which PC

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...


You don't understand user interface design.


User interfaces are personal choice.. some people will like an interface and
some will hate it, whatever the interface is.
The trick is too get more people who prefer it, this is not trivial.

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

No the question is the same why would a mac user be less likely to
install
malware?
It doesn't matter how many steps you have to take if someone wants to
install something.
Just what is different between a mac user and a windows user that makes
you
think they wouldn't install something they shouldn't?

Depending on PEBCAK is always a good way to infect a computer, but you
can't fault the operating system for the stupidity of the user.

I never have.
However I haven't claimed any OS is idiot proof unlike some mac users in
this thread.
I have repeatedly stated that the user is the security risk and OS x does
not protect against it.
What's the reply.. "windows has more viruses", etc. hardly a sensible reply
when we are talking about bigger security risks than the odd virus.
Just the sort of attitude/"knowledge" that makes the user more vulnerable
and more likely to compromise the system.

What do you get for trying to explain it to them and to help them... insults
about windows (which is irrelevant) and personal insults after that.

nospam wrote:
[]
prior to os x, a terminal application was not included, so whatever
you used was written by a third party, not apple. any complaints you
may have had regarding its feature set and configurability were not
due to a mythical apple restriction, but rather just the choices made
by the app's author. like anything else, there are apps with a very
basic feature set and others that are a more elaborate.

Even Windows has shipped with a terminal emulator and Telnet! It took
Apple how long!

David

"-hh" wrote in message
ups.com...
"dennis@home" wrote:
"-hh" wrote in message
You been previously warned that this was an untruth, yet you
maliciously persist in making this claim...and once again, you try to
tie it to me.

I don't care *why* you choose to perpetuate such lies.

But a lie it remains.

An arguement is only as strong as its weakest link, and because you've
stooped to lying to try to make your case, your case is forfeited.

So you can't beat the argument so you do the same as the rest of the
losers
and start trying to discredit the opponant.

Not at all: you discredited yourself "Dennis" with your own twisting
of words.



The archive shows that I only have issues with people who falsly claim
macs
are secure.
If you bothered to read it you would know that.

You know that I read it, so this is another misdirection attempt.

You're pendantically picking nits of a comparative statement which you
chose to interpret literally. And every time that you were pressed on
making a comparison, you refused to see the forest for the trees.

No I am not.
When someone tells a newbie that they will be *safe* because a mac is
*secure* it is not a comparitive statement it is an absolute.
It is also wrong.
The whole damn thread started because of people like you that don't
understand the meaning.

If they had accepted that it was more secure then it would be over but no
its secure even though its a lie.
You are just as bad.


As such, Dennis has demonstrated to be
not credible in providing material advice for anyone's objective and
impartial product decision-making process.

I will repeat again what I said as you are being dense...

And yet here you are, trying to get in the last word.

You can have the last word if you want just try not to lie so I don't have
to reply as your stance is damn boring.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
That's bull**** son. There is no need to *defrag*
a filesystem. *EVER*. ... on a properly designed
filesystem for a multi-user/multi-tasking OS.

There is /every/ need to keep the files from fragmenting. Whether this is
done internally to the OS, or by an external program, it still needs to be
done.

Microsoft are criticised when they add such functions into the OS by
third-party vendors who claim their market is being taken away.

David

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

actually, that's not totally true. with video capture, a defragmented
drive, or ideally a dedicated drive that is freshly erased prior to
capturing video, helps avoid dropped frames.

If you have a multi-tasking, multi-user system,
defragging is an excercise in worthlessness. That is
true for video capture as much as anything.

it is not worthless; a dedicated volume solely for capturing video
*can* make a difference.

But I have not argued otherwise. I'm just saying that
for a multi-tasking multi-user... (in other words,
*not* a dedicated volume accessed by only one user).

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

actually, that's not totally true. with video capture, a defragmented
drive, or ideally a dedicated drive that is freshly erased prior to
capturing video, helps avoid dropped frames.
If you have a multi-tasking, multi-user system,
defragging is an excercise in worthlessness. That is
true for video capture as much as anything.
it is not worthless; a dedicated volume solely for capturing video
*can* make a difference.

But I have not argued otherwise. I'm just saying that
for a multi-tasking multi-user... (in other words,
*not* a dedicated volume accessed by only one user).


Systems designed for multi-user OSs take steps to minimize
fragmentation, but this is done at the cost of disk seeks over longer
areas, and extra use of indirect address pointers, all of which can slow
the file system, on ALL accesses. Modern drives are fast enough to mask
this action until the drive becomes full enough that it can no longer
perform adequately. A freshly defragmented disk will operate faster,
and more efficiently than one in which the data is spread all over the
disk, period. I have seen disk systems slowed to the speed of reading
data from a cassette recorder. When defragged, they return to normal
operating speed. I suspect that some OS versions simply do this
defragging when the user is not around (which is another argument for
leaving a computer ON all the time), but it still must be done to
maintain good efficiency in the disk access process.

Ron Hunter wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
We don't have to wait long to see it happen to Windows,
as that seems to average better than one per month...


Oh? Name the last serious impact of a virus on the MS
Windows systems... It really has gotten better as far
as impact since people became more aware of the threat.

You aren't real good at logical handling of facts. The
first of these quotes was posted previously, though perhaps
without the second it isn't quite obvious enough to get
your attention:

"Major virus epidemics in 2006

A total of 7 major virus epidemics were recorded in
2006, half the number recorded for the previous year
(14)."
http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204791924


"In terms of malicious code activity, the year 2006 was
quite uneventful for the Unix community. There were no
epidemics, major outbreaks, or other events which
seriously threatened security."
http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=204791925


All 7 of the "major virus epidemics" in 2006 were targeting
Windows.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:47:31 +0100, dennis@home wrote:



"nospam" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

actually, that's not totally true. with video capture, a defragmented
drive, or ideally a dedicated drive that is freshly erased prior to
capturing video, helps avoid dropped frames.

If you have a multi-tasking, multi-user system,
defragging is an excercise in worthlessness. That is
true for video capture as much as anything.

it is not worthless; a dedicated volume solely for capturing video
*can* make a difference.

This is probably a myth..
disk based file systems have been fast enough to handle video capture for
years even when fragmented to hell..

Have you ever captured raw hdtv?
Things get interesting @ 6GB/min.

"dennis@home" wrote:
"-hh" wrote:
...
I don't care *why* you choose to perpetuate such lies.
But a lie it remains.

You're pendantically picking nits of a comparative statement which you
chose to interpret literally. And every time that you were pressed on
making a comparison, you refused to see the forest for the trees.

No I am not.
When someone tells a newbie that they will be *safe* because a mac is
*secure* it is not a comparitive statement it is an absolute.
It is also wrong.
The whole damn thread started because of people like you that don't
understand the meaning.


From my very first post in this thread:


6/7 Its merely the old Mac / PC regious war. Again.
6/7
6/7 Dennis makes motions that he's an expert on system
6/7 security, while remaining blind to the fact that the
6/7 amount of malware on the platforms is grossly
6/7 disproportionate to their market shares.
6/7 ...
6/7 The bottom line is that nothing is going to be
6/7 perfect, or invulnerable.

And the very first line in your *direct* reply was:

"No its idiots that think there computer is secure just because of its
brand."



If they had accepted that it was more secure then it would be over
but no its secure even though its a lie.

More bull**** hand-waving: its time to name names, Dennis:

Who *specifically* are you accusing of clearly stating that Macs are
"secure"?
No, not "more secure", or "by comparison secure", but unobtainium-
secure.


As per the above quote, it wasn't me from my very first post.
So who is it that you're so ****ed off at, Dennis?

Name him. And materially demonstrate how his statements couldn't have
been intepreted as meaning anything less than the very high standad of
how *you* have chosen to define 'secure'.


For your edification, here's the crux of that very first exchange:

Person X "Have fun with your virus-ridden, bloated OS."

Dennis Which one?
Dennis I use at least five (and none have a virus).

Person X Would you know? Course not...

Dennis Why not?
Dennis What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?


And FYI, the very first response was:

Person Y ...The record shows Macs are far less vulnerable...





Since this was your 105th post, I'm sure that you'll figure out some
way to advance your agenda mentioned in your 2nd post:

"Yes.. Apple.. they know how to exploit style over function.
Style makes money while you have to work harder with function."



Its merely the old Mac / PC regious war.
Again.

And the instigating PC bigot spreading FUD is Dennis.
Again.



-hh