Dubstepforum.com

wirez wrote:MAcs CAN'T get viruses, another solid reason to get one alone.:

Thats only half true.....

Macs don't get virus's cause no one writes viruses for Macs. Yes viruses do exist for os-x but they isn't even a 10th as how many there is for windows - plus before the recent boom of apple users, they were mainly used by tech savvy people or people who kept their machines off the internet. Watch as they apple market grows there will be more and more viruses.

legend4ry wrote:

wirez wrote:MAcs CAN'T get viruses, another solid reason to get one alone.:

Thats only half true.....

Macs don't get virus's cause no one writes viruses for Macs. Yes viruses do exist for os-x but they isn't even a 10th as how many there is for windows...

That's also only half true. People don't write viruses for macs because unix is far more secure than windows and the os requires you to put in your password before any relevant changes are made to your computer.

collige wrote:

legend4ry wrote:

wirez wrote:MAcs CAN'T get viruses, another solid reason to get one alone.:

Thats only half true.....

Macs don't get virus's cause no one writes viruses for Macs. Yes viruses do exist for os-x but they isn't even a 10th as how many there is for windows...

That's also only half true. People don't write viruses for macs because unix is far more secure than windows and the os requires you to put in your password before any relevant changes are made to your computer.

Yeah but surely if these hackers could be arsed they'd find a bypass, they're smart people.

legend4ry wrote:

wirez wrote:MAcs CAN'T get viruses, another solid reason to get one alone.:

Thats only half true.....

Macs don't get virus's cause no one writes viruses for Macs. Yes viruses do exist for os-x but they isn't even a 10th as how many there is for windows - plus before the recent boom of apple users, they were mainly used by tech savvy people or people who kept their machines off the internet. Watch as they apple market grows there will be more and more viruses.

correct.

PC's do not get attacked, MS does.

legend4ry wrote:
Yeah but surely if these hackers could be arsed they'd find a bypass, they're smart people.

Everything is hackable. MS only gets attacked to show how weak the security is considering how much money they take in.

Who wants to spend weeks writing a virus for a free OS.

serox wrote:

wirez wrote:
You'd put it down to user error because you're some sort of stubborn geezer who has knowledge issues.
When I say Apple systems are more stable, I actually WROTE that it was down to hardware compatibility, something you obviously ignored in your stubbornness.

There is a good reason why nearly every corporate company world wide uses PC for servers. - Because they're cheaper to buy and easier to repair.

Stubborn. Research, thesis, antithesis, conclusion. You need to appreciate both sides of the argument before you can be sure of something.

I work with Apples and I have a choice when I choose what I build. It is pointless getting into a Apple Vs PC argument

You think you know best and I will just agree to disagree with you.

If my Mac got a virus, wouldn't I be able to sue Apple for false advertisement?

wirez wrote:If my Mac got a virus, wouldn't I be able to sue Apple for false advertisement?

Are you being serious? you honestly think Apples cannot get virus's?!

serox wrote:

wirez wrote:If my Mac got a virus, wouldn't I be able to sue Apple for false advertisement?

Are you being serious? you honestly think Apples cannot get virus's?!

You know what, we need to put both your arguments into perspective.,

Both can do similar jobs in different ways, its how you apply yourself to a given medium (Macs, PC's etc...) that gets results.

YES macs can get viruses, there was a famous harmless trojan going around macs around 3 years ago. Harmless it may be, but a virus it still was!

PC's can get up to Phenomenal speeds and customisability, and on the other hand macs were built to work "out of the box, Push button ON" kinda ethos. So wether your going to geek out on over-clocking your CPU or you just want a workhorse thats stable enough to run a serious studio session without having to install drivers etc... Then take your pic... PC or MAC??? The choice is down to the user. Theres no PC vs MAC really, its down to the individual.

-Dep Out /

Depone wrote: arguments

I prefer to think of it as a discussion

Dude, 3 years ago isn't now... Snow Leopard (which I don't have lol) has built in protection so even if there was that slightest chance of getting a virus, you wouldn't even know you had it...

Anyway, fair enough it's not worth even discussing... Serox is boring anyway

wirez wrote:

Depone wrote: arguments

I prefer to think of it as a discussion

Dude, 3 years ago isn't now... Snow Leopard (which I don't have lol) has built in protection so even if there was that slightest chance of getting a virus, you wouldn't even know you had it...

Anyway, fair enough it's not worth even discussing... Serox is boring anyway

So did the OS before Snow leopard, Its always been its selling point for each release of its OS. Snow leopard doesnt make it immune any more than tiger or leopard. Its the actual coding its built on that makes it more secure

Depone wrote:
So did the OS before Snow leopard

Hhmm, that's not what I read

wirez wrote:

Depone wrote:
So did the OS before Snow leopard

Hhmm, that's not what I read

I have no idea what you are talking about. There was a mac trojan in january and it was disabled within a week by an update. That's not built in protection, that's just apple caring about their os.

Its amazing how a you guys manage to turn every thread into a mac vs. PC battle within a few pages!

Back to the original question though, I use an Ipod nano and my Sony Ericsson Walkman phone. My phone came with those little ear buds with the rubber tips that push deep into your ears. Although they're quite uncomfortable and they always fall out of your ears, I find they have a much lower bass frequency response than standard in ear phones like the white Ipod ones.

Another thing I have noticed about the Sony Ericsson phone, It seems to have a built in limiter which squashes the fuck out of the sound when the bass kicks in, especially when using the "mega bass" setting. I remember back in the 90s I had a tape walkman with an AVLS switch (Auto Volume Limiting System) which was designed to stop people damaging their hearing. I've got a feeling that the same system is built into their phones, but there is no option to turn it off.

For anyone listening to music on their Sony Ericsson phone I recommend turning off mega bass and set the EQ to flat to avoid the limiter squshing the sound.

i heard MiniDisk is better MP3's for quality....

oh wait, sorry, i thought it was 2001

I didn't read the whole thread..MAC vs PC ? but check out http://www.anythingbutipod.com/ for some info

Cowon D2 suppose to have good sound. Would have bought that if i had the money. Ended up with Sansa Fuze myself, a lot cheaper, sounds good to me - but i just use some old sony walkman plugs.. so what do i know

project midnight wrote:i would say go for sony. anything over 100 quid will give you good quality sound.

Anything Sony... Sound Quality>>>>>>>>>>>>>

serox wrote:
Iphones/Ipods have the worst sound quality going.

this is a load of shit

i use Sansa Clip 8gb.. it's not ipod 120gb, but with the access to computer every day it's not a problem at all.. apart from the hd size no complains at all.. recommened

wsft wrote:i use Sansa Clip 8gb.. it's not ipod 120gb, but with the access to computer every day it's not a problem at all.. apart from the hd size no complains at all.. recommened

I just got one of these. Really small, and the Plus version has a micro SD slot for expansion up to, like, 32GB. Sounds really good as well, easily better than iPod and £40 for the 8GB. There's a lively community and Sandisk seem to actively contribute, the first firmware update for the Plus model is out in a few weeks.