Re: Running OS X on my PC!!!
John McWilliams
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have
> something
> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
yeah, that's an intelligent move for folks who are mostly photographers!
From the site:
> Should you try this? As a minimum, I'd recommend the following: You are comfortable editing BIOS settings and knowing the details of your hardware and chipsets. You're not afraid of the Unix command line (not a definite requirement, but many of the troubleshooting guides out there mention it, so you'll probably have to use it at some point). And probably the most important: You have a lot of time.
>
> Preliminary steps
>
> Before trying this upgrade, you'll need to do some prep work.
>
> Know your hardware. There is no automatic hardware detection in this install. You will have to specify in detail your PC hardware configuration, including video card, amount of video memory, network card, CPU, sound card and motherboard chipset. Windows users can find this information in the Device Manager or by running msinfo32.exe. Linux users should run lspci and lsdev. Print this out and set it aside.
> Check the hardware compatibility list on the OSx86 wiki for known issues with your configuration. Take this with a grain of salt, as there are no guarantees your hardware will be supported. As the wiki says, "We want to keep it as accurate as possible, but please, do not entirely rely on this list when buying hardware."
> Download the Kalyway 10.5.2 ISO from your favorite torrent site and burn it on a DVD.
> Backup your data. You will be running disk partitioning software to create a Mac OS X partition, and the installer will be overwriting both that partition and the MBR of your drive.
> Choose a drive and create a partition for Mac OS X. The various OS X installation guides out there really dwell on disk partitioning. There are step by step guides for using Windows Disk Manager, diskpart, Partition Magic, and the Gparted live CD, among others. Whichever one you pick, be sure to create a partition at least 9GB. Don't worry about specifying the partition type or formatting it, the OS X installer will take care of that. What it won't do is create the partition, which is why we're doing it here.
> Since the installer will be overwriting the disk's Master Boot Record, any other OS present won't boot unless you restore the previous MBR. By far the easiest way around this problem is to use a separate drive for OS X.
>
> In my case, I'm installing on a new system with two disk drives, so I unplugged the Slackware/Windows drive and plugged the second drive in the primary SATA slot on the motherboard.
>
> If all this talk of partitioning, MBRs and switching drive cables scares you, best to stop now. It gets a lot worse.
Sheesh.
--
lsmft
John McWilliams
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>
>> yeah, that's an intelligent move for folks who are mostly
>> photographers!
>
Of course, many are, but won't. And a lot aren't smart enough. Mac users
have no edge in the cretin category, nor a very big one in the genius
category.
> So what you are effectively saying is Mac users are dumb mindless idiots
> that are nothing more than appliance operators. At least PC users know how
> to get around their system. If you don't know the basic nuts and bolts of
> your computer you shouldn't be allowed to use one. How do Mac users fix a
> problem, other than upgrading to the next level of proprietary hardware?
What eloquence! What provocative statements.
Bored?
--
lsmft
Savageduck
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have something
> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
Rita,
Over the years the headers of your posts have consistently demonstrated
your use of MT-NewsWatcher for Intel Mac.
I understand you have this propensity for making provocative statements
from time to time, mostly with tongue in cheek humor.
You have demonstrated a method of installing and running OSX on a PC
and that is just fine.
Since there is OSX software you prefer to run over Wintel or Linux
versions, the question regarding your venom aimed at Mac users is
puzzling. This especially since there really is no sense of superiority
amongst us "Mac idiots". Many of us use Wintel machines in other
environments, and choose to own & use Macs as our machine of choice for
our own reasons, just as you have chosen to run OSX on a PC. The "sense
of superiority" you claim is a Wintel user perception
You are somewhat hypocritical when it comes to a "sense of
superiority", you make a point of letting us know whenever you have
made your next extravagant upgrade within your 18 month plan, detailing
your purchases and trumpeting the superiority of your current
equipment. (...and I certainly envy your D3x, D3 and vault of Nikkor
lenses, my lowly D300 not withstanding)
Many of us here have always accepted your contributions as humorous and
at time instructional, however with this post you have managed the
intructional and insulting as matched pair.
Also, nowhere in any of the current debate have I noted any of the "Mac
idiots" making claims of Wintel PC idiocy for any present in these NGs
not using Macs or like you, bright enough to run OSX on their PC.
So if you want to continue running OSX on your PC that is fine, even
though you make it obvious, based on your Nikon/Nikkor purchases, the
purchase price of a Mac Pro is well within your means.
Just note that not all of us "mac idiots" are actual idiots, just as
not all of the "Wintel PC idiots" are actual idiots.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>
>> Rita,
>> Over the years the headers of your posts have consistently
>> demonstrated your use of MT-NewsWatcher for Intel Mac.
>> I understand you have this propensity for making provocative
>> statements from time to time, mostly with tongue in cheek humor.
>
> And that's all it was, a provocative statement that wasn't meant to be
> taken as nothing more than "it can be done" type of post to demonstrate
> there really is *NO* difference between the two platforms. The "Mac
> idiots" reference wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular, just
> a cattle prod to point to show the Mac cult follower they really have
> no magical Kool Aid. Trust me; I don't want to upset the duck!!!
'duck understands.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> This especially since there really is no sense of superiority
>amongst us "Mac idiots".
Oh, yeah. Sure there is. It's just for certain values of "us". You
may not be in that group, but many are. Boring twits, they are, too.
On both sides.
I don't really understand it, myself. Your stuff on the screen looks
the same to me as my stuff that is created on a PC.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
botox
dongle.
Including that piece you can build a machine that will be faster than
anything Apple sells at a fraction of the cost.
The operating system wars are over anyway--both Windows and Mac OS whatever
are going the way of Kodachrome.
Most users, sooner rather than later, will do almost everything via a
platform neutral browser using web based applications.
Savageduck
Strange isn't it?
I have issues with almost all evangelists, religious, political,
products, systems, and self aggrandizement.
If it works for me and not someone else, who am I to convince the other
person another tool might have different benefits they might find
useful. My Mac works for me within its limitation just as your PC works
for you within its limitations.
It is like the crowd running to Face Book, Twitter & iPhones, none of
these work for me and I choose not to join those crowds.
...and they will be blessed with my absence.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
Er, no.
--
john mcwilliams
ASAAR
> What eloquence! What provocative statements.
>
> Bored?
Trolled?
:)
John McWilliams
'Ceptin' Rita is usually too intelligent to resort to such unvarnished
fishing, so I thought he'd take leave of his brain.
--
john mcwilliams
Rich
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have something
> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
Apple going to Intel was the last straw. The Apple II and subsequent
run-on-Motorola processor machines were innovative, a shot in the face
to the IBM P.C. and P.C. clone environment. But Intel is one of the
most repellent American companies, widely known for illegal and
unethical business practices. As for Apple's, friend of mine who went
into graphics processing in the 1980s said, "Apple users are a group
of computer-illiterates working on sub-standard machines." Compared to
the dedicated graphics workstations at the time, that was true.
Apple's future now hinges on the iPhone and less and less, the iPod.
In a perfect world, IBM and Motorola would have had the marketing
savvy to keep making and improving processors and in a really perfect
world, the DEC Alpha would still be around. The one bright spot in
the computer world as it is was how AMD's Althon (no longer) dominated
high-end machines for many years against flawed Intel offerings.
Savageduck
Have you finally become completely unhinged?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
ASAAR
>>> Bored?
>>
>> Trolled?
>>
>> :)
>>
> Yowza.
>
> 'Ceptin' Rita is usually too intelligent to resort to such unvarnished
> fishing, so I thought he'd take leave of his brain.
There's usually a bit of both, but more often the former, such as
with the familiar fertilizing fido fotos.
Martin Brown
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have
> something
> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
Windows XP is about as secure as a chocolate fireguard.
OS/X is impressive on the *right* PC hardware. A friend wrote parts of
the how to guide. OS/X can be more than a bit tetchy about which
graphics cards and chipsets it will work with and firmware transplants
and tweaks may be needed to obtain a fully operational system.
Apart from that I think running a Mac OS is actually quite useful for
media types if they want to avoid fighting with Mickeysofts offerings.
However if you are choosing to use a Mac because you are computer phobic
transplanting OS/X onto a PC is probably not for you.
Regards,
Martin Brown
David J Taylor
[]
> Windows XP is about as secure as a chocolate fireguard.
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
.. as is any OS which isn't properly configured. Configure Windows XP
securely, and it will be secure. Configure UNIX, Linux or whatever
insecurely, and it will be insecure.
David
Shon Kei
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have
> something
> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>
>
>
I imagine many people running bought and/or pirate software on their
Intel PC would find no value in running OSx on the same machine.
From my rudimentary look at the OS, this is pure Nerd stuff. It need a
lot of technical expertise to install it and you then have to find all
the programs you already own or stole - to install on the new OS.
This is Linux all over again except you have to buy the software you
need to get any functionality out of it.
Kei
Neil Ellwood
> ASAAR wrote:
>
>>> What eloquence! What provocative statements.
>>>
>>> Bored?
>>
>> Trolled?
>
> Damn! I still got it! And all this time I thought I wasn't going to
> get a good swarm after kicking the hornet's nest. It's just like riding
> a bike, you never forget....
And you only remembered because you had it written down.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
Bob Larter
Rich, you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Hunter
Somehow it seems to me that if OS X really were all that much better
than Windows XP, then Apple would sell it for the PC. They don't, so
what does that tell you?
Ron Hunter
> In article <C_%%l.46309$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> "David J Taylor"
> went away on vacation, and upon return, it got a worm as it started up.
> My Mac, sitting right next to it was on during my vacation and it was
> worm-free.
Sorry, but if you got a worm while your computer was off during vacation
then you don't have a computer problem, but a site security problem.
IF you have a good firewall program, and a competent operator (or
failing that, a good AV program), then you would NOT have gotten a worm,
period.
I own a Chevy, and it doesn't surprise me that people who steal only
BMWs don't steal my car, alarm or not.
Martin Brown
That PC hardware comes in a very large number of nightmare permutations
and they do not want the hassle of supporting all of them. Originally
Apple Mac was a very well defined closed system. It still has a few
lock-in points that have to be circumvented to get OS/X onto a PC.
In the UK some of the Medion PCs run OS/X very well indeed - although
you do really need to know what you are doing to install it.
Regards,
Martin Brown
J. Clarke
Personally I'm still waiting for one of these many malware disasters that
are supposed to occur to actually happen.
The interesting thing is how the antivirus companies have managed to
convince people to buy their worthless performance-killing system-destroying
bloatware.
Mr. Strat
Thong <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
Yeah, that eight-year old operating system is quite a dandy.
Mr. Strat
Thong <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> There's no need for PC users to take a few extra steps to load OS X when
> Windows XP does just fine and is much more secure and user friendly.
Are you on drugs or what? Compare the number of viruses for XP (I can't
count that high) compared to the ones for OS X (NONE).
> Just trying to find out what makes the Mac so special and what
> differentiates it from a PC? I'm really not seeing a difference here other
> than you Mac guys get to pay an overpriced premium on the same hardware.
What makes the Mac special is that dumb fucks like you don't buy 'em.
Mr. Strat
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Somehow it seems to me that if OS X really were all that much better
> than Windows XP, then Apple would sell it for the PC. They don't, so
> what does that tell you?
It tells me that you don't know shit.
Apple is a hardware company. To make OS X for the PC would require
supporting every do-dad on the market. By being selective, Apple can
maintain the better operating system AND keep it secure.
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>
>>> The one bright spot in the computer world as it is was how AMD's
>>> Althon (no longer) dominated high-end machines for many years
>>> against flawed Intel offerings.
>>
>> Have you finally become completely unhinged?
>
> After all there is a fair amount of plastic in most Mac computers. The real
> kick in the ass is the person that wrote the article is running OS X on a
> shitty AMD proc. Now that is a kick in the ass to both PC and Mac users.
In that case he would be glad to know I am typing this response on the
keyboard of the all metal case of a MacBook Pro 17.
Though it makes you wonder if his plastic keyboard is going to be able
to sustain the abuse he puts it through.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Ron Hunter
much made them receptive to just about anything that managed to come
their way. ONE VISIT from a European ship (Cook) resulted in death of
890% of the population of the islands.
When it DOES happen, it will be a blood bath the likes of which the PC
world has never seen.
ray
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a
> false sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even
> the same band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they
> have something better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they
> now only have cute and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the
> mindless sheep into buying overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
Whatever floats your boat, I guess. I find it easier, simpler and more
cost effective to run Linux on garden variety pc platforms.
Nobody
"Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:dfSdnQu3rOgxod3X...@supernews.com...
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a
> false
> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the
> same
> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have
> something
> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have
> cute
> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into
> buying
> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>
non-Mac computer...
J�rgen Exner
>ONE VISIT from a European ship (Cook) resulted in death of
>890% of the population of the islands.
Wow! Where did the other 790% come from?
jue
nospam
Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
> > Windows XP is about as secure as a chocolate fireguard.
>
> .. as is any OS which isn't properly configured. Configure Windows XP
> securely, and it will be secure. Configure UNIX, Linux or whatever
> insecurely, and it will be insecure.
point is, out of the box and change almost nothing, like how most users
use the computer, xp is swiss cheese and osx is not.
nospam
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Mac users are rather like the Hawaiians in the 1800's. Isolation pretty
> much made them receptive to just about anything that managed to come
> their way. ONE VISIT from a European ship (Cook) resulted in death of
> 890% of the population of the islands.
> When it DOES happen, it will be a blood bath the likes of which the PC
> world has never seen.
been hearing that for a decade now. without any antivirus software it
should be very easy to do, right? what are the hackers waiting for?
instant fame for them. yet nothing has happened.
nospam
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Somehow it seems to me that if OS X really were all that much better
> than Windows XP, then Apple would sell it for the PC. They don't, so
> what does that tell you?
it tells you that they aren't interested in writing drivers, testing
and supporting zillions of configurations for whatever increase in
sales there might be. and given that apple's sales are outpacing the
market as a whole, there's not really a lot of motivation to change
what they're doing, is there?
Savageduck
Well that's what a diet of poi will do for you.
A shift of the numeric reality plane.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John McWilliams
A shibboleth by any other name.....
Yeah, we're just WAITING for our VIRUS SHIP to come in to kill 110% of
our machines. Bloodbath. Feh.
--
lsmft
Chris H
<larry...@shitstring.com> writes
>John McWilliams wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>
>> photographers!
>
>At least PC users are smart enough to do it.
The average PC user is not smart.
>So what you are effectively saying is Mac users are dumb mindless idiots
>that are nothing more than appliance operators. At least PC users know how
>to get around their system. If you don't know the basic nuts and bolts of
>your computer you shouldn't be allowed to use one. How do Mac users fix a
>problem, other than upgrading to the next level of proprietary hardware?
I regularly upgrade parts of Macs (we run both Macs and PCs here)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Annika1980
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/05/windows-7-rc-free-to-download/
David J Taylor
So we agree that it's the confugration, and not the fundamental OS.
I thin you will find that the next two generations (Vista and Windows-7)
are rather better in this respect.
David
J. Clarke
And in answer to this complaint Microsoft ships Vista locked down.
J. Clarke
Duck, I'm curious--does Apple use double-shot molding on their keys? I am
just plain getting _sick_ of having the letters wipe off the keys after a
while.
J. Clarke
> In article <q-GdnUS09PSMXN3X...@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Somehow it seems to me that if OS X really were all that much better
>> than Windows XP, then Apple would sell it for the PC. They don't, so
>> what does that tell you?
>
> it tells you that they aren't interested in writing drivers, testing
> and supporting zillions of configurations for whatever increase in
> sales there might be.
So why would they write drivers and test zillions of configurations? It's
the device developer's job to write the driver.
nospam
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> Windows XP is about as secure as a chocolate fireguard.
> >>
> >> .. as is any OS which isn't properly configured. Configure Windows
> >> XP securely, and it will be secure. Configure UNIX, Linux or
> >> whatever insecurely, and it will be insecure.
> >
> > point is, out of the box and change almost nothing, like how most
> > users use the computer, xp is swiss cheese and osx is not.
>
> And in answer to this complaint Microsoft ships Vista locked down.
yet cornficker managed to spread like wildfire...
nospam
Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:
> > point is, out of the box and change almost nothing, like how most
> > users use the computer, xp is swiss cheese and osx is not.
>
> So we agree that it's the confugration, and not the fundamental OS.
part of it is the os. it's very hard to write malware that spreads on
its own on os x.
> I thin you will find that the next two generations (Vista and Windows-7)
> are rather better in this respect.
better, sure, but still vulnerable. there's quite a bit of malware on
vista.
J. Clarke
But what does Lucy thin? <sorry, that was too good a straight line to
resist>
J. Clarke
> Why not just download the latest version of Windows?
>
> http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/05/windows-7-rc-free-to-download/
Because it's a time-bombed beta copy?
Annika1980
According to Microsoft the software has the following quirk:
"Starting on March 1, 2010, your PC will begin shutting down every two
hours."
Only every 2 hours? That's better performance than what I'm getting
with XP now!
nospam
> Duck, I'm curious--does Apple use double-shot molding on their keys? I am
> just plain getting _sick_ of having the letters wipe off the keys after a
> while.
the letters don't wipe off of the backlit keyboards since there is
nothing to wipe off. the letters are transparent parts of the key cap.
Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter
It has been on the internet 24/7 since I bought it three weeks ago. Bog
standard WinXP SP3. Nothing more malicious than tracking cookies,
unless you count the touchpad driver from Dell that required a system
restore to correct....
Ron Hunter
Savageduck
I am not sure of exactly what you mean by "double shot" molding.
I can only tell you of my Mac keyboard experience. The key board on my
oldest currently used Mac, an 8 year old G3 is original and shows no
evidence of letter wear. I have a few older examples with no issues.
My lap tops, a PowerBook G4 17(4years old) and a MacBook Pro 17 2.93GHz
Intel Core 2 Duo (new in January) have illuminated keys which are
ambient light adjusted where the illumination diffuses through the
letters and there has never been an issue of letter wear.
I can't speak for the newer desk top Mac thin line key boards as I have
no experience with them.
The only keyboards I have experienced the vanishing letter syndrome on
were HP keyboards at work.
I can't speak for any of the third party keyboards as I have never had
a need to buy one, but I have heard good things about the Logitech,
Kensington & DiNovo products
--
Regards,
Savageduck
John Navas
in <srhi-ED6C7F.0...@ppp-vpdn-94.136.209.74.yarnet.ru>:
>In article <C_%%l.46309$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Martin Brown wrote:
>> []
>> > Windows XP is about as secure as a chocolate fireguard.
>> []
>> > Regards,
>> > Martin Brown
>>
>> .. as is any OS which isn't properly configured. Configure Windows XP
>> securely, and it will be secure. Configure UNIX, Linux or whatever
>> insecurely, and it will be insecure.
>
>Really? I had XP as secure as it could be. I SHUT DOWN my XP computer,
>went away on vacation, and upon return, it got a worm as it started up.
Then it wasn't as even close to "as secure as it could be".
I've *never* had a worm on the many XP computers I administer even
though I routinely use them in dangerous ways because of what I do
professionally.
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
John Navas
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
<tf70m.46493$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>nospam wrote:
>> In article <C_%%l.46309$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>> Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Windows XP is about as secure as a chocolate fireguard.
>>>
>>> .. as is any OS which isn't properly configured. Configure Windows
>>> XP securely, and it will be secure. Configure UNIX, Linux or
>>> whatever insecurely, and it will be insecure.
>>
>> point is, out of the box and change almost nothing, like how most
>> users use the computer, xp is swiss cheese and osx is not.
>
>So we agree that it's the confugration, and not the fundamental OS.
XP fully updated is pretty secure.
>I thin you will find that the next two generations (Vista and Windows-7)
>are rather better in this respect.
Windows 7 is quite good. Vista is best forgotten.
John Navas
wrote in <h1qjk...@news6.newsguy.com>:
>David J Taylor wrote:
>> Martin Brown wrote:
>> []
>>> Windows XP is about as secure as a chocolate fireguard.
>> []
>>> Regards,
>>> Martin Brown
>>
>> .. as is any OS which isn't properly configured. Configure Windows XP
>> securely, and it will be secure. Configure UNIX, Linux or whatever
>> insecurely, and it will be insecure.
>
>Personally I'm still waiting for one of these many malware disasters that
>are supposed to occur to actually happen.
You may not have long to wait. Or you may actually already be infected.
The great majority of personal computers are infected.
>The interesting thing is how the antivirus companies have managed to
>convince people to buy their worthless performance-killing system-destroying
>bloatware.
AVG Free is (well) free, very efficient, and very effective.
Strongly recommended.
John Navas
wrote in <q-GdnUS09PSMXN3X...@giganews.com>:
>Somehow it seems to me that if OS X really were all that much better
>than Windows XP, then Apple would sell it for the PC. They don't, so
>what does that tell you?
Please don't feed the trolls!
John Navas
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<bw%%l.7339$dg5....@newsfe25.iad>:
>Larry Thong wrote:
>> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
>> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
>> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have
>> something
>> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
>> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
>> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>>
>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
>> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
Windows 7 is better than either (IMHO).
>Windows XP is about as secure as a chocolate fireguard.
It's easily made very secure. Just follow Microsoft recommendations,
install AVG Free, use Firefox, and otherwise practice safe computing.
>OS/X is impressive on the *right* PC hardware. A friend wrote parts of
>the how to guide. OS/X can be more than a bit tetchy about which
>graphics cards and chipsets it will work with and firmware transplants
>and tweaks may be needed to obtain a fully operational system.
BSD is even more impressive and more secure, but like OS X won't run the
applications I need on a daily basis, so it's reserved for specialized
tasks.
Choosing the OS first is bassackwards, like choosing the brand of
battery before selecting a digital camera. First choose the application
software, then the hardware and OS needed to run it well.
John Navas
<annik...@aol.com> wrote in
<48361f09-8ae7-4e3e...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jun 23, 12:35�pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Annika1980 wrote:
>> > Why not just download the latest version of Windows?
>>
>> >http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/05/windows-7-rc-free-to-download/
>>
>> Because it's a time-bombed beta copy?
And has to be removed before installed the release version!
So you have to start over from scratch. What were they thinking?!
>According to Microsoft the software has the following quirk:
>
>"Starting on March 1, 2010, your PC will begin shutting down every two
>hours."
>
>Only every 2 hours? That's better performance than what I'm getting
>with XP now!
Then you have something wrong. On decent hardware XP will run reliably
for months at a crack, restarted only for updates.
J. Clarke
Then your machine is busted. Most likely candidate is defective RAM, next
most inadequate cooling.
ribbit
> Shon Kei wrote:
>
>> I imagine many people running bought and/or pirate software on their
>> Intel PC would find no value in running OSx on the same machine.
>>
>> From my rudimentary look at the OS, this is pure Nerd stuff. It need a
>> lot of technical expertise to install it and you then have to find all
>> the programs you already own or stole - to install on the new OS.
>>
>> This is Linux all over again except you have to buy the software you
>> need to get any functionality out of it.
>
> I'm not sure what pirated software has do with this? It's easy and cheap
> enough to buy legitimate copies of OS X and whatever other programs you
> want
> to run on it as you would when running it on Mac hardware. The whole point
> here is that it can be done and most Mac users really don't understand the
> concept of them being brainwashed into buying overpriced hardware that is
> basically the same as what PC users have been using for decades. As for
> this being Linux, technically the concept is close but you get to pay for
> the privilege when buying OS X. After all, that is all you really get when
> you buy a fully loaded Mac Pro. Linux is open source and you get all the
> goodies for free. Of course you can always buy applications for Linux
> if it
> isn't listed as a free distro. I love Linux!!!
>
> Funny thing is one wonders why Apple doesn't sell a BIOS unlocked
> version of
> OS X for people that want to run it on a PC? Apple would quickly find
> their
> customers buying less of their overpriced hardware and desktop ornaments.
>
If you pulled Photoshop from a torrent, it's pirate software. You have
to go looking all over again if you want an OSX version of it. Ask Bret,
he know all about stolen images and pirated Photoshop.
--
George Kerby
On 6/22/09 9:23 PM, in article
dfSdnQu3rOgxod3X...@supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
<larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have something
> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>
Rita, you are right up there with NavASS as being nominated as
Kook-of-the-Month! Keep up with stuff you know about, like your
cross-dressing, OK. You have demonstrated your trolling more than enough
already.
George Kerby
On 6/22/09 10:08 PM, in article h1ph35$tgd$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Larry Thong wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>>
>>> yeah, that's an intelligent move for folks who are mostly
>>> photographers!
>>
>> At least PC users are smart enough to do it.
>
> Of course, many are, but won't. And a lot aren't smart enough. Mac users
> have no edge in the cretin category, nor a very big one in the genius
> category.
>
>> So what you are effectively saying is Mac users are dumb mindless idiots
>> that are nothing more than appliance operators. At least PC users know how
>> to get around their system. If you don't know the basic nuts and bolts of
>> your computer you shouldn't be allowed to use one. How do Mac users fix a
>> problem, other than upgrading to the next level of proprietary hardware?
>
> What eloquence! What provocative statements.
>
> Bored?
He got tired of playing with his dildos.
George Kerby
On 6/22/09 10:22 PM, in article
2009062220220929267-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2009-06-22 19:23:21 -0700, "Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> said:
>
>> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
>> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
>> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have something
>> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
>> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
>> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>>
>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
>> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>
> Rita,
> Over the years the headers of your posts have consistently demonstrated
> your use of MT-NewsWatcher for Intel Mac.
> I understand you have this propensity for making provocative statements
> from time to time, mostly with tongue in cheek humor.
> You have demonstrated a method of installing and running OSX on a PC
> and that is just fine.
> Since there is OSX software you prefer to run over Wintel or Linux
> versions, the question regarding your venom aimed at Mac users is
> puzzling. This especially since there really is no sense of superiority
> amongst us "Mac idiots". Many of us use Wintel machines in other
> environments, and choose to own & use Macs as our machine of choice for
> our own reasons, just as you have chosen to run OSX on a PC. The "sense
> of superiority" you claim is a Wintel user perception
> You are somewhat hypocritical when it comes to a "sense of
> superiority", you make a point of letting us know whenever you have
> made your next extravagant upgrade within your 18 month plan, detailing
> your purchases and trumpeting the superiority of your current
> equipment. (...and I certainly envy your D3x, D3 and vault of Nikkor
> lenses, my lowly D300 not withstanding)
> Many of us here have always accepted your contributions as humorous and
> at time instructional, however with this post you have managed the
> intructional and insulting as matched pair.
>
> Also, nowhere in any of the current debate have I noted any of the "Mac
> idiots" making claims of Wintel PC idiocy for any present in these NGs
> not using Macs or like you, bright enough to run OSX on their PC.
>
> So if you want to continue running OSX on your PC that is fine, even
> though you make it obvious, based on your Nikon/Nikkor purchases, the
> purchase price of a Mac Pro is well within your means.
> Just note that not all of us "mac idiots" are actual idiots, just as
> not all of the "Wintel PC idiots" are actual idiots.
I told you and Tony a year ago that "Rita" was a kook troll and you said I
was wrong. Nowwhatjasay?!?
George Kerby
On 6/23/09 12:04 AM, in article igo045ljro49n5pgu...@4ax.com,
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:08:45 -0700, John McWilliams bit:
>
>> What eloquence! What provocative statements.
>>
>> Bored?
>
> Trolled?
>
> :)
>
Exactly...
George Kerby
On 6/23/09 8:59 AM, in article 230620090659467270%r...@nospam.techline.com,
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article <a9ydnZY1bqJk1d3X...@supernews.com>, Larry
> Thong <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote:
>
>> There's no need for PC users to take a few extra steps to load OS X when
>> Windows XP does just fine and is much more secure and user friendly.
>
> Are you on drugs or what? Compare the number of viruses for XP (I can't
> count that high) compared to the ones for OS X (NONE).
>
>> Just trying to find out what makes the Mac so special and what
>> differentiates it from a PC? I'm really not seeing a difference here other
>> than you Mac guys get to pay an overpriced premium on the same hardware.
>
> What makes the Mac special is that dumb fucks like you don't buy 'em.
They don't have the money, or the common sense to understand value of the
difference between a Pinto and a Lexus. So they go through life angry and
envious.
Fuck 'em I say...
George Kerby
On 6/23/09 9:04 AM, in article 230620090704213763%r...@nospam.techline.com,
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article <q-GdnUS09PSMXN3X...@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Somehow it seems to me that if OS X really were all that much better
>> than Windows XP, then Apple would sell it for the PC. They don't, so
>> what does that tell you?
>
> It tells me that you don't know shit.
>
> Apple is a hardware company.
But people that hate Apple cannot understand that. Marketing is beyond their
pea-brains' grasp.
Ron Hunter
software, WinXP needs a reboot only when the power goes off, or the
monthly upgrade cycle (second Tuesday) occurs. I did have a crash today
on my Netbook when I tried to install Microsoft's Live 3d software.
Guess the graphics card on the Netbook isn't up to the task.
Then there was the case of the Dell driver.....
Sigh.
Aratzio
George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> got double secret probation
for writing:
I'd say you are a whining douchebag with a propensity to
overcompensate for a small dick.
Annika1980
>
> If you pulled Photoshop from a torrent, it's pirate software. You have
> to go looking all over again if you want an OSX version of it. Ask Bret,
> he know all about stolen images and pirated Photoshop.
That is a bald-faced lie! I have never in my life downloaded a
pirated copy of Photoshop for the Mac.
John Navas
<annik...@aol.com> wrote in
<416e773a-665d-4806...@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
Funny how you included the caveat "for the Mac". ;)
Annika1980
> > Only every 2 hours? That's better performance than what I'm getting
> > with XP now!
>
> Then your machine is busted.
Well no shit!
>Most likely candidate is defective RAM, next most inadequate cooling.
I would list inadequate cooling as #1. Most of my probs are thermal-
related, usually when the fins in the CPU fan get clogged with dust or
Divot's cat hair.
My machine usually only crashes when I am doing video work like
rendering files in Premiere or Adobe Media Encoder. Not totally
unexpected given that it's a very old 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 machine maxed
out with 4 GB RAM and an old AGP graphics card.
Hopefully, I'll be able to get a new Core i7 machine soon.
Then I'll be able to do some serious video work with the Fab 5D2.
ribbit
Good one Bret.
What about that crack you got to make your demo copy run as a bought
one. Does that not count?
--
ribbit
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>
>> away.
>
> Huh? I think you have me confused with someone else?
Yes he sure has. He thought he was takling to Rita!
NNTP-POSTING-DATE: Tues, 23 Jun 2009 20:37:06 -500
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel MAC OS X)
I'd guess if you don't have a MAC running OS X then you have a botched
up PC with the software on it.
Savageduck
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>
>> Then why are you using a Mac? The header on your posting gives you
>> away.
>
> Huh? I think you have me confused with someone else?
...umm Rita,
I think you will find he is refering to the X-Newsreader header in these:
Path: s02-b47!num01.iad!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!bigfeed3.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue,
23 Jun 2009 20:37:06 -0500
From: "Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2 (Intel Mac OS X)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
References: <dfSdnQu3rOgxod3X...@supernews.com>
<srhi-FD1DA7.0...@ppp-vpdn-94.136.209.74.yarnet.ru>
Subject: Re: Running OS X on my PC!!!
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:36:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;format=flowed;charset="iso-8859-1";reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b2
(Intel Mac OS X)
Message-ID: <Ye6dnd2WRoTfHtzX...@supernews.com>
Lines: 11
X-Trace: sv3-uSVG1PgcHxQatQOzBuDzgnIbc8PpVZBf4VWTK5DPqyrhO2CWM5WBGSUTNYAd9Va8s1k1+QDgWYFoCVp!EKYRSW7Ao6aKvvQcHc4P0D1a/mmfiwMQY3Rp+X0ZyBPPIr6rqNwiXhVxTEDTDcgoYh6ws8zT4i1X!3WcX9/n0
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please
be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
Bytes: 1766
Xref: Hurricane-Charley rec.photo.digital:635276
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems:169891 rec.photo.equipment.35mm:199745
X-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:37:16 UTC (s02-b47)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Mr. Strat
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
> Then your machine is busted. Most likely candidate is defective RAM, next
> most inadequate cooling.
Or an AMD processor...
Mr. Strat
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Then you have something wrong. On decent hardware XP will run reliably
> for months at a crack, restarted only for updates.
You know as much about computers as you do photography.
How's that eight-year old operating system workin' for ya?
Mr. Strat
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Windows 7 is better than either (IMHO).
If you like Vista Version II.
> Choosing the OS first is bassackwards, like choosing the brand of
> battery before selecting a digital camera. First choose the application
> software, then the hardware and OS needed to run it well.
What is this...1987?
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>
>> In that case he would be glad to know I am typing this response on the
>> keyboard of the all metal case of a MacBook Pro 17.
>> Though it makes you wonder if his plastic keyboard is going to be able
>> to sustain the abuse he puts it through.
>
> You gotta admit that machining that thing from a solid block of aluminum is
> a cool idea.
Much better than the old PowerBook 17 where the case flexed and
compressed, especially over the front load slot CD/DVD drive. That
caused compression of the slot and inhibited disc ejection.
That resulted in one complete case replacement under a 3 year Apple
Care contract 6 weeks before it expired!
Their customer service isn't that bad, you know.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David J Taylor
What John reports is exactly my own experience. Windows 2000, XP and
Vista have run for months without a reboot, and Windows 7 shows all the
signs of being just as reliable.
David
Bill Graham
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:230620092026341866%r...@nospam.techline.com...
No. My HP machine with an AMD tri-core processor would only run for about 10
minutes between crashes, not two hours. Had it lasted two hours, I would
probably still be living with it.
Ron Hunter
normally (except for power failures) run from update to update without a
reboot. Both have AMD processors. You weren't, by chance,
over-clocking that processor, were you?
J. Clarke
Yep, same here--2K and later have been as stable as Netware. I finally
moved the files from my Netware server to a 2K server and shut down the
Netware server.
Bowser
"Larry Thong" <larry...@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:dfSdnQu3rOgxod3X...@supernews.com...
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a
> false
> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the
> same
> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have
> something
> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have
> cute
> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into
> buying
> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
What? Couldn't troll enough people on camera BS so you've branched out?
Pathetic...
Annika1980
>
> > Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
> > Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> What? Couldn't troll enough people on camera BS so you've branched out?
> Pathetic...
Yeah, and going for the easy shot, PC vs. Mac .... that's pretty weak
on the troll-meter.
At least make it something creative like discussing beer or cigars.
-hh
> On decent hardware XP will run reliably
> for months at a crack, restarted only for updates.
And the restarts for updates on average occurs ... roughly every two
hours :-)
Actually, it only feels that way on the Wed-Thurs-Fri after each Patch
Tuesday, as that's when our Enterprises' IT Dept does their
incremental update pushes.
-hh