which PC
Unknown
I have a question which I hope someone can give me e good answer.
Recently, my computer died and the serviceman says the usual word: You
do not win by repairing this and it is better to get a new pc.
the only sertiouse requirement I have from a new pc is that it is good
for working with digital RAW files. The specifications suggests that
the new computer with 250 G HDD and 1024 ram and an Intel Core 2 duo
2.0 desktop seems to be good enough for me. My only question is about
the integrated garaphic card. the seller says it is very good and if
i want to get a seperated card it will cost me more than 150 US
dollar. shall I go for the integrated card or get a seperate one?
Shall I think about other specifications? The integrated card is
called: "onboard Intel GMa3000 256mb".
I hope I have given enough information.
best regards,
Mojtaba
dennis@home
<mogh baba> wrote in message
news:54ka635nj64jhi4hq...@4ax.com...
If its just normal photo editing then integrated graphics should work fine.
Its 3D games performance that you pay extra for.
You may want more RAM you never have enough IME.
Make sure you get a good monitor.
You need to be able to see what you are editing.
If expense is not a problem have a look at a tablet PC..
they are notebooks but they have a full screen graphics tablet built in.
Make sure you get one with a Wacom compatible screen as some of the newer
low cost ones just have a touch screen and not a graphics tablet.
If it only works with the supplied stylus it should be a wacom.
If it works with your finger nail its not.
You may still want a monitor but they all support that AFAIK.
Allen
certainly come with Windows VISTA installed, so your first requirement
should be at least 2064 Mb of RAM. Also, you should investigate the cost
of adding a second HD of at least 250 Gb or larger. Especially in the
case of memory it is cheaper to get these things as part of a new machine.
Allen
Dave Cohen
I agree with the RAM statement, it's reasonably cheap and more can never
hurt. However, I would consider an external hd as an alternative to a
2nd internal. The machine is otherwise ok assuming it includes a good
19" or better monitor.
Dave Cohen
babaloo
However if you use a large LCD panel or a wide (16:9) LCD panel integrated
graphics may not be able to drive the panel at its native resolution and
refresh rate. If that is the case the image you see will be seriously
degraded. Intel integrated graphics are the most anemic in this respect.
This is something you should understand before you buy . . .
plb49
wrote:
If you do consider a tablet, you will definitely want a monitor for
color correction, etc. My work Toshiba Tecra tablet has such a heavy
protective layer on the screen that it dulls the display. Maybe other
brands/models are better . . .
Paul B.
just bob
"Dave Cohen" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:xCe9i.6892$My4.6842@trndny05...
I would get a 512MB video card or the 256MB video card, minimum.
dmaster
> "Dave Cohen" <u...@example.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Given that the O.P.'s intent was photo work, why? He's not going to
be swapping large texture files or doing anything else that might take
advantage of even a fraction of the video memory. Nor is he planning
to run any intense 3D games that might make use of the GPU that is
presumably on the "512MB video card" you recommend.
And if you changes his mind and wants a capable game card, then I'd
suggest picking a good GPU since that's probably going to be way more
important than the difference between 512MB and 256MB of video memory.
Dan (Woj...)
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
? <mogh baba> ?????? ??? ??????
news:54ka635nj64jhi4hq...@4ax.com...
is supposed to be asus, while all well-known brands are good enough.And
check also the guarantee that comes with each part-my hitachi hard disk 80
GB came for instance with 3 years full guarantee.I think that $150 for a
graphic card is way too much unless you're a hardcore gamer, I'm sure you
can get an 128 MB one for 60 euros (here).The integrated is fine for
starters,mainly word processing and internet but eg an asrock motherboard
has a PCI Express slot so if you want you can switch off the internal
graphic card and put a normal graphics card.If the mobo has only onboard
video then it's probably not one of the best.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Randall Ainsworth
<nospa...@ny.more> wrote:
> Macintosh, of course!
ALRIGHT! Someone with a clue!
MarkË›
1. Two hard drives (one specifically for Photoshop scratch drive...second
drive can be smaller).
2. As much RAM as it allows (minimum 2GB, better at 4GB).
3. Dual core helps a lot...especially for programs designed to take
advantage of it (photoshop).
4. If you can, get a machine with XP Pro instead of Vista. Vista is still a
royal waste of system resources/speed.
5. If you're using a flat panel, make sure it can accept a digital signal,
and get a card with DVI outs.
6. If you don't have one...spend another $130 on a Spyder2 colorometer.
Mark²
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
dennis@home
"Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:050620071737454251%r...@nospam.techline.com...
Yes.. Apple.. they know how to exploit style over function.
Style makes money while you have to work harder with function.
I bet that if Apple took PC and put a logo and a white case on it you would
say it was the best PC ever.
Hang on that's what they have done.
Ron Hunter
First, get the best monitor you afford as the monitor IS what you see.
Second, get as much ram as your computer will allow. This will make
everything run faster, and will allow your photo editing software to run
most efficiently. 1GB is NOT enough for heavy photo editing!
Unless you really want to do gaming, having the top of the line video
adapter is NOT necessary. If you have a good LCD display, make sure it,
and the computer both have the ability to handle digital video.
Shawn Hirn
wrote:
> hi,
>
> I have a question which I hope someone can give me e good answer.
> Recently, my computer died and the serviceman says the usual word: You
> do not win by repairing this and it is better to get a new pc.
> the only sertiouse requirement I have from a new pc is that it is good
> for working with digital RAW files.
Consider a Mac; there are several models to look at. With a Mac, you get
Apple's world class customer service, tops in user friendliness, tops in
reliability, and the ability to run all Windows and Mac software. Out of
the box, the Mac will come with a very good tool to work with photos.
Shawn Hirn
"dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
Not true at all. Try the latest Macs with Photoshop and see for yourself
or just check out iPhoto 6, which is great for the typical amateur
photographer. I use Macs and Windows XP daily. Mac OS X runs rings
around Windows for functionality, reliability, and ease of use, plus I
spend a lot less time doing maintenance stuff such as installing OS
updates and no security issues.
John Ortt
Separate graphics card is not necessary for 2D work.
Only exceptions are people who want to play 3D games and/or do 3D modelling.
One other possibility is if you want to Multi-monitor and the onboard only
has one output.
"dmaster" <dan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1181066489....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Randall Ainsworth
> Yes.. Apple.. they know how to exploit style over function.
> Style makes money while you have to work harder with function.
>
> I bet that if Apple took PC and put a logo and a white case on it you would
> say it was the best PC ever.
> Hang on that's what they have done.
Have fun with your virus-ridden, bloated OS.
dennis@home
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-12D02C.0...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> Not true at all. Try the latest Macs with Photoshop and see for yourself
> or just check out iPhoto 6, which is great for the typical amateur
> photographer. I use Macs and Windows XP daily.
> Mac OS X runs rings
> around Windows for functionality, reliability, and ease of use, plus I
> spend a lot less time doing maintenance stuff such as installing OS
> updates and no security issues.
Do you want to look at that in detail?
Mac OS X has less functionality than Vista (not that it matters to me as I
run applications and not OSes as such).
OS updates for windows install themselves and what's more they are free and
don't cost $150 pa when a new "version" arrives.
There are security issues on Macs if you haven't been patching them you are
asking for trouble.
Oh the hardware in Macs is as close to a PC as you can get too.
Just as well really as Mac performance was getting very slow compared to
PCs.
You can even buy a two or three button mouse for a Mac to make it useable.
PS what *idiot* invented a circular mouse for a Mac?
dennis@home
Which one?
I use at least five (and none have a virus).
Scott Schuckert
Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Consider a Mac; there are several models to look at. With a Mac, you get
> Apple's world class customer service, tops in user friendliness, tops in
> reliability, and the ability to run all Windows and Mac software. Out of
> the box, the Mac will come with a very good tool to work with photos.
What he said. For the most part, you're using application software like
Photoshop, so re-learning your applications isn't an issue; in fact
re-buying it may not be either. Adobe offers an exchange where you can
swap your software for the Mac versions for just a few dollars.
And as stated, if for some reason you need specific Windows apps or
even want to go back to Windows entirely, you can keep the Macintosh
hardware. I know a few people who've bought high end Macs specifically
to run Windows because THEY WERE A BETTER VALUE.
While Apple refuses to compete in the bottom end of the market, their
better computers are actually cheaper than an equivalent PC.
So, it's cheaper, better made, better supported, may not require
retraining or repurchasing software, and will run virtually anything
out there - Windows, OSX, Linux... Seems like an easy choice.
ransley
Vista itself requires alot of ram, near 1gb , for the best detail a
1920 x 1200 monitor makes a big difference but then you need a video
card to support it. Dell has great deals on monitors I recently got
the 2407 which is 1920 x 1200 for under 600 US ( I bet it will be
priced lower in a week as the price jumps around alot). Get something
expandable 4 gb ram is something you might find you need in the
future.
Randall Ainsworth
> Do you want to look at that in detail?
Obviously you haven't.
> Mac OS X has less functionality than Vista (not that it matters to me as I
> run applications and not OSes as such).
> OS updates for windows install themselves and what's more they are free and
> don't cost $150 pa when a new "version" arrives.
> There are security issues on Macs if you haven't been patching them you are
> asking for trouble.
Uh...name for me just one virus or piece of spyware in the wild which
is capable of infecting OS X (HINT: there are none).
George Kerby
On 6/6/07 2:32 AM, in article f45nu2$pvi$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
Same ol yap-yap from PeeCee Patrol.
It's the Operating System, stupid.
OTOH, if you enjoy crashes, spyware, viri, etc., knock yourself out!
dennis@home
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798
Quite a large number have been patched so far assuming you have installed
the patches that is.
You may not have as you appear to be invulnerable.
George Kerby
On 6/6/07 7:21 AM, in article f468su$jr4$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
Dream on, numb-nuts. I bet you sell buggy whips with those Win-doze, too!
George Kerby
On 6/6/07 7:36 AM, in article f469p0$la1$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
Would you know? Course not...
dennis@home
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C28C245B.2A7F3%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
Why not?
What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?
How do you know yours hasn't been infected or do you rely on some mythical
protection offered by the fruit badge?
You sound like an easy target for a virus.. you don't think you can get one.
It would probably be easy to get you to install some malicious software
which is the biggest danger computer users face.
Just think yourself lucky that virus writers can't be bothered with Macs or
you may find your invulnerability is worthless.
PS OSx is just a "shell" ontop of a unix kernel and there is nothing that
says unix is safe. The first worms were unix based and there have been
plenty of problems since. There is nothing that Apple does to make sure
there are no security issues that M$ doesn't do so your faith is not based
on fact.
John McWilliams
> "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C28C245B.2A7F3%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>
> PS OSx is just a "shell" ontop of a unix kernel and there is nothing that
> says unix is safe. The first worms were unix based and there have been
> plenty of problems since. There is nothing that Apple does to make sure
> there are no security issues that M$ doesn't do so your faith is not based
> on fact.
Experience says it's safe. The record shows Macs are far less vulnerable
to all the problems that PC users need to guard against.
If I were a Windows user, my next box would be an Intel Mac, so if I
were still afraid of a new OS, I could boot right into Vista or whatever.
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
I guess for so many years when the Mac was more expensive on the simple
test of cpu speed I now have a hard time thinking of the Mac as cheaper
in upfront costs. Even if it costs more initially, and clearly it always
doesn't, it's much cheaper to run in terms of maintenance and
reliability. (time=money). Not to mention more aesthetic than the boxes,
and more fun. Unless you're a gamer, then bye-bye.
An easy choice for those of us not tethered to some corporation with a
huge self fulfilling IT department.
--
John McWilliams
just bob
"dmaster" <dan...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1181066489....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Given that the O.P.'s intent was photo work, why?
The writing is on the wall, I think, because of Vista, which requires 512 if
you want to run aero, and I think most people will one day.
-Bob
jdear64
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Randall Ainsworth asked you to name one virus or spyware capable of
infecting OS X. Your response was to post a link to security
updates. Is your reading comprehension REALLY this bad? A possible
security exploit does NOT mean it has been exploited.
I really don't care what OS others use. Just don't be an idiot.
David J Taylor
[]
> Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into
> everyone's system to check if they paid for it.
>
> If Gates can get in, so can you.
Not that I agree with your supposition, but do you think that backdoors
don't exist in other OSes?
David
dennis@home
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Jf-dnTPJvesCV_vb...@comcast.com...
> dennis@home wrote:
>> "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:C28C245B.2A7F3%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>
>>
>> PS OSx is just a "shell" ontop of a unix kernel and there is nothing that
>> says unix is safe. The first worms were unix based and there have been
>> plenty of problems since. There is nothing that Apple does to make sure
>> there are no security issues that M$ doesn't do so your faith is not
>> based on fact.
>
> Experience says it's safe. The record shows Macs are far less vulnerable
> to all the problems that PC users need to guard against.
Rubbish.
The record shows that there are less attacks on Macs not that they are less
suseptical.
>
> If I were a Windows user, my next box would be an Intel Mac, so if I were
> still afraid of a new OS, I could boot right into Vista or whatever.
My next PC is going to be a tablet.. something lacking in apples line up.
dennis@home
"jdear64" <jde...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181146366.2...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
What have viruses got to do with security?
They are just a (small) subset of the problems encountered.
> I really don't care what OS others use. Just don't be an idiot.
>
I have already said that its applications that matter.. you choose the OS to
run them and then the hardware.
Been doing it for large scale projects for years myself with an installed
base used by about 50M users ATM.
dennis@home
"M-M" <nospa...@ny.more> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-1027A...@newsread.uslec.net...
> In article <f46eo3$tvu$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>> What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?
>
> everyone's system to check if they paid for it.
>
> If Gates can get in, so can you.
Irrational that one.
At least M$ don't embed personal data in media.
George Kerby
On 6/6/07 1:36 PM, in article f46urk$n30$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
> "John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Jf-dnTPJvesCV_vb...@comcast.com...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>> "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C28C245B.2A7F3%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>>
>>> PS OSx is just a "shell" ontop of a unix kernel and there is nothing that
>>> says unix is safe. The first worms were unix based and there have been
>>> plenty of problems since. There is nothing that Apple does to make sure
>>> there are no security issues that M$ doesn't do so your faith is not
>>> based on fact.
>>
>> Experience says it's safe. The record shows Macs are far less vulnerable
>> to all the problems that PC users need to guard against.
>
> Rubbish.
> The record shows that there are less attacks on Macs not that they are less
> suseptical.
>
What do you think is the reason for this? And DON'T come up with "no one
wants to mess with such a small percentage" shit.
The successful Mac hacker would become famous and welcomed to the Hacker
Hall of Fame. It's not that they aren't TRYING. THEY CAN'T! So far, at
least...
>>
>> If I were a Windows user, my next box would be an Intel Mac, so if I were
>> still afraid of a new OS, I could boot right into Vista or whatever.
>
> My next PC is going to be a tablet.. something lacking in apples line up.
>
Oh really? 'Big Chief', I'd bet...
dennis@home
>>
> What do you think is the reason for this? And DON'T come up with "no one
> wants to mess with such a small percentage" shit.
>
> The successful Mac hacker would become famous and welcomed to the Hacker
> Hall of Fame. It's not that they aren't TRYING. THEY CAN'T! So far, at
> least...
>
Why do you want to dissmiss the reason they aren't attacked?
Hackers aren't trying to get fame.. they end up in prison for that.
They want to send spam.
Anyway why do you think Macs haven't been hijacked?
What do you do to check yours hasn't been?
Are you like most Unix users.. unable to tell what your machine is doing?
>>>
>>> If I were a Windows user, my next box would be an Intel Mac, so if I
>>> were
>>> still afraid of a new OS, I could boot right into Vista or whatever.
>>
>> My next PC is going to be a tablet.. something lacking in apples line up.
>>
> Oh really? 'Big Chief', I'd bet...
>
???
nospam
> Mac OS X has less functionality than Vista (not that it matters to me as I
> run applications and not OSes as such).
specifically, how?
> OS updates for windows install themselves and what's more they are free and
> don't cost $150 pa when a new "version" arrives.
nonsense. os x automatically updates itself for free, unless the user
disables that feature. major updates occur every two years or so, with
quite a lot of enhancements; the suggested retail price of os x is $129
and it can easily be found for $99 or less.
> There are security issues on Macs if you haven't been patching them you are
> asking for trouble.
they are all *potential* issues; none have actually been exploited in a
mass attack. there are some proof of concepts that could do some
damage, but they almost universally require the user to explicitly
install something and/or supply their administrator password. malware
that needs user permission is hardly a threat.
> Oh the hardware in Macs is as close to a PC as you can get too.
> Just as well really as Mac performance was getting very slow compared to
> PCs.
not based on benchmarks.
> You can even buy a two or three button mouse for a Mac to make it useable.
macs are usable with a one button mouse. a two (or more) button mouse
is a convenience, and has been supported on macs for well over a
decade.
> PS what *idiot* invented a circular mouse for a Mac?
i agree - the round mouse was dumb.
nospam
> > Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into
> > everyone's system to check if they paid for it.
> >
> > If Gates can get in, so can you.
>
> Irrational that one.
> At least M$ don't embed personal data in media.
if you are referring to the itunes drm-free music, what did you expect
them to do? if there was no identifying information, then people would
post the songs to the filesharing sites. having an email embedded in
it enables apple and the music companies to see who is illicitly
sharing music and breaking the law. it is essentially the same as
having a name & serial number to register an application.
dennis@home
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:060620071619168798%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> In article <f468su$jr4$1...@news.datemas.de>, <"dennis@home"> wrote:
>
>> Mac OS X has less functionality than Vista (not that it matters to me as
>> I
>> run applications and not OSes as such).
>
> specifically, how?
>
>> OS updates for windows install themselves and what's more they are free
>> and
>> don't cost $150 pa when a new "version" arrives.
>
> nonsense. os x automatically updates itself for free, unless the user
> disables that feature. major updates occur every two years or so, with
> quite a lot of enhancements; the suggested retail price of os x is $129
> and it can easily be found for $99 or less.
Do you want to remind us what the major enhansments were in the last $99
dollar upgrade?
>
>> There are security issues on Macs if you haven't been patching them you
>> are
>> asking for trouble.
>
> they are all *potential* issues; none have actually been exploited in a
> mass attack. there are some proof of concepts that could do some
> damage, but they almost universally require the user to explicitly
> install something and/or supply their administrator password. malware
> that needs user permission is hardly a threat.
>
>> Oh the hardware in Macs is as close to a PC as you can get too.
>> Just as well really as Mac performance was getting very slow compared to
>> PCs.
>
> not based on benchmarks.
Oh come on, even Apple admit that Macs were getting slow compared to PCs and
that is why they went to Intel PC architectures.
Now they are the same speed as PCs.
>> You can even buy a two or three button mouse for a Mac to make it
>> useable.
>
> macs are usable with a one button mouse. a two (or more) button mouse
> is a convenience, and has been supported on macs for well over a
> decade.
You call having to press the keyboard modifier and the mouse useable?
Just as well you don't need to use the other hand to drink tea.
dennis@home
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
No its embedding personal data when a serial number would do the job without
giving away personal data that other people are not entitled too.
nospam
> No its embedding personal data when a serial number would do the job without
> giving away personal data that other people are not entitled too.
unless the user *breaks the law* by distributing the purchased song to
others, nobody else will ever see it.
teflon
some screen calibration equipment - I'm assuming you're a photographer.
jdear64
wrote:
> "jdear64" <jdea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You really are a dishonest person, or just stupid.
Randall Ainsworth asked you to name one virus or spyware capable of
infecting OS X. How was YOUR REPLY to HIS QUESTION relevant?
If you are not concerned about viruses or spyware, you should have
just said so instead of posting that link in an inept attempt to dodge
his question.
dennis@home
Just because someone is stupid enough to confuse viruses with security
problems doesn't mean I have to put him down by yelling him he doesn't know
what he is talking about.
However in your case I will tell you that you really are stupid.
Why don't you say something about what the thread was about at the time..
*security* issues on a Mac (or any other computer) rather than highlighting
his assumption that its all viruses stupid.
Ron Hunter
> In article <f45nu2$pvi$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>> "Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
>>> In article <nospam.m-m-6682A...@newsread.uslec.net>, M-M
>>> <nospa...@ny.more> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Macintosh, of course!
>>> ALRIGHT! Someone with a clue!
>> Style makes money while you have to work harder with function.
>>
>> I bet that if Apple took PC and put a logo and a white case on it you would
>> say it was the best PC ever.
>> Hang on that's what they have done.
>
> or just check out iPhoto 6, which is great for the typical amateur
> photographer. I use Macs and Windows XP daily. Mac OS X runs rings
> around Windows for functionality, reliability, and ease of use, plus I
> spend a lot less time doing maintenance stuff such as installing OS
> updates and no security issues.
Maybe you should pay attention to them. I understand there are several.
It pays to keep up with such things. And ALL computers are subject to
security issues.
John McWilliams
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>> Not true at all. Try the latest Macs with Photoshop and see for
>> yourself or just check out iPhoto 6, which is great for the typical
>> amateur photographer. I use Macs and Windows XP daily. Mac OS X runs
>> rings around Windows for functionality, reliability, and ease of use,
>> plus I spend a lot less time doing maintenance stuff such as
>> installing OS updates and no security issues.
> Oh? You mean you haven't been installing the updates to Mac OS X? Maybe
> you should pay attention to them. I understand there are several. It
> pays to keep up with such things. And ALL computers are subject to
> security issues.
Can't speak for Shawn, but when I say I spend less time with updates is
because they are automatic, sure, and easy. It does pay to be up to
date, and it's more important on 'Doze due to sheer number of exploits.
--
John McWilliams
ASAAR
>> macs are usable with a one button mouse. a two (or more) button mouse
>> is a convenience, and has been supported on macs for well over a
>> decade.
>
> You call having to press the keyboard modifier and the mouse useable?
> Just as well you don't need to use the other hand to drink tea.
Because it's being used to drink the Kool-Aid? :)
Randall Ainsworth
> the patches that is.
> You may not have as you appear to be invulnerable.
There are none now, nor have there been since it was introduced way
back in 2001 - no viruses or spyware for OS X.
Randall Ainsworth
> What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?
That's an easy one. By default, you're not logged on as an admin with
root access. DOH!
Randall Ainsworth
> The record shows that there are less attacks on Macs not that they are less
> suseptical.
What record? You're full of shit.
> > If I were a Windows user, my next box would be an Intel Mac, so if I were
> > still afraid of a new OS, I could boot right into Vista or whatever.
>
> My next PC is going to be a tablet.. something lacking in apples line up.
A tablet? Oh, you're the *one* that's going to buy one. Hurry up before
they stop making them because of the high demand.
Randall Ainsworth
> No its embedding personal data when a serial number would do the job without
> giving away personal data that other people are not entitled too.
Who else is going to get that song that they didn't pay for?
dennis@home
Other family members like yours do.Then its anyone's guess.
dennis@home
Learn about computer security and stop thinking about viruses as being the
problem.
dennis@home
You don't understand computer security at all do you?
dennis@home
Someone who has never used one I see.
Mine will be a replacement as my daughter took mine to uni.
It appears that they are very useful for notetaking amongst other things.
Ron Hunter
it often reboots the machine after the update is performed and I often
leave work open on the computer for several days at a time, and I don't
want to come back and find that the changes I have made weren't saved
before the reboot. Most annoying!
Seems to me that if one can't allow a few minutes a month for management
of the computer, (s)he is just too busy to mess with a computer, and
should hire someone to do this job. Like a car, some attention must be
given to maintaining the thing or it WILL break down.
Ron Hunter
sigh.
You go on thinking that, but the facts are not as you believe.
John McWilliams
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>>
>>>> Not true at all. Try the latest Macs with Photoshop and see for
>>>> yourself or just check out iPhoto 6, which is great for the typical
>>>> amateur photographer. I use Macs and Windows XP daily. Mac OS X runs
>>>> rings around Windows for functionality, reliability, and ease of
>>>> use, plus I spend a lot less time doing maintenance stuff such as
>>>> installing OS updates and no security issues.
>>> Oh? You mean you haven't been installing the updates to Mac OS X?
>>> Maybe you should pay attention to them. I understand there are
>>> several. It pays to keep up with such things. And ALL computers are
>>> subject to security issues.
>>
>> Can't speak for Shawn, but when I say I spend less time with updates
>> is because they are automatic, sure, and easy. It does pay to be up to
>> date, and it's more important on 'Doze due to sheer number of exploits.
>>
> WinXP supports automatic updates, but I don't do them that way because
> it often reboots the machine after the update is performed and I often
> leave work open on the computer for several days at a time, and I don't
> want to come back and find that the changes I have made weren't saved
> before the reboot. Most annoying!
Ron-
Not saving periodically is just asking to lose work. Not being bothered
to save in order to avoid an update seems also like you're playing
unnecessarily with fire.
--
john mcwilliams
George Kerby
On 6/6/07 9:01 AM, in article f46eo3$tvu$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C28C245B.2A7F3%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/6/07 7:36 AM, in article f469p0$la1$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
>> <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
>>> news:060620070521192950%r...@nospam.techline.com...
>>>> In article <f45nu2$pvi$1...@news.datemas.de>, <"dennis@home"> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes.. Apple.. they know how to exploit style over function.
>>>>> Style makes money while you have to work harder with function.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bet that if Apple took PC and put a logo and a white case on it you
>>>>> would
>>>>> say it was the best PC ever.
>>>>> Hang on that's what they have done.
>>>>
>>>> Have fun with your virus-ridden, bloated OS.
>>>
>>> Which one?
>>> I use at least five (and none have a virus).
>>>
>>>
>> Would you know? Course not...
>>
>
> Why not?
>
> What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?
> How do you know yours hasn't been infected or do you rely on some mythical
> protection offered by the fruit badge?
> You sound like an easy target for a virus.. you don't think you can get one.
> It would probably be easy to get you to install some malicious software
> which is the biggest danger computer users face.
> Just think yourself lucky that virus writers can't be bothered with Macs or
> you may find your invulnerability is worthless.
>
> PS OSx is just a "shell" ontop of a unix kernel and there is nothing that
> says unix is safe. The first worms were unix based and there have been
> plenty of problems since. There is nothing that Apple does to make sure
> there are no security issues that M$ doesn't do so your faith is not based
> on fact.
>
>
Unix was designed to work with several users and has built in protection. Of
course, the first worms were UNIX based. It is one of the oldest OS there
is. Your assertion of many problems since is not based on fact.
Windoze was built with a single operator in mind and from the get-go could
be compromised. Vista has made that a little more difficult but it is a
sloth.
To this date, NO successful trojan, worm, viri, etc., has compromised OS X,
partially due to the fact that the OS automatically updates itself, with the
owner's permission, of course. Windoze has more unknown holes than swiss
cheese.
George Kerby
On 6/6/07 11:12 AM, in article
1181146366.2...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "jdear64"
<jde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 6:42 am, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
> wrote:
>> "Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:060620070633318724%r...@nospam.techline.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article <f468su$jr...@news.datemas.de>, <"dennis@home"> wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you want to look at that in detail?
>>
>>> Obviously you haven't.
>>
>>>> Mac OS X has less functionality than Vista (not that it matters to me as
>>>> I
>>>> run applications and not OSes as such).
>>>> OS updates for windows install themselves and what's more they are free
>>>> and
>>>> don't cost $150 pa when a new "version" arrives.
>>>> There are security issues on Macs if you haven't been patching them you
>>>> are
>>>> asking for trouble.
>>
>>> Uh...name for me just one virus or piece of spyware in the wild which
>>> is capable of infecting OS X (HINT: there are none).
>>
>> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798
>>
>> Quite a large number have been patched so far assuming you have installed
>> the patches that is.
>> You may not have as you appear to be invulnerable.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Randall Ainsworth asked you to name one virus or spyware capable of
> infecting OS X. Your response was to post a link to security
> updates. Is your reading comprehension REALLY this bad? A possible
> security exploit does NOT mean it has been exploited.
>
> I really don't care what OS others use. Just don't be an idiot.
>
He can't help it.
George Kerby
On 6/6/07 1:43 PM, in article f46v87$nmp$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
> "M-M" <nospa...@ny.more> wrote in message
> news:nospam.m-m-1027A...@newsread.uslec.net...
>> In article <f46eo3$tvu$1...@news.datemas.de>,
>> "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>
>>> What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?
>>
>> Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into
>> everyone's system to check if they paid for it.
>>
>> If Gates can get in, so can you.
>
> Irrational that one.
> At least M$ don't embed personal data in media.
>
>
Do yourself a favor and run ShieldsUp! and see what happens:
ASAAR
>> WinXP supports automatic updates, but I don't do them that way because
>> it often reboots the machine after the update is performed and I often
>> leave work open on the computer for several days at a time, and I don't
>> want to come back and find that the changes I have made weren't saved
>> before the reboot. Most annoying!
>
> Ron-
> Not saving periodically is just asking to lose work. Not being bothered
> to save in order to avoid an update seems also like you're playing
> unnecessarily with fire.
Even if the computer did not automatically reboot after installing
an automatic update, automatically installing *all* updates is also
playing with fire. As Windows experts have long known, it's best to
install only needed updates, since some will produce adverse
effects. Unfortunately, MS provides minimal information about what
is contained in the updates, who they would most benefit, and most
importantly, who might be well advised to pass on the updates. This
isn't to say that I have any interest in using a Mac, but NT and
Vista are siblings of Microsoft's Topsy family of Operating Systems,
whose excessive, bloated growth sometimes seems gruesome.
George Kerby
On 6/6/07 2:52 PM, in article f473al$u0t$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
> "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C28C6D26.2A8BD%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>
>>>
>> What do you think is the reason for this? And DON'T come up with "no one
>> wants to mess with such a small percentage" shit.
>>
>> The successful Mac hacker would become famous and welcomed to the Hacker
>> Hall of Fame. It's not that they aren't TRYING. THEY CAN'T! So far, at
>> least...
>>
>
>>>>
>>>> If I were a Windows user, my next box would be an Intel Mac, so if I
>>>> were
>>>> still afraid of a new OS, I could boot right into Vista or whatever.
>>>
>>> My next PC is going to be a tablet.. something lacking in apples line up.
>>>
>> Oh really? 'Big Chief', I'd bet...
>>
>
> ???
>
>
Too young, eh?
George Kerby
On 6/6/07 3:33 PM, in article f475ng$2ao$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:060620071619168798%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>> In article <f468su$jr4$1...@news.datemas.de>, <"dennis@home"> wrote:
>>
>>> Mac OS X has less functionality than Vista (not that it matters to me as
>>> I
>>> run applications and not OSes as such).
>>
>> specifically, how?
>>
>>> OS updates for windows install themselves and what's more they are free
>>> and
>>> don't cost $150 pa when a new "version" arrives.
>>
>> nonsense. os x automatically updates itself for free, unless the user
>> disables that feature. major updates occur every two years or so, with
>> quite a lot of enhancements; the suggested retail price of os x is $129
>> and it can easily be found for $99 or less.
>
> Do you want to remind us what the major enhansments were in the last $99
> dollar upgrade?
>
>>
>>> There are security issues on Macs if you haven't been patching them you
>>> are
>>> asking for trouble.
>>
>> they are all *potential* issues; none have actually been exploited in a
>> mass attack. there are some proof of concepts that could do some
>> damage, but they almost universally require the user to explicitly
>> install something and/or supply their administrator password. malware
>> that needs user permission is hardly a threat.
>>
>>> Oh the hardware in Macs is as close to a PC as you can get too.
>>> Just as well really as Mac performance was getting very slow compared to
>>> PCs.
>>
>> not based on benchmarks.
>
> Oh come on, even Apple admit that Macs were getting slow compared to PCs and
> that is why they went to Intel PC architectures.
> Now they are the same speed as PCs.
You really are about as much in touch with reality as the Iraqui Information
Minister aren't you?!?
They went to Intel because TI wouldn't/couldn't make RAM that wouldn't run
faster without overheating.
George Kerby
On 6/6/07 3:36 PM, in article f475sp$2q1$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:060620071626365192%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>> In article <f46v87$nmp$1...@news.datemas.de>, <"dennis@home"> wrote:
>>
>>>> Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into
>>>> everyone's system to check if they paid for it.
>>>>
>>>> If Gates can get in, so can you.
>>>
>>> Irrational that one.
>>> At least M$ don't embed personal data in media.
>>
>> if you are referring to the itunes drm-free music, what did you expect
>> them to do? if there was no identifying information, then people would
>> post the songs to the filesharing sites. having an email embedded in
>> it enables apple and the music companies to see who is illicitly
>> sharing music and breaking the law. it is essentially the same as
>> having a name & serial number to register an application.
>
> No its embedding personal data when a serial number would do the job without
> giving away personal data that other people are not entitled too.
>
>
And those folks shouldn't be giving it away.
jdear64
>
> >> the patches that is.
> >> You may not have as you appear to be invulnerable.
>
> > There are none now, nor have there been since it was introduced way
> > back in 2001 - no viruses or spyware for OS X.
>
> sigh.
> You go on thinking that, but the facts are not as you believe.
You may be right ( or not ), but can you provide any evidence of any?
George Kerby
On 6/7/07 2:20 AM, in article f48bk3$7h3$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
Sure he does. He owns a Mac.
OTOH, you have to baby your bloated OS to keep the malware from making them
zombies. Get over it...
Allen
Allen
John McWilliams
Of course you don't; nor does Ron. It'd be far to easy, and there'd be
less to argue over.
Note I didn't suggest blindly installing updates on 'Doze, but that Ron
save his work more judiciously.
--
john mcwilliams
-hh
> ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
> > This
> > isn't to say that I have any interest in using a Mac, but NT and
> > Vista are siblings of Microsoft's Topsy family of Operating Systems,
> > whose excessive, bloated growth sometimes seems gruesome.
>
> close.
As one gets older, their tolerance for bullshit tends to decline. The
problem is that one's willingness to change also tends to decline
too. As such, it becomes a "better the Devil you know" trap.
> I can't believe Windows would automatically restart without asking you
> to save first.
>
> I can't understand how Windows users tolerate updates that harm or
> slow down the system.
Its merely the old Mac / PC regious war. Again.
Dennis makes motions that he's an expert on system security, while
remaining blind to the fact that the amount of malware on the
platforms is grossly disproportionate to their market shares.
Randall tries to point this out to him, but lacks anal correctness in
his nomenclature, so his points are sharpshooted in classical Usenet
debating style, rather than their actual substance understood and
engaged.
The bottom line is that nothing is going to be perfect, or
invulnerable. Similarly, from an advocacy perspective, people tend
to make recommendations based on the assumption that everyone else's
needs are the same as their own.
When it comes to security, on OSX, there have been a few exploits
demonstrated before patches have closed those holes, plus there are
potential exploits that remain unpatched. However, there's been no
meaningful real-world risks (yet). And while Windows has had plenty
over the years, they try to claim that they're targeted merely because
of market share instead of design elegance, while conveniently
overlooking the fact that Vista has already been compromised
("Animated Cursor" exploit), even though Vista still doesn't have the
market share of OSX. Whoopsie, another myth skewered like a bloated
pig.
There's also lots of talk about which platform is cheaper ... or
overpriced ... or whatever "value" terminology de jour you wish to
use. In the meantime, the same participants will extoll a certain
size or type of sensor chip design that's twice the cost of another's,
specifically because of aspects of photonic quantum physics that Aunt
Mabel will never be able to see with her bifocals: you have to be an
obscessed pixel peeper to have a chance of finding, while using a $500
copy of Photoshop.
Indeed, we have our priorities set straight!
Personally, I use XP and OSX on a daily basis. The one because I have
to and the other because I prefer it. My preference is strong enough
that I am willing to spend the extra money out of my own damn pocket
to avoid using the other OS when I don't have to.
Much of the reason for my personal preference is because I don't want
to be effectively forced to maintain said 'inferior OS' on my own.
Proponents of said OS claim "oh, its not that much of an effort" and
"you can set up macros to automatically update on every Patch Tuesday"
and so forth, but the bottom line is that all of that is simply
bullshit that I don't have to tolerate when there's an alternative
that I can buy and spend my time actually being productive and
enjoying what I'm doing.
In a similar fashion, I don't bother assembling my own PC anymore.
That's just like doing my own oil change to save $20, but these days,
I have much better things to do, so I'm content in paying someone else
to do that sort of drudge work. If you similarly have more money than
time, you're a fool not to.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program, of
<rec.photo.digital>.
-hh
ASAAR
> Maybe you aren't saying you're interested in a Mac, but you're getting
> close.
Close enough to not look a gift horse in the mouth, but not
otherwise. :)
> I can't believe Windows would automatically restart without asking you
> to save first.
It hasn't happened to me, but I've avoided all versions between
Win95 and XP.
> I can't understand how Windows users tolerate updates that harm or slow
> down the system.
They generally don't, but occasionally MS releases a fix or update
that works and is generally benign, but breaks some previously
functioning software. Their XP fixpack #2 wreaked havoc for Sony's
Sonic Stage for a good number of months (or perhaps years). I
wasn't using it, but watched the fireworks from a safe distance. :)
Win XP's Media Center Edition, virtually the only type installed on
most new hardware for the last couple of years before Vista, turned
out to be incompatible Palm' Desktop software, so much so that
rather than try to get it running, Palm chose to not support MCE.
Fancy that, another of MS's competitors meeting MS's Murphy.
Some users have only inertia or their investment to prevent them
from seeking a non-MS solution. Most though, are locked into
Windows because it's widely used in the office, and they're fear
compatibility issues (real and imagined) if they switch. There's
also the problem I'd have, which is that contributing in any way to
Steve Job's bank account would be just as onerous as continuing to
enrich Billy Boy Gates. Wozzup with that!
Roger (K8RI)
<ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 6/6/07 1:43 PM, in article f46v87$nmp$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
><den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "M-M" <nospa...@ny.more> wrote in message
>> news:nospam.m-m-1027A...@newsread.uslec.net...
>>> In article <f46eo3$tvu$1...@news.datemas.de>,
>>> "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?
>>>
>>> Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into
>>> everyone's system to check if they paid for it.
>>>
>>> If Gates can get in, so can you.
>>
>> Irrational that one.
>> At least M$ don't embed personal data in media.
Good lord, every MS document, spreadsheet and database is id'd to the
originating computer.
ASAAR
>> problem I'd have, which is that contributing in any way to
>> Steve Job's bank account would be just as onerous as continuing to
>> enrich Billy Boy Gates.
>
> Why would either bother you?
Don't like 'em, nor have I ever set foot in a Trump hotel, casino,
tower or watched any of his TV appearances, but I sometimes can't
avoid glimpsing an ad (dis)graced by his smarmy mug. He has a
particularly repulsive smile in a recent ad where he's pushing his
overpriced line of steaks. I guess he doesn't care as long as his
ad spells his own name right.
If there was a well built, efficient, inexpensive to own and
operate vehicle that was called the Bushmobile or Cheney Carriage,
I'd try to find a reasonable alternative, assuming that one existed.
I also stopped going to an unnamed food establishment for a
considerable number of years when they tried to convert me from
asking for french fries to having to ask for a "Biggie Fry". The
same goes for wanting to try "Freedom Fries".
In the same vein, although I like the NY Yankees, when Der
Steinbrenner tried to drum up support for getting the public to
contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to help him move Yankee
Stadium to an already overcongested Manhattan by repeatedly trying
to inject anti-Latino racism and mendaciously smear the Stadium's
location as being excessively dangerous and crime ridden, I stopped
attending games. As for Manhattan's congestion, there are currently
plans in the works that would charge the public an $8 toll if want
to drive their cars into some parts of Manhattan. And now
Steinbrenner is constructing Yankee Stadium's replacement across the
street, in what is still one of the safer parts of the city. And of
course his "fear" and "smear" tactics have long been abandoned.
I still don't like the unethical Gates nor the slick, unctuous
Jobs. As I hinted, I'd be more inclined towards Apple if the overly
style conscious Jobs was replaced by the forthright Wozniak, but
that's not about to happen, and I never cared enough about Apple or
its products to hope that they'd change for the better. Somehow I
have a warm glow, knowing that I don't use a computer that has a
marketing legacy of being referred to as "insanely great", and has
the fanatical support of those such as R.A., who probably makes many
reasonable Apple owners cringe whenever he comments on computers,
operating systems or malware. Not that he often does any better
when commenting on photography, although an occasionally useful
wedding photography tip might sneak in between the snide comments.
:)
John Turco
>
> "Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:srhi-12D02C.0...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>
> > Not true at all. Try the latest Macs with Photoshop and see for yourself
> > or just check out iPhoto 6, which is great for the typical amateur
> > photographer. I use Macs and Windows XP daily.
>
> > Mac OS X runs rings
> > around Windows for functionality, reliability, and ease of use, plus I
> > spend a lot less time doing maintenance stuff such as installing OS
> > updates and no security issues.
>
>
> run applications and not OSes as such).
> don't cost $150 pa when a new "version" arrives.
> asking for trouble.
>
> Just as well really as Mac performance was getting very slow compared to
> PCs.
>
> PS what *idiot* invented a circular mouse for a Mac?
Hello, Dennis:
Why are you trying to reason with these Apple-addled, poor souls?
They're incurably confused, t'would seem! ;-)
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
ASAAR
>> Don't like 'em, nor have I ever set foot in a Trump hotel
>
>> snippity snip snip
>
> egads, you sure let a lot of things bother you.
Nope, you've got it all wrong. Some of those things *would*
bother me if I had to regularly deal with them, but since I don't,
I'm almost happy as a clam. As already remarked, if the price were
right I'd even use Stevie's little Mac wonder. And despite linux's
low entry price, I'm still submitting to Billy Boy's octopus. Der
George's antics never stopped my from enjoying games on the radio or
the few that made it to the tube, and even he has undergone age's
mellowing, so I'll probably make it to the Stadium once more before
it's torn down. But since you mentioned it, and I've made no secret
of it, there are one or two other things that do bother me, and
should bother others, so I'll continue . . .
Some are hard to avoid because their actions have consequences
that effect all of us, and that includes the aforementioned
Bush/Cheney. BTW, there's a scandal brewing that's getting
extensive coverage in Europe and Britain but so far that doesn't
seem to have been echoed here. Seems that Shrub's Saudi buddy,
"Bandar Bush", long time favorite of the Bush dynasty, and who was
an oft invited guest to Bush House (USA, not UK) has been collecting
secret payoffs arranged by the British gov't as stipulated in a
hidden clause in the Saudi contract for purchasing planes for their
Air Force from Britain, and the amount that Bandar Bush has been
collecting under the table for the last 10 years is the very tidy
sum of nearly 1/4 billion dollars per year. Tony Blair killed an
investigation into this scandal about a year ago, but now that it's
out, is trying to defend it by saying (among other things) that if
Britain didn't capitulate to the deal, or didn't keep it secret, the
Saudis would not only buy the jets elsewhere, but would hence refuse
to provide intelligence to Britain. Blair claims that this
intelligence was vital to being able to combat terrorism. However,
this deal was made four years before the Saudi terrorists piloted
their hijacked aircraft into USA targets back in 2001. Of course
the Saudis didn't want any of this made public. After all, 10 years
ago they had their hand full with a guy named Bin Ladn, who not only
wanted to overthrow Saddam, but the secular Saudi princes as well.
Yep, I'd say that many of Bush and Cheney's unreported deals have
also had consequences, many of which are affecting us negatively,
and yes, this is an example of something that bothers me, but it
doesn't bother most other people for several reasons. For one, they
have a hard time hearing of or reading about actions that don't get
reported. For another, they subscribe to "See no evil. Hear no
evil. Say no evil." as do all good, loyal, patriotic Americans.
> What do you like?
Too many things to enumerate more than a tiny fraction or in any
detail, but broadly, good music, food, books, photography, family,
children, other cultures, especially those within walking distance
(and that means from 5 up to a 10 mile radius), many plants (even
those that target me with their pollen), animals and non-biting
bugs. Those that would bite me, that is. Oh, one more that I
really shouldn't fail to mention, several of your bluebird photos.
:)
Savageduck
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>> "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Randall Ainsworth" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
>>>> In article <nospam.m-m-6682A...@newsread.uslec.net>, M-M
>>>> <nospa...@ny.more> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Macintosh, of course!
>>>> ALRIGHT! Someone with a clue!
>>> Yes.. Apple.. they know how to exploit style over function.
>>> Style makes money while you have to work harder with function.
>>>
>>> I bet that if Apple took PC and put a logo and a white case on it you
>>> would say it was the best PC ever.
>>> Hang on that's what they have done.
>>
>> yourself or just check out iPhoto 6, which is great for the typical
>> amateur photographer. I use Macs and Windows XP daily. Mac OS X runs
>> rings around Windows for functionality, reliability, and ease of use,
>> plus I spend a lot less time doing maintenance stuff such as
>> installing OS updates and no security issues.
> you should pay attention to them. I understand there are several. It
> pays to keep up with such things. And ALL computers are subject to
> security issues.
If you were actually familiar with Apple software updates, you would be
aware OS X has frequent(monthly) updates which detail the fixes dealing
mostly with such things as Java or QuickTime streaming vulnerabilities.
They are a simple download and install. There are very few major
"Service Pack" fixes as they are not needed.
As far as documented exploitations, whether they are "viruses" (or is
that Virii?) or a software security violation none have been put to
actual use. Those crowed about have been proof of concept bugs, mostly
exposing Java or QuickTime. The most recent of these was a QuickTime
vulnerability when using Safari, which only worked when the
"Competition" judges were directed to a specially constructed web site.
Apple plugged this hole without any victims being identified in less
than a week.
All of the talk of Apple vulnerabilities for the most part has turned
out to be FUD from so called IT security experts.
For those who care to deal with the OP's question, he should get the PC
he can afford together with software to do the work he wants to
accomplish. There are affordable Macs which can do this well, there
Windows machines which can do the same. Different strokes for different
folks, so to speak. Personally I have to use Windows machines at work
and I tolerate them knowing my four Macs at home do not have the
problems our IT has to deal with.
Savageduck
> Scott Schuckert wrote:
>> In article <srhi-C24C18.0...@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Shawn
>> Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Consider a Mac; there are several models to look at. With a Mac, you
>>> get Apple's world class customer service, tops in user friendliness,
>>> tops in reliability, and the ability to run all Windows and Mac
>>> software. Out of the box, the Mac will come with a very good tool to
>>> work with photos.
>>
>> What he said. For the most part, you're using application software like
>> Photoshop, so re-learning your applications isn't an issue; in fact
>> re-buying it may not be either. Adobe offers an exchange where you can
>> swap your software for the Mac versions for just a few dollars.
>>
>> And as stated, if for some reason you need specific Windows apps or
>> even want to go back to Windows entirely, you can keep the Macintosh
>> hardware. I know a few people who've bought high end Macs specifically
>> to run Windows because THEY WERE A BETTER VALUE.
>>
>> While Apple refuses to compete in the bottom end of the market, their
>> better computers are actually cheaper than an equivalent PC.
>>
>> So, it's cheaper, better made, better supported, may not require
>> retraining or repurchasing software, and will run virtually anything
>> out there - Windows, OSX, Linux... Seems like an easy choice.
>
> I guess for so many years when the Mac was more expensive on the simple
> test of cpu speed I now have a hard time thinking of the Mac as cheaper
> in upfront costs. Even if it costs more initially, and clearly it always
> doesn't, it's much cheaper to run in terms of maintenance and
> reliability. (time=money). Not to mention more aesthetic than the boxes,
> and more fun. Unless you're a gamer, then bye-bye.
>
> An easy choice for those of us not tethered to some corporation with a
> huge self fulfilling IT department.
>
I agree. Just remember those locked into the idea of rejecting a Mac
because of gaming could spent upwards of $6000 for a "state of the art"
Windows gaming machine. I doubt that the purchasers of those machines
would be running any serious photo editing software or any serious
software of any type for that matter.
The alternative is all the Mac has to offer, with the option to run XP
or Vista or Linux for that matter.
BootCamp will run Vista as well as any Dell
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/06/07/bootcamp/index.php.
Parallels Desktop has released 3.0
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/06/07/parallels/index.php
and there is TransGaming Cider
http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=24&meid=
More than enough Windows options for the Mac user needing a taste of the
Dark Side.
Ron Hunter
editor format. I often spend a week with such a story loaded on my
laptop, and minimized. I HATE losing my place, and any minor edits I
might have done. I also don't like the idea of a reboot being done
without my knowledge, and consent (control freak). Nothing much at risk
but my convenience. I also like to know what updates are being done,
and what they do, before I let them run.
Ron Hunter
http://www.virusthreatcenter.com/article.aspx?articleId=75
http://secunia.com/advisories/11622/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-faq/
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2001/06/20.2.shtml
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67484,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
Mon Sep 26, 4:39 PM ET
Apple Computer (Nasdaq: AAPL - news) has issued fixes for 10 security
holes that have been rated as "critical" by security firms.
The patches, which are available through Apple's Web site, fix
vulnerabilities in versions 10.3.9 and 10.4.2 of the company's Mac
OS X operating system.
Although no exploits have been reported as of yet, both Symantec
(Nasdaq: SYMC - news) and the French Security Incident Response Team
have noted that the flaws are serious and that users with those systems
should apply the patches immediately.
Topic: Apple
UPDATE: There's a lot of debate about whether this is a real worm, or
merely an elaborate, executable script that the user is tricked into
running. It appears to be a worm -- it's self-containing code that
replicates itself over the Net (def.). But it also requires the user to
agree to accept it as an iChat file transfer, which is a Trojan trait.
It does not require the user to enter a password to be installed, like
an OS X application. Nor does it warn the user they may be dealing with
an executable file, as Safari does when downloading software off the
Net. So it's more than a simple script-kiddie Applescript. Also, it may
be mostly harmless now, but will likely lead to much nastier versions in
the future, according to this analysis from the programmers at Rixstep:
"Future versions of the same worm or spin-offs from it are bound to be
destructive and much more intrusive. By exploiting several weaknesses in
Apple's file system, (Leap-A) and its successors will work."
t took a hacker less than 30 minutes to gain root-level access to Mac
OS X, according to a report from ZDNet. The hacker who penetrated the
system called the Mac "easy pickings."
ADVERTISEMENT
[0]
The security breach took place on February 22 after a Swedish devotee of
the Mac set up a Mac Mini as a server and invited all takers to try to
compromise the system's security to gain root-level control. Once a
hacker has gained root access to a computer system, the attacker can
install applications, delete files and folders, and use the computer for
any nefarious purpose.
The competition was over in a matter of hours after a hacker, who asked
to be identified only as "Gwerdna," gained access to the server in
question and defaced the Web site with a message that read, "This sucks.
Six hours later this poor little Mac was owned and this page got defaced."
Reports in recent weeks of nasty viruses and hack attempts on the
Macintosh operating system have led security researchers to remind
everyone that both Mac
OS X and Microsoft Windows have roughly the same vulnerabilities. The
only difference has been that hackers prefer to go after Windows, which
runs on roughly 90 percent of all computers, rather than waste time on
the Macintosh, which has a market share of about 3.5 percent.
However, even with the protection of being in the minority, the Mac
enthusiast's days of security superiority -- and, some might say, smug
satisfaction -- could be waning. Once thought invulnerable by many in
its core user base, the Mac might finally be "worthy" of targeting by
hackers who once considered it small potatoes.
If that's true, then Apple's legion of defenders, whose devotion to the
company can border on evangelical zeal, will have to change more than
their perspective.
New Trojan Takes On Mac OS X
By Gregg Keizer, TechWeb Technology News
Just days after Apple Computer patched its Mac OS X for five
vulnerabilities, a security firm Friday warned that an exploit against
one of the fixed flaws has appeared.
Symantec posted a notice of a Trojan horse it called
"OSX.Exploit.Launchd" on its security site, but had few details other
than a successful installation would give an attacker root, or complete,
access to Mac OS X 10.4.6 and earlier systems.
Tuesday, Apple updated Mac OS X to 10.4.7 to, among other things, plug
five security holes. One of the five flaws was in "launchd," the
operating system's program launch mechanism; launchd was prone to a
local format-string vulnerability, Apple said in its 10.4.7 security
advisory.
The Tuesday update protects vulnerable Mac OS X users against the Trojan.
Although exploits against Apple's operating system are rare, it's common
in the Windows world for attack code to pop up within days of Microsoft
releasing security fixes; hackers often reverse engineer a patch to
figure out the exact vulnerability so that they can crank out a working
exploit.
03/04/2007
Viruses are not as big a problem as spyware. And with websites like
> myspace you have to be very careful. I caught one even on my iMac,
> but I have disabled it. The same virus created tons of typos in my
> computer system whenever I wrote inside of my browsers, and would
> freeze my computer if I left it on all night. It is easy to find bugs
> in software that goes online, and spill stuff into the rest of memory
> inside of the program and start rewriting code. Mozilla and other
> pieces of software are built so they can patch themselves already, so
> you just have to know how to get memory to patch software up and it
> infects what you already have on your system. This is trivial, but
> installing backdoors and spyware is near impossible anymore,
> especially on myspace. Viruses make you think you have spyware, or at
> least that you or your computer are having some issues.
That enough?
This list may be a bit old, but given that so many Mac users don't do OS
updates, I believe it is pertinent.
Ron Hunter
installed. Power here is irregular enough to make an UPS necessary for
those who use their computers 24/7.
Ron Hunter
> In article <008g63p0bnhsaae8s...@4ax.com>,
> ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
>
>> This
>> isn't to say that I have any interest in using a Mac, but NT and
>> Vista are siblings of Microsoft's Topsy family of Operating Systems,
>> whose excessive, bloated growth sometimes seems gruesome.
>
>
> close.
>
> to save first.
>
> down the system.
>
Well, frankly, if I had to use a Mac, I just wouldn't use a computer.
As for Windows restarting without asking to save, yes, it WILL if you
let updates run automatically. BAD Karma!
As for updates that harm, or slow down, the system, you never REALLY
know how an update may affect your installation until you install it.
Thats why MOST Windows updates have uninstall facilities. It's rare,
but I have had to uninstall a couple over the years.
Ron Hunter
Woz is much too 'techy-Geek' to appeal to the masses. Jobs has the
business accumen to make the company work, and the feel for what the
public wants. I suspect Woz. hardly realizes there IS a 'public'.
I feel pretty much as you do about D. Trump. Some of his hijinks remind
me of Rush Limbaugh.
Ron Hunter
Hummm. WinXP service pack 1 and 2. OS X is up to what? 6?
> As far as documented exploitations, whether they are "viruses" (or is
> that Virii?) or a software security violation none have been put to
> actual use. Those crowed about have been proof of concept bugs, mostly
> exposing Java or QuickTime. The most recent of these was a QuickTime
> vulnerability when using Safari, which only worked when the
> "Competition" judges were directed to a specially constructed web site.
>
Java and quickTime exploits may affect Windows users as well, given both
are on both platforms.
> Apple plugged this hole without any victims being identified in less
> than a week.
>
How wonderful, BUT, given that most Mac users seem to think they are
invulnerable, how may users actually install these fixes, or even know
about them?
> All of the talk of Apple vulnerabilities for the most part has turned
> out to be FUD from so called IT security experts.
>
Go ahead and ignore them, and don't do the updates, and don't bother
using your seat belts either.
> For those who care to deal with the OP's question, he should get the PC
> he can afford together with software to do the work he wants to
> accomplish. There are affordable Macs which can do this well, there
> Windows machines which can do the same. Different strokes for different
> folks, so to speak. Personally I have to use Windows machines at work
> and I tolerate them knowing my four Macs at home do not have the
> problems our IT has to deal with.
Different ways of thinking, and doing things, demand different tools.
And ANY tool will require some amount of attention in order to continue
to function properly, so I don't buy the 'maintenance-free' Mac concept,
not at all.
At the very LEAST one needs to go through periodically and eliminate
useless files, and ALL disk formats fragment, yet I have never heard of
a Mac user mentioning this. Or do they just ignore the realities of
disk fragmentation until their disk access slows to a crawl, and buy a
new computer?
dennis@home
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C28D8C3A.2AA2C%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>>
> Unix was designed to work with several users and has built in protection.
> Of
> course, the first worms were UNIX based. It is one of the oldest OS there
> is. Your assertion of many problems since is not based on fact.
I know what unix is thanks.. I have designed and delivered systems used by
>50 million people based on unix.
>
> Windoze was built with a single operator in mind and from the get-go could
> be compromised. Vista has made that a little more difficult but it is a
> sloth.
>
> To this date, NO successful trojan, worm, viri, etc., has compromised OS
> X,
> partially due to the fact that the OS automatically updates itself, with
> the
> owner's permission, of course. Windoze has more unknown holes than swiss
> cheese.
>
I see you qualify it with successful.
I suppose that safari was unsuccessful in that after it had installed itself
it corrupted files. However all software has bugs but they will be fixed.
Have a look on kaspersky's viruslist.com at the vulnerabilities while run a
mac if you still think you are safe.
dennis@home
>
>
>
> On 6/6/07 1:43 PM, in article f46v87$nmp$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
> <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "M-M" <nospa...@ny.more> wrote in message
>> news:nospam.m-m-1027A...@newsread.uslec.net...
>>> In article <f46eo3$tvu$1...@news.datemas.de>,
>>> "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?
>>>
>>> Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into
>>> everyone's system to check if they paid for it.
>>>
>>> If Gates can get in, so can you.
>>
>> Irrational that one.
>> At least M$ don't embed personal data in media.
>>
>>
>
> http://www.grc.com/stevegibson.htm#projects
>
You actually think Steve knows anything about security?
dennis@home
"Roger (K8RI)" <valida...@my.com> wrote in message
news:cpdh639f0rb37bh9l...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:22:57 -0500, George Kerby
> <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 6/6/07 1:43 PM, in article f46v87$nmp$1...@news.datemas.de, "dennis@home"
>><den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "M-M" <nospa...@ny.more> wrote in message
>>> news:nospam.m-m-1027A...@newsread.uslec.net...
>>>> In article <f46eo3$tvu$1...@news.datemas.de>,
>>>> "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?
>>>>
>>>> Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into
>>>> everyone's system to check if they paid for it.
>>>>
>>>> If Gates can get in, so can you.
>>>
>>> Irrational that one.
>>> At least M$ don't embed personal data in media.
>
> Good lord, every MS document, spreadsheet and database is id'd to the
> originating computer.
Its not personal data though is it.
Although if you include author and copyright in there then it will.
dennis@home
"-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1181253618.8...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> M-M <nospam....@ny.more> wrote:
>> ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
>> > This
>> > isn't to say that I have any interest in using a Mac, but NT and
>> > Vista are siblings of Microsoft's Topsy family of Operating Systems,
>> > whose excessive, bloated growth sometimes seems gruesome.
>>
>> Maybe you aren't saying you're interested in a Mac, but you're getting
>> close.
>
> As one gets older, their tolerance for bullshit tends to decline. The
> problem is that one's willingness to change also tends to decline
> too. As such, it becomes a "better the Devil you know" trap.
>
>> I can't believe Windows would automatically restart without asking you
>> to save first.
>>
>> I can't understand how Windows users tolerate updates that harm or
>> slow down the system.
>
> Its merely the old Mac / PC regious war. Again.
No its idiots that think there computer is secure just because of its brand.
I have never said that PCs are better than Macs.
> Dennis makes motions that he's an expert on system security, while
> remaining blind to the fact that the amount of malware on the
> platforms is grossly disproportionate to their market shares.
Rubbish.
The amount of malware has little to do with the needs of security.
If you understood even the basics of security you would know that.
What the quantity does effect is the cost of dealing with it and what tools
you can get to help.
> Randall tries to point this out to him, but lacks anal correctness in
> his nomenclature, so his points are sharpshooted in classical Usenet
> debating style, rather than their actual substance understood and
> engaged.
Your points aren't much better IMO.
You just make assumptions like its a Mac/PC war when it isn't.
> The bottom line is that nothing is going to be perfect, or
> invulnerable. Similarly, from an advocacy perspective, people tend
> to make recommendations based on the assumption that everyone else's
> needs are the same as their own.
Well at least you admit that I am right when I said OS x wasn't invulnerable
and any one who thinks it is is stupid.
The same stupid people that got into the Macs are better than PCs when it
was security that was the issue and not which is better.
All because I pointed out that macs are not more secure than PCs.
Personally I use whichever runs the application I want to run in an
acceptable way.
If I need to run mac software I use a mac.
If I need to run windows I use a PC.
I also run Linux and a few others.
All are keept as secure as I can and I have had zero viruses on any of my
machines in the many years I have been using them.
> When it comes to security, on OSX, there have been a few exploits
> demonstrated before patches have closed those holes, plus there are
> potential exploits that remain unpatched. However, there's been no
> meaningful real-world risks (yet). And while Windows has had plenty
> over the years, they try to claim that they're targeted merely because
> of market share instead of design elegance, while conveniently
> overlooking the fact that Vista has already been compromised
> ("Animated Cursor" exploit), even though Vista still doesn't have the
> market share of OSX. Whoopsie, another myth skewered like a bloated
> pig.
That would be the myth that OS x has a bigger market share than vista.
How many copies of OS x have been sold v vista then?
How many copies of vista are running which haven't been sold?
If you really think OS x is a major player then I have a nice bridge for
sale.. its in London.
>
> There's also lots of talk about which platform is cheaper ... or
> overpriced ... or whatever "value" terminology de jour you wish to
> use. In the meantime, the same participants will extoll a certain
> size or type of sensor chip design that's twice the cost of another's,
> specifically because of aspects of photonic quantum physics that Aunt
> Mabel will never be able to see with her bifocals: you have to be an
> obscessed pixel peeper to have a chance of finding, while using a $500
> copy of Photoshop.
>
> Indeed, we have our priorities set straight!
>
>
> Personally, I use XP and OSX on a daily basis. The one because I have
> to and the other because I prefer it. My preference is strong enough
> that I am willing to spend the extra money out of my own damn pocket
> to avoid using the other OS when I don't have to.
Just run freeBSD its the core of OS x without all the frills that you don't
see while running applications.
Its a bit of a pain to administer though.. but at least you will better
understand how OS x works.
dennis@home
>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I were a Windows user, my next box would be an Intel Mac, so if I
>>>>> were
>>>>> still afraid of a new OS, I could boot right into Vista or whatever.
>>>>
>>>> My next PC is going to be a tablet.. something lacking in apples line
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>> Oh really? 'Big Chief', I'd bet...
>>>
>>
>> ???
>>
>>
> Too young, eh?
>
Probably not a yank, I doubt if I am too young I have been designing
computer hardware and systems for >28 years..