it if you like MacOS?

    There’s a lot of competition between Mac, Windows, Linux, BSD (what mac is based on), as well as Solaris and other unixes.

    Once you realize that mac is just a PC with specific uniform parts, and that’s all it is, you can figure out that their hardware isn’t all that great compared to our good ol’ custom PCs.

    My PC was 800$ for a Q6600, 8gb ram, 22″ widescreen, 8800GT, it does everything I need it to do and more. It’s quick and I got it quite a long time ago. It runs Linux and Windows 7.

  21. Free Photoshop says:


  22. me says:

    A Mac Book Pro 17 in for example starts with a core 2 duo, 4gb of ram an nvidia 9600m 512mb in an aluminum case. Some other nice features stacked on top of a solid OS.

    Take a comparable laptop from any other major manufacturer and it’s going to cost you about the same price. Sure you can buy cheaper laptops but you end up with cheaper hardware or a cheap plastic case. The question never really was about software because either can run comparable software, in some cases the exact same software.

    What about the MSI GT725? Blows it out of the water in pretty much every area except battery life, for about $1200 less for the better model. The lower end one blows it out of the water in most areas for $1500 less (especially when you consider the factory warrantied processor overclock). Sure, it has problems like the small keys on the right side…but it also won’t cause burns if you set it on your lap.

    But I guess MSI isn’t a “major” manufacturer, so it doesn’t count.

  23. evil1dwk says:

    “What about the MSI GT725″

    Great computer. Goes with what I was saying about a wider range of hardware compatibility. The reason PCs can be cheaper than Macs is because they can use a wider range of hardware. They aren’t beholden to any manufacturer.

    But MSI did skimp on some hardware to save cost. Max Memory 4gb Mac Book Pro 8gb. 2.4ghz instead of 2.6ghz. ATI Readon (not that this skimping). Display res 1680 x 1050 pixels instead of the 1920×1200 standard on Mac Book Pro 17”. So again you get lesser hardware for less price. And no I wouldn’t consider MSI a top tier manufacturer of computers at the moment. I would say Sony, HP, Dell, Acer maybe even Toshiba are probably the top especially in laptops (quantity not quality).

    I’m not saying PCs aren’t cheaper. I agree you can find cheaper PCs all day long. Hell you can build them all day long. Honestly I’ve never had a reason to buy a Mac and never would. For your money you aren’t getting completely ripped on a Mac. Apple does use good hardware. I’m saying it’s a crap argument made up by windows marketing. Comparatively speaking your common computer user is going to get ripped on a crap computer by either a major office supply or computer/home entertainment store. I’d rather see them buy a Mac than anything with windows on it.





    They really aren’t that far off the mark for comparable hardware.

  24. Ghost|BOFH says:

    Obviously Jim’s never heard of L I N U X, which, when properly applied to a PC, makes a Mac look like shit.


  25. Matt says:

    I am a mac user (and think they are much better than either linux or pcs) but this guy is still way out of line. The only two things which are true are the anti-virus subscription and the geek squad visits. Most likely something will go wrong with a pc and then you will have to get it fixed. Most people are not computer literate and will have to pay someone to fix it for them. Both windows and mac come with the multimedia and video editing software built in so those two points do not matter and Photoshop is pretty much the same price on both platforms. It is true macs do cost more up front, but you dont have to pay for anti-virus subscriptions and if you want to sell your computer 3 years down the road it is probably still worth a sizable amount. Plus you also get a better manufactured computer with quality components inside. In essence, you get what you pay for.

    • lalalala says:

      Quality hardware is not and should not make a 1000$ difference in two laptops with comparable stats.

      Look at sony's old FW series for instance. http://www.productwiki.com/sony-vaio-fw-series-vg…
      Roughly the same stats as MacBookPro. Half the Price.

      Now think about it this way. I have had my FW series for a year now. I got it on sale for 900 with Nividia 1gig video card.

      Now as far as software goes… Win7 is wonderful, if you dont like it there are tons of linux free OS's out there… Heck you could install Mac onto it if you wanted…

      Toss in all the free software you can handle and tada Windows Wins

  26. lamata says:

    Obvious trolling is SOOOO obvious….

  27. evil1dwk says:

    “It is true macs do cost more up front, but you dont have to pay for anti-virus subscriptions”

    Um anti-virus? Avast and avg are free with no subscription fee. ClamAV is free with no subscription fee. I would never have geek squad in my home. So those two things are not automatic. You can’t include them as standard in the price of anything (pc or mac). A Mac user is just as likely to have geek squad fix a problem if something goes wrong with their Mac. Like you said “Most likely something will go wrong with a pc” that includes the intel processor, PC based Mac as well. Stuff happens and like you stated most people are not technically inclined. So they need someone to fix it. So let’s just throw that into the price of a Mac by default as well. That makes sense doesn’t it? No and it doesn’t make sense on a PC either.

    Just because you use a BSD based operating system (even though you want to say Mac is better than linux or PC how PC is an OS I don’t know) it’s not. It’s a name brand PC with Berkley based unix (unix the same platform linux was based on) based OSX. It’s a Posix system with cocoa instead of X windows and not very configurable at that.

    I will agree and I’ve argued this point throughout my posts. Apple uses good hardware in their systems. If you take the same system from a major manufacturer the Apple isn’t going to be that far off price. Why, because hardware costs money for any OEM. It’s going to run about the same price from any reseller for the same Nvidia card. There may be some small differences but for the most part the same hardware costs you the same price.

  28. evil1dwk says:

    Ok people. I think the “I’m a Mac. I’m a PC,” commercials have you confused. Mac’s are not a different type of computer. They are a PC. Just like any other. They have an intel processor (usually core 2 duo or better). They use the same memory as your windows machine (probably ddr2 or ddr3 all new macs are ddr3). They still have PCI and PCI express card slots. There isn’t much different between a Mac and any other PC. Sure Apple uses good quality hardware in their products but so do other manufactures and quite frankly not everyone needs a top of the line computer. Where they differ is the operating system (or OS). Macs have a proprietary OS called OSX (I believe it’s leopard still). OSX was not built to run on any other hardware but that supported by Apple. Some people have been able to crack the EFI and figure out how to run OSX on non Apple computers, which is not officially supported by Apple. Apple developed a boot loader called boot camp which now allows for windows to be installed on an Apple Mac. The reason this works is that Macs are PCs. So basically some of the arguments posed here are Apple PCs are way better than anyone else’s even if they cost more money. Quite frankly that’s not always the case. There are great manufacturers out there that make computers just as well put together as your mac.

    What the commercials really need to compare is OSX to Windows (or any other OS they want to market against). Windows is a suck ass operating system. OSX is solid, unix based, but lacks hardware support and the customization real linux users have come to love. I have no real qualms with Apple and OSX. I would like to see them develop OSX to run on any hardware and sell it as a stand alone OS to general comsumers. Make no mistakes about it OSX is a proprietary OS. Something which the opensource community and linux user frown upon. So while I will disagree with OSX being a better OS than Linux you can’t compare a Mac to a PC and say Macs are better because a Mac is a PC. Mac’s use good hardware and Apple laptops are comparable to some of the best computers on the market. But it’s a PC. So it can’t be a PC but be better than a PC.

  29. To Evil says:

    You sir need to realize that your open mindedness on both sides of the Mac and PC arguments are to logical for most of the Users who are posting here.

    I’m still trying to figure out how what guy got on TV, said that, and isn’t fired.

  30. David says:

    In Australia we don’t get CNBC (I think or hope) and I therefore doubt we get Jim Goldman. I usually cut commentators a little bit of slack – hey, you can’t be an expert in everything and most have some sort of bias but this guy is just….well…..stupid.
    Whoever let him waste some electrons and breathing air writing that rubbish should also be sacked.

    Next thing, whoever said Nortons CAN be replaced should have said MUST. Either AVG or Avast cream Nortons.
    I use absolutely everything but 99% of the time I use Ubuntu (with Gnome Do sitting behind Docky – I implore you to try it if you can) and I always have a wry smile when I think about Anti Virus software – Linux isn’t impervious I’m told but in 6 years nothing has troubled me.

    Finally, everyone that makes fun of him including the GeekSquad in the price doesn’t understand that this Bozo need them to help him plug it in and switch it on.

  31. Marco says:

    One of the reasons Mac’s are more stable is that they are not under siege from viruses, adware, and spyware as much as Windows. Any virus program will miss some and eventually Windows computers will fail or at least become buggy due to this. This brings me to my other point. The last I checked, there exists at most 100 viruses for Macs where as Windows have, well a great deal more. Macs are not more secure than Windows, in fact they are less so. Macs make up around 8% of computers used (source: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&sample=35) and as such there is little point of making a virus for them. Macs are actually the least secure of OS’ses. If you don’t believe that check this: http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2917
    Windows, since they are used so prolifically that hackers have a greater chance of breaking into several and obtaining something worthwhile in the process.

    As for the software that comes pre-installed, it seems to be rather apparent that everyone here agrees that it is easily replaceable with something less expensive or even free for better quality.

    I don’t use a Mac not only for those reasons but also because the GUI, graphical user interface, is so dumbed down that a newborn can use it. That’s not to say an interface should be complex but it should require some intelligence.

  32. evil1dwk says:


    One of the reasons Mac’s are more stable is that they are not under siege from viruses, adware, and spyware as much as Windows.

    You are absolutely correct. This is one of the main reasons OSX is more stable than windows. It also helps that Unix was designed from the ground up as a multi-user OS. Windows was not. Initially windows (and DOS) were designed for a single user. Mutli-user support was added as an after thought later in the process. An admin on any windows computer can change any aspect of the OS without password input from the user. Posix systems do not allow for this. Only one user can change all aspects of the OS. Any other user needs to use su or sudo to become root or gain root access. Su and sudo both require user input in the form of a password. So for a virus to infect a linux or unix based OS a user would have to input a password or the user would have to be root to begin with. This security does not take any additional configuration. It is the default configuration for both Mac and almost every linux distro (I say almost any but it’s probably more like all). This is a major design advantage for sercuity.

    Another added security flaw in windows is the installation process. An installer on windows is an exe (executable file) just like an installed application. Imagine this. You download an .exe which is supposed to be an installer for your virus protection program. As you double click to start the installation process you realize that you’ve actually downloaded a virus. Too late you’ve actually executed the virus you have downloaded and your computer is now infect. The fact that installation is done through standalone applications is a pretty big secruity risk. Mac uses dmg, ubuntu and debian use deb packages, redhat and the like use rpm. These files are basically the same as zip files. They are not executable. So you can install a file, see that the folder layout or the file sizes are incorrect and remove the offending virus before ever executing any application. Zip file installation would be a more secure way of installing applications. A user could unzip the file and review what is being installed before any executable is run.

    Any OS can be insecure. The biggest cause of OS insecurity is the user. A new windows based installation with a default user configuration is extremely insecure. The OS can be tweaked to provide more security. Windows firewall is a joke. Windows defender is an utter failure. Internet Explorer is by far the worst and least secure browser available today.

  33. Marco says:

    At Evildwk:
    “Any OS can be insecure. The biggest cause of OS insecurity is the user.”

    I did not deny this. All OS’s are designed by people and anyone will agree that people are not perfect in any way and therefore are incapable of making something that is perfect.

    “Internet Explorer is by far the worst and least secure browser available today.”

    I like this, did you look at the second site i posted or not? If you are going to refute a claim that has proof given, I suggest you provide evidence of your own.

    I admire how you support the one statement I put that agrees with your assessment of Macs and then completely ignore the reason behind it. I know of the Linux and Unix security advantages and felt it was unnecessary to put that. The reason Macs are called more secure are not the reasons you put, but because they only seem more secure due to the fact that there are a minute number of viruses that exist for Macs. It makes no sense to make a virus for a computer that very few people use. In addition most purchases of Macs are not private users but schools. This greatly diminishes the chance of vital information being obtained by trying to infect a Mac. Please consider that Macs simply are not a viable PC to infect.
    “Market share equals money” to the hacker criminals of the world, according to Charlie Miller, a researcher at Independent Security Evaluators. (source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9914753-37.html)

  34. Lee says:

    Yea, the cost of a Sims game for a MAC I can buy two expansion packs with.

    Macs are a joke.

  35. evil1dwk says:


  36. evil1dwk says:

    I didn’t read your second link sorry about that. I’ll take back my comment about IE. I’d say 8 is probably the only version of IE that would stand up to most security tests. I don’t use safari even on osx. I always install firefox on all my machines be they osx, windows or linux.

    If you notice in these articles they never mention taking control of the computer through the OS. These are browser exploits which are far more common these days. “More and more, it’s not really about taking control of a computer through flaws in the operating system; it’s about using the browser as the entry point into the system or hacking Web sites.” Don’t use a crap browser and you’ll be more secure on either OS. Windows will still have more security issues.

    The Windows has a larger market share so it’s less secure is a complete myth. Apache, for example, has the largest market share of http servers. More exploits and scripts are designed to attack apache. Well I’ll let you read the rest. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/. “Attacks are of course aimed at Windows because of the numbers of users, but its design makes it a much easier target, and much easier for an attack to wreak havoc.”

    Both windows and osx are proprietary operating systems. Honestly I wouldn’t want to use either at this point. You are technically supposed to pay for your operating system. I downloaded and burned mine for free legally. Something you can only do with the current release candidate of windows. I won’t have to pay for the next version either or worry about my free version running out. I can run updates and not have to worry about genuine advantage checks. My computer runs just as well if not better than it did with windows xp sp3. My OS doesn’t need an exorbitant amount of hardware to run. So I end up being able to use more of my computer’s hardware for the applications and virtual machines I run rather than the underlying OS and anti-virus software. Not to mention my computer goes from post to gdm (the gnome login screen) in about 9 seconds and doesn’t have to run a bunch of services and applications after I log in. You can do all the comparison you like and we can sit and argue back and forth. You can post all your FUD links and I can post all my FOSS propaganda. The price has me sold. Besides if I don’t like the way something works or something doesn’t run correctly, I can edit the source and compile it myself.

    Windows can’t support XP forever and if they don’t come up with a viable replacement for XP and something to take over the netbook market they are going to be dead in the water. Companies are looking at opensource more and more these hard times. They don’t want to pay hundred of thousands in licensing fees anymore. Windows still has it’s place on the desktop through OEMs. As OEMs look for ways to reduce costs the OS may be an easy target. Most users have no clue what OS they use, what browser they use, or what office application they use. They hear word and internet explorer or windows and think that’s all their is. If it were replaced they would have no clue. I’m not sure we’ll see it in a few years or the next decade but opensource will slowly take it place in the market. The new market place isn’t the operating system, it’s the online market place, digital media and information. End users don’t buy operating systems. The home computer is becoming less and less like your office computer. We will more than likely see a shift from the computer being a large cost to it becoming more and more like cable service. People paying for on-demand information and media on free or extremely cheap computers and hand held device. That was not microsoft’s business model and they are having a hard time shifting. People aren’t accepting to their late arrival with zune and other services.

  37. evil1dwk says:

    While popularity certainly doesn’t help Windows security, market share alone can’t be blamed for so many issues. UNIX and its derivatives, Linux and OS X were created for use on multi-user networked computers. Windows was and in most regards still is a single-user design which either lets all users run as admin as default (XP and earlier versions), or attempts to mimic a multi-user environment but annoys most users enough that they eventually turn off or ignore UAC (Vista). Microsoft has been trying to address the security vs annoyance issue, and may have improved with 7, but the inherent instability of a monolithic design usually leads to compatibility problems with such changes.

    Microsoft adherence to reverse compatibility has really hurt them in the long run. Don’t get me wrong microsoft does make some great products. Microsoft office is a great office suite. I wish they had adopted open standards earlier or opened their own standards earlier, but you can’t knock the product. Exchange is a great groupware server with outlook as a client it’s been virtually un-challenged as the top groupware suite for years. It does have some inherent flaws and I don’t care for the RPC protocol . Again you can’t knock the product.

    Windows is not one of their better products. It was revolutionary it’s in day (if not for the fact it was mostly stolen from xerox and apple). It was adopted early on by IBM pc users. It’s market share is due more so to it’s early adoption making it common place for most users than the quality of the product.

  38. Marco says:

    At Evil1dwk
    “If you notice in these articles they never mention taking control of the computer through the OS.”
    Reread the third article I posted. In summary it states that more attacks are coming through the browser than on the OS. Also note what happens when they tried to gain control though the OS.
    Also you put, “The Windows has a larger market share so it’s less secure is a complete myth. Apache, for example, has the largest market share of http servers. More exploits and scripts are designed to attack apache.” and then posted an article which was clearly meant to support your side. In the article’s section on Apache, it’s the very first section and impossible to miss, it states in the second sentence:
    “Attacks on Apache are nevertheless far fewer in number, and cause less damage. ”
    Does this not support my argument that market share does affect the amount of attacks on a machine and completely disprove your statement about Apache servers? Perhaps you should read your own articles.
    You are correct in saying that Windows is not one of their better products, they know this since they immediately pushed for the production of Windows 7 not long after the advent of Vista. However it is still the majority market share and will continue to be for years.

    “We will more than likely see a shift from the computer being a large cost to it becoming more and more like cable service.”
    I agree with this and am actually looking forward to the day when computing becomes ubiquitous.

  39. evil1dwk says:

    And the very next sentence reads “And in some case Apache-related attacks have the most serious effect on Windows machines.” So apache attacks are more serious on Windows machines. The same software is more prone to serious attack on Windows over other operating systems. I would call that proof that the OS is inherently less secure.

    Ok I was wrong, the third article did state that none of the computers in question could be hacked using attacks to the OS only. Both Vista (through flash) and OS X (through safari) were hacked at the same conference. I continue to stand by linux as my OS of choice. Sure attacks will increase as market share increase but Unix based systems are designed to weather the storm better.

    Understand this. You are arguing that windows is less secure because market share. Vistas market share is much smaller than XP still (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10). So your own argument would apply here but I won’t use it against you as I don’t think it is completely true. As Vista’s market share grows it will be found to be less secure? No I think the design changes Microsoft is making will make Vista and 7 more secure than previous versions. Market share has no real effect.

  40. evil1dwk says:

    People are sick of the BSOD, spyware/malware, trojans and viruses. People are tired of losing data or having to reinstall the OS. They don’t want to reboot every day or every week or every month if they don’t have to. Windows has gotten better. I’d say XP was a very solid version of windows. I really don’t completely hate Vista. It looks nice if anything. It’s a step toward a more secure OS when users don’t disable all the security features out of annoyance. I think 7 will be a great improvement. But I’m kind of thinking too little too late and too many hardware requirements to boot. Not to mention the price for the OS ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10242555-64.html ).

    I have a lot of the same issues with OS X that I have with windows. I have personally witnessed too many issues with windows computer throughout the years. I’ve seen far fewer issues with Mac mainly because the limited hardware support. For your average user that doesn’t really know what hardware they have OS X is the better OS. There computers aren’t really all that much more expensive than comparable hardware. They need to build more low end machines at cheaper prices.

    If I’m going to spend my money on anything it will be the hardware and not the OS. That’s one of the main reasons I choose linux. I find it to be more stable personally. The OS architecture is more secure by design. I’m sure more exploits and security holes and bugs will be found as the OS gains market share and more third party applications are added. Overall these exploits and security problems will do far less damage to the OS even if they do affect the user.

  41. Marco says:

    “You are arguing that windows is less secure because market share.”
    I think you are misunderstanding my argument. The higher market share only helps reveal more security flaws in windows because it is simply more lucrative to go after 90% of the market, than it is to go after a smaller less secure section.

    “People are sick of the BSOD, spyware/malware, trojans and viruses. People are tired of losing data or having to reinstall the OS.”

    True but reinstalling the OS is sometimes recommended by techs who don’t take time to educate themselves properly on how to fix a problem.

    And the very next sentence reads “And in some case Apache-related attacks have the most serious effect on Windows machines.”

    and the next sentence after that reads, “Attacks are of course aimed at Windows because of the numbers of users, but its design makes it a much easier target, and much easier for an attack to wreak havoc.”
    This tends to support both our sides, but the fact still remains that there is more of a chance that something valuable will be on a windows computer than on a Mac due to the number of users.

  42. evil1dwk says:

    “I think you are misunderstanding my argument. The higher market share only helps reveal more security flaws in windows because it is simply more lucrative to go after 90% of the market, than it is to go after a smaller less secure section.”

    What I’m saying is that the sheer number of attacks does not indicate less security. Windows is attacked more because it’s market share. That I admit. My point is that the fact that it is attacked more isn’t the only reason it’s considered less secure. It’s design by nature is less secure by default. Their market share and hirer attack rate should give them advantages over other developers. This isn’t the case because too many other aspects of the OS can tend to lead to security risks.

    “True but reinstalling the OS is sometimes recommended by techs who don’t take time to educate themselves properly on how to fix a problem.”

    Rather than going through an obfusticated registry system and finding and removing dlls and exes files from the system folders, some times reinstallation is the best option. You are correct, sometimes uneducated or non-caring techs will give the simple answer of reinstall the OS though.

    My point is that all OSes will be attacked. Mac and Linux will be attacked more once their market shares increase. But the OS is less likely to be severly damaged in the event of an attack by design. So market share may increase the number of attacks but the sheer damage done to most windows operating systems due to attack is a pretty good indication that there is a problem. It is by far easier to change various aspects of the operating system through an attack to a windows machine. Attacking apache on a Unix machine would yeild little to no data because you wouldn’t be able to access much of the OS. You would more than likely be confined to the apache user’s home directory or the /var/www/html directory. Not easily able to access any other user’s data unless you were able to then crack their password or the root password.

    Vista is moving toward a more secure system with UAC. They are going through lots of growing pains in the form of compatability issues. I think they’ll work them out eventually. Might not be completely done by windows 7 but I’m sure they will make more advances.

  43. evil1dwk says:

    Microsoft has a large market share making it a juicer target. Very true I’m not denying this.

    Windows used to be easy to use and hack by default. Only Windows 2003 (and XP SP2 to a lesser extent) are “secure-by-default” (ie, nothing is enabled unless the user enables it).

    It’s still much more uncommon to run non-admin on a Windows box with the current most popular version of windows (XP), hence most exploit manage to get a highly privilege account access. On other OSes running “root” is the exception, not the rule. Unix derivatives have tools to allow temporary administrative access allowing you to easily limit normal user access. This is changing in Vista with user account control. With dramatic effect to user interface and software compatibility.

    Windows is a very homogeneous platform; it’s a lot easier to find your way around it if you’re writing exploit code. Open source products tend to be compiled and configured a little differently everywhere. This can have other disadvantages, but from a security standpoint it generally makes exploits harder to write. Making exploits applicable to only one distribution.

    With source available, it is possible for someone to patch a bug by themselves. Unlikely, sure. It’s certainly not widespread, but possible. What can you do about unpatched bugs in IE? ( http://www.guninski.com/browsers.html ) except wait and hope for the best? What if you’re still running NT4 because upgrading breaks some legacy applications?

  44. Gannondorf says:

    Macs are screwdrivers and PCs are jackhammers. It’s easy to perform simple tasks with a Mac and they don’t tend to cause a lot of problems. There are a lot of people that should probably use them. In the end though, that does not make them better than PCs. Most people will never need to tear through solid concrete. Personally, I like to have the option, even if it makes household repairs a bit messy.

  45. evil1dwk says:


    I’ll go back to a previous argument. Macs are PCs. So they can’t be a PC but be better than a PC.

    But you are correct. Macs aren’t the best PCs by default nor are they the best option for every user. Not everyone needs a core 2 duo and 4gb of ram in a laptop with a 17″ 1920×1200 display. So why pay for a Mac book pro when it’s over kill. Maybe the $400 toshiba or other manufacturer laptop will work for you. Don’t go buy the $2500 17″ Mac book pro.

    Comparatively speaking, OSX to windows, OSX is going to cause you less problems. Partly due to hardware limitations and partly due to greater security by design and the lesser number of exploits currently written for the OS.

  46. runswithscissors says:


    good hardware? like Hitachi hard drives good. As in be sure to keep your stuff elsewhere because they have the worst track record in history good? I’ll pass and take my $900 dell that’ll probably outlast a mac and stay in better condition because they don’t use materials that scratch if the wind blows on them.

  47. evil1dwk says:


    You mean the same dell that uses hard plastics instead of aluminum for their laptops. You mean the same dell that’s used samsung, hitachi, and toshiba hard drives.

    Sorry but I’ve never heard of a hard drive being so stable that you shouldn’t have to back up or keep important things on other drives as well.

    My company houses a huge SAN. We have 16tb of data in one drive array alone. The SAN’s controller and the hard drives arrays are great. Menawhile drives die all the time. I keep boxes of spares on hand just as replacements. All drives die. It’s good practice to back up your data on any hard drive. Be in in your dell, mac, toshiba, sony or any other manufacturer.

    By the way my current dell has a hitachi hard drive.

  48. evil1dwk says:

    actually make that two hitachi hard drives in a raid 1. You know why it’s in a raid one? Because hard drives are bound to die. I count on this so I use raid arrays and a backup server.

  49. evil1dwk says:

    I’ll go back to the some of the same arguments I’ve been saying all along. Macs are good computers. So are other manufacturers. I don’t use a Mac not because of price. I don’t care for the limitations that come along with using a Mac (limited hardware support over simplified user interface, less customization).

    Dell makes great computers (I use them quite often, we purchase dell desktops for our office). So do other manufacturers. Hell I’ve custom built some seriously solid computers and servers, as I’m sure others have. You can’t do that with Apple hardware and then install OS X. That’s why I’m not using a Mac. It has nothing to do with price or hardware.

    If you take a Mac book Pro 17″, take all the hardware specs for the laptop, then try to find one with all the same specs. It’s going to be an expensive laptop from anyone.

    For the most part OS X is pretty solid. Generally more secure than windows by design and default configuration. Has by far fewer exploits, viruses and trojans written for it. They limit hardware support making poorly written drivers a non-issue (something which causes crashing of windows all the time).

    So while I have repeatedly stated that none of this makes Macs the best by default or the best option for every user it does make it a solid computer.

    That’s what I’m trying to compare. You can name specific replaceable parts in a single computer and blame them for all Macs issues (sorry hitachi hard drives aren’t enough for me to say Macs suck). You can claim that windows is a better OS. None of it means Apple doesn’t make an decent product.

    So take your $900 Dell. If it’s a laptop I will venture a guess that the display is not 17″ and 1920×1200. I’ll bet money that you don’t have an nvidia card. I’ll bet money that your computer maxes out on ram somewhere around either 2 or 4gb.

    My Dell is 17″ 1920×1200. My motherboard can handle up to 16gb of ram. My laptop actually allows for a second hard drive in a raid configuration. By the way it cost me way more than $900.

  50. macstar says:

    @ evil1dwk – My Mac got me laid…

  51. evil1dwk says:

    fuckin sweet.

  52. evil1dwk says:

    I’ll bet Justin Long get way more ass than the “Dude! You’re getting a Dell” guy ever got.

  53. Amit Chowdhry says:

    @comment #52

    Its funny because its true. I think the Dude You’re Getting A Dell guy lost his endorsement pretty quick because he turned into a pothead.

  54. you get what you pay for says:

    iMac (bought in 2003) – $2000
    New HD (250GB in ’07) – $200
    512MB DIMM ( in ’07) – $50
    Total: $2250

    New Precision 7400 series workstation (bought in Nov ’08) – $1900

    This iMac is still my primary desktop system and also a web server that I use to test code on. It works better than the brand-spankin’ new Precision workstation I have at work. How’s that possible?

  55. St1 says:

    Fact, COMPUTERS SUCK. If you dont know how a Transistor works, go look it up.

    Anyone who is willing to get there panties in a bunch over WHICH MULTI BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY
    makes the “coolest” product. Can go….

    For the love of god people… and by people I MEAN FAN BOYS, and folks who are spreading shit about crap they don’t understand.
    shit dosnt matter…


  56. evil1dwk says:

    “Fact, COMPUTERS SUCK. If you dont know how a Transistor works, go look it up.”

    A transistor is a semiconductor device commonly used to amplify or switch electronic signals. A transistor is made of a solid piece of a semiconductor material, with at least three terminals for connection to an external circuit.

    I’m not even sure I know what your first statement means.

    I liken it to old muscle cars to guys with mullets. My mustang can take your camaro in the quarter mile any day.

    “For the love of god people… and by people I MEAN FAN BOYS, and folks who are spreading shit about crap they don’t understand.
    shit dosnt matter…”

    Please elaborate. When spreading shit about crap is it the shit I’m spreading that doesn’t matter or the crap that said shit is about?

  57. strifewind says:

    so evil1dwk i completely agree with all of your statements…. i love my mac. but as well i love my pc. yes i use both…. BOTH.

    my mac is a 15in macbook. running the latest mac osx its a 2.4 GHz intel core 2 duo
    4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.

    and i love this thing. after i bought it i got my pc but i home built it for the same price.

    it is using an amd phenom 9950 blackbox edition.
    and i have the 4 GB’s of ram.
    i also have a GEFORCE 9800 GX2 graphics card.

    the pc i use for games the mac is my everyday use. now since i had both i have had more troubles with the pc. which amazed me.. the mac is older. and i use the mac more heavily than the pc. so i know how bogus that comparison is but i am not a fan of pc.. especially with the whole vista crap…. so that is my opinion.

  58. Lew says:

    I seen this when it was on TV. I thought this guy was a walking turd for his comments; it nice to know i’m not alone.

  59. kindofabuzz says:

    Photoshop is free, it’s called Gimp. =)

  60. macman says:

    wait, your mac didnt come with photoshop? wow did i luck out then. just kidding. i wish i had photoshop on my mac. i had to buy that shit.

  61. Uncle B says:

    Please donate your old boxes to a church-group or some needy student in these hard times! To comply with the law, and with Microsoft’s leasing policy, you can now replace Microsoft OS with the free (download from the net) Ubuntu OS, which can be set to erase the hard drive of all traces of the “illegal to give away ” Microsoft system and your private information, before donation! Now, explain to your lucky recipient that all the manuals they will ever need are available for free on the internet! Just ask for them in Google! OpenOffice, which is installed already is plenty adequate for homework assignments and with a little exploring, everything else can work well too! Happy computing!

  62. Rich says:

    I think everyone is missing the big picture here. If this is the credibility of their PC/Tech guru…what about the rest of CNBC’s so called experts?????HMMMMMMMM?

  63. SMIT says:

    Jim Goldman – Thou Art an Idiot

  64. John Atkinson says:

    macs are better, sorry you couldn’t have one

  65. STOIDI says:


    that is all i have to say

  66. YourMacWillDie says:

    How about the fact that Macs are actually intended to fail?
    I can eliminate spyware/viruses, restore a corrupted registry/file system, upgrade hardware on just about any PC – but your Mac is the most obvious and blatant instance of planned obsolescence you’ll ever, ever see.

    Your $1,700 Macbook Air is going to just drop dead in two/three years, and there is absolutely nothing at all you can do about it.

    Except go and buy another one, and another one.

  67. Chris Wright says:

    PC vs MAC
    PC stands for personal computer, isn’t a MAC a personal computer?
    So it should read PC vs PC?

  68. Name says:

    I built my linux computer for 900 bucks and it will last for a long time. I probably won’t buy another computer for another ten years, if I need one then. I paid 900 for the hardware, and nothing for any software, nor will I ever pay for software. So the cost of my 900 dollar computer was 900 dollars. Mac retards will not keep their computer for 10 years. After two years there’s a better one for a cheaper price that you just can’t pass up. Then they make a giant iTouch that you can replace your computer with. Then they make the giant iTouch slightly faster. Then you drop the giant iTouch s in your cereal and it breaks because it was designed for failure. Total cost much more than my 900 dollar linux computer.

    I’ve really only used a mac pc once or twice, but the ease of use is hardly different from a windows pc, and it was much less… fluent than my linux comp. I want to be able to make my computer look how I want it to look. What can you change on a mac pc besides the background? I can make my linux desktop look like a die, or the earth, or I can make window buttons look like portal portals and every window reflects lighting or fire or boobies in the background. I could make it look like a mac, but why would I want to? It’s all grey and the interface is weird and there’s no right click. It’s just dumb.

  69. Stanjam says:

    First, WHY would you want Geeksquad to even LOOK at your computer? Big mistake, unless you like paying people lots of money to screw up your computer.

    Second, I can do all this stuff on my computer, and I didn’t pay anything for an OS or the programs, AND I did it legally, just like any of you can, simply by using LINUX.

  70. Chris says:

    Ubuntu to be exact.
    It’s all FREE as in Freedom to do with it what ever your heart desires.
    All programs are Free!
    There are programs to do anything windows can do only better, its FREE.

  71. Zer0 says:

    You get what you pay for and will pay for what you get.

    There is minimal difference between these machines these days, go which ever way you think. But the prices in the comparison are utter crap

  72. Name says:

    I usually don't support calling somebody an idiot (even if he/she is one), but this time I think you have the right. Even more idiot is the guy who hired him to review technology for “respected media”

  73. kathycuntalappa says:

    Agreed. Some non-computer using t-bag making a silly worthless comment..

    “It's fabulous”
    “The software is wonderful…”

    I NY we have a guy on the news like this. I thnk his TV name is Sree Sreveneen?

    just some muted sand-schvatza taking a paycheck to tell lost people that AOL isnt the “Internet”

  74. kathycuntalappa says:

    Agreed. Some non-computer using t-bag making a silly worthless comment..

    “It's fabulous”
    “The software is wonderful…”

    I NY we have a guy on the news like this. I thnk his TV name is Sree Sreveneen?

    just some muted sand-schvatza taking a paycheck to tell lost people that AOL isnt the “Internet”

  75. Trespassa says:

    I'm a Mac user now after years of owning Microsoft based systems. My decision was made out of trying a new flavor. I hope this is the last ever such a review hits the airwaves. Honestly, this does no good to people deciding on their preferred OS and let me tell you the (uninformed) people watching that crap are left clueless even more (or eventually suckered!) The internet is not the geek-sphere as it was, just look at the myriad of utter shit you can dig up on the 'net these days. I'm ashamed of the disinformation we feed ourselves everyday.
    Maybe this man should be hanged, drawn and quartered before being fired from his position. For good measure, whoever appointed him should get the iron maiden and maybe Apple should pay for their burial since they gave them free advertising, albeit false.
    The time has come to weed out the false prophets!

  76. Gadgetzzdotcom says:

    What the fuck is this guys problem? -macs are more expensive. I own the best 15″ laptop in the world (sager NP8690) wich costed me 3700$ and a 15 inch mac for that price dosent even handle cod 6. PISS OF MAC!

  77. Fuckapple says:

    He is the scum of the earth. Anyone who buys Apple products is a mindless sheep who believes every lie that Steve Jobs utters. The average Mac user is about as computer-retarded as you can possibly get, and they buy whatever looks shiniest and trendiest. Fuck Apple and may every single employee die of AIDS.

Leave a Comment