PC or MAC for Trading?

[nononsense]

Quote from inflector:

(putting on the hat of the true religious warrior )

I have a bit of background on both platforms. 12 years writing hardcore Mac software, about the same on Windows.

I wrote the database engine in all the top Mac software in the late 80s and early 90s. I also wrote the Pascal to C++ translator which translated 5 of the top 10 Macintosh products to C++ so they could run on the PowerPC chip. Also implemented a cross-platform sales automation product that worked with both Macs and PCs with a single codeline.

I've spent the last five years writing what has developed into TradingBlox along with some server software that runs on FreeBSD and linux, but most of the time has been spent on the Windows Platform.

I have been working on Windows exclusively since Steve Jobs decided to stop trying to sell Macs to corporate customers. I have hated it ever since.

I have also worked quite a bit with FreeBSD which has the same roots as the MacOS at the core.

Windows machines crash all the time. Every few months I have to reinstall the OS. It is a complete piece of shit. My unix machines have been booted and up for as much as a year. Probably would have lasted longer if I didn't have to turn them off for some other reason.

My boot times are worse now than they were 10 years ago. Seems the geniuses in Redmond can figure out how to slow things down faster than Moore's law.

I'm not kidding when I say that I have spent at least a sold full time year of my time over the last 15 years dealing with stupid Windows OS bullshit.

The only reason I'm not using a Mac is because the customers have Windows machines. This will change soon with the advent of the Intel-based Macs.

The only reason I dont' have one of the new Mac laptops now is that I need vertical screen space for software development and their screens are wide and relatively short compared to what you can get on a Windows laptop.

- Curtis

P.S. I should say that development is especially hard on a poorly designed OS like Windows as it crashes the kernal and causes inconsistencies in the file system much more often. If it was well designed this wouldn't be a problem.

Some good points.
You fail to clearly bring up the unix/linux factor in the timid comeback of Mac and in making the MacOs superior to Windows - not linux or BSD btw.
As you mention FreeBSD (a unix variant), which one came first? MacOs or BSD? Who uses code from whom in its OS?

 

[trada101]

Quote from inflector:


...<snip>...
Windows machines crash all the time. Every few months I have to reinstall the OS. It is a complete piece of shit. My unix machines have been booted and up for as much as a year. Probably would have lasted longer if I didn't have to turn them off for some other reason.

My boot times are worse now than they were 10 years ago. Seems the geniuses in Redmond can figure out how to slow things down faster than Moore's law.
...<snip>...

What the heck are you doing that you need to reinstall the OS every few months? I have developed in the windows evironment for 8 years and never had to reinstall an OS. Although I've heard spyware getting out of hand but I've never had this problem.

Boot times back in the day were faster because they were loading OSes that were like 64k. I know it takes a genius to figure that out.

If you're having problems programming don't blame it on the OS, maybe it's time to look in the mirror and face some hard truths.

Either that or stop using freeware programming environments and get yourself Visual Studio, they even have a free version if you didn't know.

 

[inflector]

You're kidding right?

For someone with such a condescending tone you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

In a real OS one shouldn't be able to do anything in their programming that would harm the machine unless you are running as root or some priviledged user account.

One also shouldn't have spyware and virii problems as rampant as they are on Windows. That is the fault of the OS leaving everything wide open. It's far too easy to hijack a machine and do whatever you want in Windows.

I find that every few months, say three to five or so, I get strange problems running common applications like the Office apps. Frequent crashes, intermittent freezes, etc.

I run NOD32 virus checking and don't have any reports of virii and there are no obvious problems.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to track down the problem. Reinstalling Windows and then my applications is quicker than figuring out what is wrong with the fragile beast called Windows. After the reinstall things start working fine.

I've been using Visual Studio and Visual C++ for about 14 years now. It's a pretty good IDE.

Boot times back in the day were faster because they were loading OSes that were like 64k. I know it takes a genius to figure that out.

Okay

Ten years ago we had Windows NT 4.0, hardly a 64K OS. The processor speed and disk read throughput have increased more than enough to compensate for the size difference between the necessary OS image required for bootup between Windows 95/NT 4.0 and today's XP Professional.

- Curtis

 

[trada101]

Now you're making me laugh.

"One also shouldn't have spyware and virii problems as rampant as they are on Windows. That is the fault of the OS leaving everything wide open."

You honestly think that is the fault of the OS? I think it has more to do with return on investment for the idiots that write the spyware/viruses/worms. Why the hell would they write a virus for the Mac vs. Windows. We're talking writing a virus for 97% of world wide users or 3%, again, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Another thing, I dunno why Mac users think there are no viruses for the Mac, there are, wake up! Obviously not as common but there are.

Let me put it in terms that you may understand. Think of viruses as terrorists and Windows = USA and Mac = Monaco. Now, because the US gets attacked more frequently and is subject to more terrorist attacks and have more victims of terror that it is
the fault of the US leaving things wide open? Don't you get it?! It's not that it's wide open it's that it is the center of what is being attacked. When people put all their energy in attacking something they'll get through. Why do you think Military computers get cracked all the friggin time? Do you think they leave things wide open? According to your flawed logic you must think so, funny but sad.

All programs, not just OSes, have flaws, the point of the virus is to exploit them. You can have the highest levels or security but some determined kid in Russia will probably be able to crack it. That's just the way it is.

Dude, if you have 3-5 problems running office software every few months you need to stop surfing to strange sites and downloading stuff from bittorrent! Or update your old programs and clean out those DLLs that are probably contaminating your memory space.

Like I said before, I'd consider getting the Mac, I just can't stand hearing people bash Windows just because it's the establishment.

Quote from inflector:

You're kidding right?

For someone with such a condescending tone you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

In a real OS one shouldn't be able to do anything in their programming that would harm the machine unless you are running as root or some priviledged user account.

One also shouldn't have spyware and virii problems as rampant as they are on Windows. That is the fault of the OS leaving everything wide open. It's far too easy to hijack a machine and do whatever you want in Windows.

I find that every few months, say three to five or so, I get strange problems running common applications like the Office apps. Frequent crashes, intermittent freezes, etc.

I run NOD32 virus checking and don't have any reports of virii and there are no obvious problems.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to track down the problem. Reinstalling Windows and then my applications is quicker than figuring out what is wrong with the fragile beast called Windows. After the reinstall things start working fine.

I've been using Visual Studio and Visual C++ for about 14 years now. It's a pretty good IDE.



Okay

Ten years ago we had Windows NT 4.0, hardly a 64K OS. The processor speed and disk read throughput have increased more than enough to compensate for the size difference between the necessary OS image required for bootup between Windows 95/NT 4.0 and today's XP Professional.

- Curtis

 

[dcraig]

Quote from trada101:


You honestly think that is the fault of the OS? I think it has more to do with return on investment for the idiots that write the spyware/viruses/worms. Why the hell would they write a virus for the Mac vs. Windows. We're talking writing a virus for 97% of world wide users or 3%, again, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

A very tired argument. It it well known that the Apache web server (open source) has a vastly better security record than Microsoft IIS. Apache has the lions share of the web server market - more than twice that of IIS - providing a bigger target than Windows for potential attacks on web servers.

Here is a very brief article on why Linux (and other *nix) is more secure than Windows with reference to web servers, but the principles referred to are general. The two graphics are fascinating, very revealing and show why Microsoft had, is and will have a difficult time achieving acceptable security standards.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=311

Simple conclusion - it's too damned complex. One of cornerstones of Unix has always been 'as simple as possible and no simpler'. It should apply to all software. No such attitude every held sway in Windows.

Let me put it in terms that you may understand. Think of viruses as terrorists and Windows = USA and Mac = Monaco. Now, because the US gets attacked more frequently and is subject to more terrorist attacks and have more victims of terror that it is
the fault of the US leaving things wide open?

Rubbish. There are countries in the world where being blown up is an everyday risk. The analogy is nonsense.

 

[trada101]

Quote from dcraig:

A very tired argument. It it well known that the Apache web server (open source) has a vastly better security record than Microsoft IIS. Apache has the lions share of the web server market - more than twice that of IIS - providing a bigger target than Windows for potential attacks on web servers.

Here is a very brief article on why Linux (and other *nix) is more secure than Windows with reference to web servers, but the principles referred to are general. The two graphics are fascinating, very revealing and show why Microsoft had, is and will have a difficult time achieving acceptable security standards.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=311

Simple conclusion - it's too damned complex. One of cornerstones of Unix has always been 'as simple as possible and no simpler'. It should apply to all software. No such attitude every held sway in Windows.



Rubbish. There are countries in the world where being blown up is an everyday risk. The analogy is nonsense.

Funny a tired argument that you just brought up. Now we're talking web servers???

Rubbish? Again you aren't getting the point (not surprising if you have to bring web servers into this). My point was that just because something gets attacked doesn't mean it is wide open and unprotected. Good lord....

 

[dcraig]

Quote from trada101:

Funny a tired argument that you just brought up. Now we're talking web servers???

Rubbish? Again you aren't getting the point (not surprising if you have to bring web servers into this). My point was that just because something gets attacked doesn't mean it is wide open and unprotected. Good lord....

Two points:

1. The web server example clearly illustrates the point that the incidence of security vulnerabilies is not necessarily tried to the size of the installed base. Web servers because of their numbers, visibility and the bandwidth they are connected to are a juicy prospect for attackers.

2. The point about the complexity of Windows is graphically illustrated in the link. It is inherent to Windows. Even a cursory look at the diagrams is *very* informative.

 

[trada101]

Quote from dcraig:

Two points:

1. The web server example clearly illustrates the point that the incidence of security vulnerabilies is not necessarily tried to the size of the installed base. Web servers because of their numbers, visibility and the bandwidth they are connected to are a juicy prospect for attackers.

2. The point about the complexity of Windows is graphically illustrated in the link. It is inherent to Windows. Even a cursory look at the diagrams is *very* informative.

ugh, ok still on web servers eh?

First those pictures are a joke. Why the hell aren't they clear enough to see the actual components that are being called. Why not just list the call stack for god's sake? You're trying to make your point by showing me some blurry pictures from some dude's blog? "*very* imformative" Are you serious??? Why am I responding, just to put this web server nonsense to rest and get back to Macs & Windows.

If you think that just because something is complex that it invites attacks, I guess you're free to believe that. I choose to believe it's bang for the buck, I'd be rollin in a place where I'd make waves people would notice, not in a kiddie pool.

Anyway are you aware that Microsoft's IIS is integrated with the underlying OS? Apache is not. Maybe that's why there may be more calls because there is more coherent cooperation between the two. For example security defined to the file system in IIS aplplies to the web site that uses them. With Apache, when a user authenticates against the Unix password, it ignores the file permissions on the underlying file system! Now what is more more secure again??? Please.

If you like Apache, for god's sake knock yourself out, it's a solid web server, nothing wrong with it. But to say it's better than Windows, show me the money. Show me that it's more reliable running the same confiuration and website. Show me it's easier to manage. Show me you can make live configuration updates without restarting, I don't think so. That's where IIS shines.

But for Mac lovers I'm surprised that IIS isn't the favorite. Since one big advantage it has over Apache is the user friendliness of management and security aspects (integration with Active Directory). Unless you like confirguring with text files. So IIS more Mac like than Windows like in that sense.

 

[inflector]

I should have known from the handle "trada" and the use of insults instead of logic where this would end up. It really is pointless arguing with ignorance.

I won't try to elighten any further one who so clearly is not open to the idea that he might be wrong.

trada101 on ignore

 

[trada101]

Quote from inflector:

I should have known from the handle "trada" and the use of insults instead of logic where this would end up. It really is pointless arguing with ignorance.

I won't any further try elighten one who so clearly is not open to the idea that he might be wrong.

trada101 on ignore

My level of insults are no worse than yours. But that's ok it's all in fun anyway, don't take it so seriously, sheesh, sorry!!!