If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Screenshot! (was - Where I keep my spare cats)
On 02/06/2017 01:05, Diesel wrote:
"David B." Thu, 01 Jun 2017 12:20:05 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote: Securi advises - "This malware is generally hidden inside the HTML or PHP files". Sucuri, David. wget tekrider.net --2017-06-01 19:41:47-- http://tekrider.net/ Resolving tekrider.net... 192.251.238.3 Connecting to tekrider.net|192.251.238.3|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Moved Temporarily Location: pages/index.php [following] --2017-06-01 19:41:47-- http://tekrider.net/pages/index.php Reusing existing connection to tekrider.net:80. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: `index.php' [ = ] 5,737 --.-K/s in 0.02s 2017-06-01 19:41:47 (227 KB/s) - `index.php' saved [5737] Verified the lines Sucuri thinks are present in the index.php using alleycode and notepad (not necessary, but, I like to be thorough for you) are not. Also verified the results with firefox: view-source:https://tekrider.net/pages/index.php So, that's three seperate ways of doing it, and, all three confirm, Sucuri is incorrect. Local mirrored copy (#1), wget (#2), firefox (#3) as I know you're a bit 'slow' concerning matters of a technical nature. Btw, the local image was done on the 29th of May. Do you think he is trying to trick folk? I know you are and why. You don't appreciate not being able to remove the contents of the site. After things didn't go your way, you've decided to attack and attempt to discredit the site and it's owner, instead. Like hh though, you're determined to dig a hole to china. I don't mind watching you try with a shovel. I find it greatly amusing, myself. Perhaps you and he can get together and exchange notes on things of a technical nature as well as how to properly stalk your victims? Neither of you could do any worse as it is...After all, you've both written what amounts to horse ****, and neither of you make for classy trolls, despite your efforts to the contrary. I'm saddened that you feel that way, Dustin. I simply want the Internet to be a safer place for everyone. Truly! :-) -- "Do something wonderful, people may imitate it." (Albert Schweitzer) |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Screenshot! (was - Where I keep my spare cats)
"David B."
Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:41:01 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote: [snip] The 'security' community, Dustin. The folk who purport to protect us! It's the standing I have David that caused you to contact me in the first place. :-) And, it's not necessarily a bad standing to have, either. You thought i'd be useful to you for the skills you know for a fact I possess. I'm one of the few publically known former blackhats that went on to develop software and provide assistance to help those with the malware issue. Due to my previous misdeeds, some individuals will never let go of the past, and, that's why some dislike me. I'm just more open about what I've done is all. And, you know that as well. I did! :-) I was impressed by what I read, so I've written to the company. Great, do be sure and share what they write back. Hello - I write to seek your help after reading your comments about Securi. It's Sucuri, David. No 'e' Since being caught up in a scam back in 2005, I've been seeking to discover just how the 'bad guys' operate on the Internet. That's a very long time for you to still have no useful knowledge of your own concerning the world of IT. I'd really appreciate it if you could investigate a particular web site for me. It appears to be carrying an unauthorised script at line 86 - which can be seen by using this facility:- Yet, doesn't exist if you pull a copy yourself. Doesn't exist if you visit the page with firefox, doesn't exist if you have firefox lie about which browser it is. ****ing magical, isn't it? When I view the Tekrider web site in normal course, I can see no mention of the site owner's 'Stalker' page - but I CAN if I use a VPN. I'm convinced that something is amiss and respectfully request that, in the Interest of ALL Internet users, someone from from your firm takes a look at this situation. I will be most grateful. The only stalker here is you David. https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php -- Nope, I can't go to hell. Satan still has a restraining order against me. https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Screenshot! (was - Where I keep my spare cats)
"David B."
news rec.photo.digital, wrote: [snip] I'm saddened that you feel that way, Dustin. I simply want the Internet to be a safer place for everyone. Truly! :-) No, you don't. You want things your way, specifically. Nothing to do with making the internet itself safer. You believe it's your right! to access any system you like, regardless of the admin and/or owners wishes. You believe it's your right! to stalk others who won't assist you in doing this, and, you believe it's your right! to try to place them in harms way by attempting to 'dox' them for refusing to help you. Which is exactly what you tried doing with me, several years ago. When I wouldn't hack into web forums you didn't have permission to be on anymore (because the admins banned you), you did some research on 'hackers' and found my resume (heh). You tried to solicit me into hacking those websites, initially for free. I turned you down. Then, being the asshole you are who doesn't take no for an answer easily, you offered to pay me to hack them. Go ahead, David, deny it, it's *ALL* in that email correspondence. When I declined that as well, you attempted to force me to help you by trying! and failing to 'dox' me for my refusing to use the skills I have in a nefarious manner towards people I don't know. You've been using the 'he's a pirate' as a smoke screen ever since then, because I ****ed you off by refusing to use the skills you know I have, thanks to prior stalking efforts on YOUR PART towards me prior to contacting me to help you make others miserable. When I decided that enough was enough, and, did to you what you tried and failed doing to me, you changed tactics and resorted to attacking me, instead. And, it's been that way ever since. You've gone so far as to try and recruit others to help you do what you cannot. Even in this very newsgroup! https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php -- Nope, I can't go to hell. Satan still has a restraining order against me. https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
In article
XnsA7841A939CEC8HT1@z2EEd70JefktzJb64TMQebUU311gP 5hrG.npCmT206Xn5lh.90b 6e2Gl51, Diesel wrote: for what most people do, certainly for schoolkids, they're way more than adequate, and with some advantages over an old school laptop. I can't say that most people would have no further needs than what a chromebook offers. Chromebooks are not on par with a modern laptop or desktop/tower machine. They have their uses, but, they are limited as compared to the other two options I mentioned. nonsense. the only limitation is the user. chromebooks are optimized for different sorts of tasks than desktop computers. what matters is what's the best tool for a given task. no one tool does everything. Mac users feel they spent enough money on the hardware and shouldn't have to spend oodles more on software packages for it. Which tend to be on the expensive side, as well as the hardware required to run them. Apple still believes (although they are coming around to a certain extent) that closed is better. Mac machines aren't as friendly to the idea of software or hardware customization by the purchaser. They tend to make both processes rather difficult at times for the techie, so, for end users, it's a royal pita. And, it's always been this way. From the microcomputers Apple sold in the 80s to the more recent stuff they peddle now. nonsense. macs are far more customizable that windows can ever hope to be. just because you don't know how doesn't mean it can't be done. Some (many) Windows users tend to be so cheap as to pir8 the OS itself, whenever possible. And, they'll happily pirate software intended to run on it. Everything from Games to Adobe products. that's not something to be proud of. As for photoshop not working under linux, thanks to VM technologies, that's not a real claim. it is a real claim. the fact that you have to run a vm proves it can't work in linux, and running photoshop in a vm is laughable. graphics professionals would never run photoshop virtualized because unlike you, they can afford professional tools. If you want to play with Apples OS without having to purchase a Mac, you can VM it's happy ass on your native Linux box, too. not legally, you can't, and regardless, it doesn't work particularly well. You can have Linux, OSX, And Windows all running on the same physical machine, pending you have the ram, hd space, and strong enough CPU to get the work done in a reasonable amount of time. that can only be done on a mac. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X OSX is based on it, infact. not based on. os x *is* unix. windows users generally do not upgrade partly because of the cost, partly because it's a pain in the ass, which is why there are still people running windows xp, a nearly 20 year old system. Windows users infact, do, upgrade, but with the changes MS has foisted upon them with Windows 8/8.1 and now, Windows 10, many are opting not to do so. PC based systems until the past few years with MS have been about user choice and user options. Unlike Apple. windows users in general do *not* upgrade because it's a pain in the ass. windows xp-7 was hell. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
In article
XnsA783B1E3E49FHT1@z2EEd70JefktzJb64TMQebUU311gP5 hrG.npCmT206Xn5lh.90b6 e2Gl51, Diesel wrote: you don't understand what it is you're reading, mostly because you don't use macs and don't understand how they work, and based on your posts, you are an apple-hating troll. Partially correct. I don't like macs, would prefer not to use macs, but, I'm not an Apple hating troll, and, I do understand how they work. based on what you've written, you haven't any clue whatsoever about how macs work (or anything else apple makes). everything you've said is nothing more than ignorant apple-bashing trolling. In the event you missed them, I've included some below: https://arstechnica.com/security/201...vered-mac-malw are-may-have- circulated-in-the-wild-for-2-years/ Apple issues MacOS update that automatically protects infected machines. already patched. non-issue. The article is from January, and, you claimed Macs didn't have malware in the wild. The article disputes that statement. it's been patched so it no longer applies, and it also required user installation anyway. in the wild means propagates on its own. there is no mac malware that propagates on its own. period. meanwhile, wannacry and petya are currently pwning millions of windows systems worldwide. not a single mac has been affected. nothing is 100% secure, but macs are definitely well above windows. Android is beating the snot out of the ios... nope. http://bgr.com/2017/01/12/iphone-vs-...q4-2016-us-uk/ In the United States, Applešs iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 6s were three best-selling smartphones during the three-month period ended in November. According to Kantar, the three devices combined to account for 31.3% of all smartphone sales in the US. Samsungšs Galaxy S7 and Galaxy S7 edge took the numbers four and five spots, combining to account for 28.9% of all smartphone sales in the region. Applešs share of the US smartphone market climbed 6.4% on-year to 43.5% in the three months ended in November, while Android slipped 5.1% to 55.3%. https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/...ne-grabs-big-m arket-share-in-the-us.aspx Based on Kantar's data, the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus seem to have hit the ground running. iPhone sales represented 40.5% of smartphone sales in the three months ending October -- up a notable seven percentage points year over year, from 33.5%. most android devices are cheap phones, often just feature phones which doesn't even have the google play store, which means it's barely even an android phone. there's no way to add new apps. comparing feature phones to flagship phones such as the iphone and the samsung galaxy series is bogus. I'm not a big fan of Chrome books myself, because of their limited functionality as compared to a real PC, chromebooks in no way have limited functionality. what they do is optimized for different use cases, and they do it *better* than trying to hack a windows pc into doing the same tasks. but, I'd much rather see them in more educational areas than I would the Apples anyday. only because you're ignorant and hate everything apple. pick the best tool for the job. sometimes it's apple and sometimes it's not. intentionally avoiding a product because of who makes it, particularly when it's the best choice, is *stupid*. Some schools are investing in the chromebooks, aka, wannabe laptops. chromebooks aren't wannabe laptops. some of them are more expensive than a windows laptop. Chromebooks are most certainly wannabe laptops. nonsense. Cost doesn't mean everything, either. it does to you, because you keep yapping about prices. what matters is the best tool for a given task and how productive a person is when using it. One can purchase a really cheap, LOW END windows laptop for less than some Chromebooks, sure. one can purchase cheap low end crap for all sorts of things. they are generally utter junk. linux is great for servers. buy a bunch of asus boxes and set up a server rack. nothing wrong with that. Linux certainly shines in the server world. As well as embedded devices, routers, etc things that allow us to communicate. it's also gaining ground on the desktop. no it isn't. linux desktop share is dropping, less than 2% as of right now. for the desktop, however, linux is a horrible choice because of the sheer lack of software, particularly quality software. major companies, such as adobe and microsoft, ignore it. even smaller players, such as garmin, ignore it. Adobe isn't ignoring Linux...They're supporting flash and reader on linux, again. Microsoft certainly isn't ignoring it! Where have you been? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window...stem_for_Linux flash is dead and reader for linux has been discontinued. http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2014/10/a...nload-pulled-w ebsite Garmins GPS devices run linux.... it doesn't matter what it runs internally because that's never exposed to the user. as i said, linux is a reasonable choice for embedded devices. And you can get the garmin to talk to a linux box, it just may not be as simple as Windows or Mac. that's what unsupported means. while you're trying to get it to work, mac/windows users already synced their data and are off doing whatever it is they want to do with the gps. Gimp isn't supposed to be a replacement for Photoshop, so I don't see why you're even bringing it up? As far as running substantially slower on the same hardware, that hasn't been my experience...So, what hardware specifically are you using for the comparison? it doesn't matter what hardware it is. pick whatever hardware you want. the gimp will be substantially slower than photoshop on the very same hardware, over 10x slower in some cases. it's shocking how unoptimized the gimp is. adobe spends an insane amount of time optimizing the hell out of photoshop, going to such extreme lengths as tuning it to specific processor variants as well as designing their own virtual memory system that's optimized for image processing, which goes well beyond the limitations of the operating system. Btw, Gimp supports some of the photoshop native plugins now, too. http://www.techradar.com/how-to/how-...lugins-in-gimp only filter plugins, and of those, not all of them, and of the ones that do work, there are numerous compatibility issues. a graphics professional will not touch the gimp. graphics professionals don't have the time to waste ****ing around trying to get crappy products to work. they can afford professional tools, which pay for themselves. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
In article
XnsA7841A9453C1AHT1@z2EEd70JefktzJb64TMQebUU311gP 5hrG.npCmT206Xn5lh.90b 6e2Gl51, Diesel wrote: Too complicated for you to understand, I get it. That's probably why you feel right at home on a Mac. They are good baby sitters for those who don't know, or want to learn, how the machine in front of them works. Apple prides itself on dumbing technology down and charging you out the ass for it. nonsense. Do you have any reputable sites which dispute what I wrote? reputable sites don't refer to mac users as idiots who need babysitters. only apple-bashers do that. So you have no sites to offer? all of them. not a single reputable site will insult users. See below if you want to get an idea of how much you're being ****ed over. Btw, the Acer below is considerably more upgradable if you wanted to do so. The all in one mac, due to it's very design/case/etc, isn't. who cares. what matters is getting actual work done, not opening up the box and poking around inside. Other than swapping out the HD and adding more ram, that is. With the Acer, I can add another hard drive, internally; no swap required. As well as the ram, the video card, the sound card, etc etc etc. I can't changeout the sound card or video card on the mac. I'm stuck with what it has. Thanks so much Apple. I can't add an additional video card to the apple for quad display or coin mining, either. I can with the Acer. And, if I wanted to mine coins, I'd want more GPUS and the better CPU working together for faster coin mining results. The apple won't lemme do that. there's much more to life than mining bitcoins. the prices of apple products are competitive for similar specs, often *less* expensive. We're discussing Apple computers, specifically. Do you have any reputable sites that state an Apple computer costs about the same as an equivalent PC? If so, please provide url(s)... there are plenty of comparisons and more every day. for instance, the retina imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k display, which is just a display, no computer. you have to add the cost of the computer, which makes it quite a bit more expensive than the imac. You aren't making a fair comparison, here. oh yes i am. And the retina imac 5k had/still has? issues with backlighting and it's not exactly the speediest machine available, either. They took an older machine and gave it a new video panel, essentially. http://www.alphr.com/apple/apple-imac-1 nonsense. apple did *much* more than give it a new video panel. But, as I said, this isn't a fair comparison. Especially when you consider that it's an all in one, and not just a display that can be connected to other computers...Unlike the Dell you picked for price comparison purposes..Which is a bit pricey, considering other options... it doesn't matter whether it's an all in one or not. what matters is having comparable specs. https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac I'm assuming you picked the Dell because of it's high price, and, made no effort to see what other companies were offering theirs for. i picked the dell because both the dell and the 5k imac used the *same* lcd panel internally. the only difference was the external enclosure and that apple included a computer and dell did not. dell originally announced their 5k display for $2500, before it actually shipped: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2467511,00.asp And with the UltraSharp 27 Ultra HD 5K monitor expected to retail for a cool $2,500, you may just need Santa to foot the bill for any add-ons. except that a few months later, apple announced the 5k imac for $2500, so dell *had* to cut their price to $2000. http://www.pcworld.com/article/28447...tor-price-afte r-apple-launches-new-imac.html ...Dell, which has announced but not yet shipped its UltraSharp 5K monitor, says it will cut its price, in the wake of Applešs latest 27-inch iMac hitting the market. .... For $2,499.99, Apple is throwing an entire computing platform into its 27-inch iMac with Retina 5K Display. Dellšs UltraSharp 27 is only a monitor and the company may have had to drop its price to attract buyers, Colegrove said. So, I did it for you: https://www.amazon.com/HP-J3G14A8-AB.../dp/B00VO85RY6 Thats a commercial grade one, too. no it isn't. 'commercial grade' is meaningless and that's not in the same class as what's in an imac, which is a dci-p3 wide gamut display that's also nearly twice as bright. lesser specs cost less. no surprise there. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...28&ignorebbr=1 i7 (all retina imacs are i5) absolutely wrong. the top of the line imac is currently a 4.2 ghz i7 w/turbo boost to 4.5 ghz. when the imac pro ships later this year, the top of the line imac will be an 18 core xeon. CPU, twice the ram, twice the HD space...If compared to the prior two Apple Imacs with 5k retina otherwise, HD space is the same, ram isn't, and cpu is lacking on the Apple. The apple is using an i5. The acer is using an i7 with a higher clock frequency before 'turbo boost' again wrong. that acer has a 3.6 ghz i7, while the imac tops out wtih a 4.2 ghz i7. you're also ignoring numerous other features that the imac has, such as thunderbolt 3, a wide gamut display, *extremely* fast ssd and *much* more. tl;dr the acer has lesser specs so it costs less. the samsung galaxy s8 costs *more* than a similar iphone, as did the galaxy note 7 before it was recalled. Again, you aren't making a fair comparison here, either. oh yes i am. two flagship phones with similar features for a similar price. if you want to see charging out the ass, look no further than microsoft. the price of the microsoft surface studio is about *double* the price of a similar apple imac, with the only tangible difference being that the surface studio display pivots and supports touch. Well, you claimed that about the retina display, and, I've proven you wrong already. so unless you're willing to provide specs on what you think an equ imac is for fact checking I'm not going to take what you've written at face value. you haven't proven anything wrong. all you've done is show how grossly uninformed you are. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 21:49:10 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article XnsA7841A9453C1AHT1@z2EEd70JefktzJb64TMQebUU311g P5hrG.npCmT206Xn5lh.90b 6e2Gl51, Diesel wrote: Too complicated for you to understand, I get it. That's probably why you feel right at home on a Mac. They are good baby sitters for those who don't know, or want to learn, how the machine in front of them works. Apple prides itself on dumbing technology down and charging you out the ass for it. nonsense. Do you have any reputable sites which dispute what I wrote? reputable sites don't refer to mac users as idiots who need babysitters. only apple-bashers do that. So you have no sites to offer? all of them. not a single reputable site will insult users. See below if you want to get an idea of how much you're being ****ed over. Btw, the Acer below is considerably more upgradable if you wanted to do so. The all in one mac, due to it's very design/case/etc, isn't. who cares. what matters is getting actual work done, not opening up the box and poking around inside. Other than swapping out the HD and adding more ram, that is. With the Acer, I can add another hard drive, internally; no swap required. As well as the ram, the video card, the sound card, etc etc etc. I can't changeout the sound card or video card on the mac. I'm stuck with what it has. Thanks so much Apple. I can't add an additional video card to the apple for quad display or coin mining, either. I can with the Acer. And, if I wanted to mine coins, I'd want more GPUS and the better CPU working together for faster coin mining results. The apple won't lemme do that. there's much more to life than mining bitcoins. the prices of apple products are competitive for similar specs, often *less* expensive. We're discussing Apple computers, specifically. Do you have any reputable sites that state an Apple computer costs about the same as an equivalent PC? If so, please provide url(s)... there are plenty of comparisons and more every day. for instance, the retina imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k display, which is just a display, no computer. you have to add the cost of the computer, which makes it quite a bit more expensive than the imac. You aren't making a fair comparison, here. oh yes i am. If the Dell 5K is anything like the the two 25" UP2516D screens that I have just bought there is an awful lot of memory and computing power inside to deal with multiple color spaces etc. It's not just a bare display. I have no idea of how the Apple 5K compares in this respect or how it handles the equivalent problems. And the retina imac 5k had/still has? issues with backlighting and it's not exactly the speediest machine available, either. They took an older machine and gave it a new video panel, essentially. http://www.alphr.com/apple/apple-imac-1 nonsense. apple did *much* more than give it a new video panel. But, as I said, this isn't a fair comparison. Especially when you consider that it's an all in one, and not just a display that can be connected to other computers...Unlike the Dell you picked for price comparison purposes..Which is a bit pricey, considering other options... it doesn't matter whether it's an all in one or not. what matters is having comparable specs. https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac I'm assuming you picked the Dell because of it's high price, and, made no effort to see what other companies were offering theirs for. i picked the dell because both the dell and the 5k imac used the *same* lcd panel internally. Same backlighting too? the only difference was the external enclosure and that apple included a computer and dell did not. dell originally announced their 5k display for $2500, before it actually shipped: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2467511,00.asp And with the UltraSharp 27 Ultra HD 5K monitor expected to retail for a cool $2,500, you may just need Santa to foot the bill for any add-ons. except that a few months later, apple announced the 5k imac for $2500, so dell *had* to cut their price to $2000. http://www.pcworld.com/article/28447...tor-price-afte r-apple-launches-new-imac.html ...Dell, which has announced but not yet shipped its UltraSharp 5K monitor, says it will cut its price, in the wake of Applešs latest 27-inch iMac hitting the market. ... For $2,499.99, Apple is throwing an entire computing platform into its 27-inch iMac with Retina 5K Display. Dellšs UltraSharp 27 is only a monitor and the company may have had to drop its price to attract buyers, Colegrove said. So, I did it for you: https://www.amazon.com/HP-J3G14A8-AB.../dp/B00VO85RY6 Thats a commercial grade one, too. no it isn't. 'commercial grade' is meaningless and that's not in the same class as what's in an imac, which is a dci-p3 wide gamut display that's also nearly twice as bright. lesser specs cost less. no surprise there. https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...28&ignorebbr=1 i7 (all retina imacs are i5) absolutely wrong. the top of the line imac is currently a 4.2 ghz i7 w/turbo boost to 4.5 ghz. when the imac pro ships later this year, the top of the line imac will be an 18 core xeon. CPU, twice the ram, twice the HD space...If compared to the prior two Apple Imacs with 5k retina otherwise, HD space is the same, ram isn't, and cpu is lacking on the Apple. The apple is using an i5. The acer is using an i7 with a higher clock frequency before 'turbo boost' again wrong. that acer has a 3.6 ghz i7, while the imac tops out wtih a 4.2 ghz i7. you're also ignoring numerous other features that the imac has, such as thunderbolt 3, a wide gamut display, *extremely* fast ssd and *much* more. tl;dr the acer has lesser specs so it costs less. the samsung galaxy s8 costs *more* than a similar iphone, as did the galaxy note 7 before it was recalled. Again, you aren't making a fair comparison here, either. oh yes i am. two flagship phones with similar features for a similar price. if you want to see charging out the ass, look no further than microsoft. the price of the microsoft surface studio is about *double* the price of a similar apple imac, with the only tangible difference being that the surface studio display pivots and supports touch. Well, you claimed that about the retina display, and, I've proven you wrong already. so unless you're willing to provide specs on what you think an equ imac is for fact checking I'm not going to take what you've written at face value. you haven't proven anything wrong. all you've done is show how grossly uninformed you are. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: for instance, the retina imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k display, which is just a display, no computer. you have to add the cost of the computer, which makes it quite a bit more expensive than the imac. You aren't making a fair comparison, here. oh yes i am. If the Dell 5K is anything like the the two 25" UP2516D screens that I have just bought there is an awful lot of memory and computing power inside to deal with multiple color spaces etc. It's not just a bare display. I have no idea of how the Apple 5K compares in this respect or how it handles the equivalent problems. whatever is needed is part of the imac itself. https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac I'm assuming you picked the Dell because of it's high price, and, made no effort to see what other companies were offering theirs for. i picked the dell because both the dell and the 5k imac used the *same* lcd panel internally. Same backlighting too? that doesn't matter since the 5k panel is the major part of the cost, not the backlight, plus dell displays are well known for leaking, so even if they are they same, they're not built as well. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
On Sat, 01 Jul 2017 23:47:43 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: for instance, the retina imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k display, which is just a display, no computer. you have to add the cost of the computer, which makes it quite a bit more expensive than the imac. You aren't making a fair comparison, here. oh yes i am. If the Dell 5K is anything like the the two 25" UP2516D screens that I have just bought there is an awful lot of memory and computing power inside to deal with multiple color spaces etc. It's not just a bare display. I have no idea of how the Apple 5K compares in this respect or how it handles the equivalent problems. whatever is needed is part of the imac itself. That's right, so how nay color spaces does it recognise and how are they calibrated? https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac I'm assuming you picked the Dell because of it's high price, and, made no effort to see what other companies were offering theirs for. i picked the dell because both the dell and the 5k imac used the *same* lcd panel internally. Same backlighting too? that doesn't matter since the 5k panel is the major part of the cost, not the backlight, plus dell displays are well known for leaking, so even if they are they same, they're not built as well. All of these high gamut/resolution displays (except Eizo and the top NEC) are notorious for (light) leaking, which is wy I asked about the Apple's backlighting. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
On 7/1/2017 9:49 PM, nospam wrote:
In article XnsA7841A939CEC8HT1@z2EEd70JefktzJb64TMQebUU311gP 5hrG.npCmT206Xn5lh.90b 6e2Gl51, Diesel wrote: for what most people do, certainly for schoolkids, they're way more than adequate, and with some advantages over an old school laptop. I can't say that most people would have no further needs than what a chromebook offers. Chromebooks are not on par with a modern laptop or desktop/tower machine. They have their uses, but, they are limited as compared to the other two options I mentioned. nonsense. the only limitation is the user. chromebooks are optimized for different sorts of tasks than desktop computers. what matters is what's the best tool for a given task. no one tool does everything. Mac users feel they spent enough money on the hardware and shouldn't have to spend oodles more on software packages for it. Which tend to be on the expensive side, as well as the hardware required to run them. Apple still believes (although they are coming around to a certain extent) that closed is better. Mac machines aren't as friendly to the idea of software or hardware customization by the purchaser. They tend to make both processes rather difficult at times for the techie, so, for end users, it's a royal pita. And, it's always been this way. From the microcomputers Apple sold in the 80s to the more recent stuff they peddle now. nonsense. macs are far more customizable that windows can ever hope to be. just because you don't know how doesn't mean it can't be done. Some (many) Windows users tend to be so cheap as to pir8 the OS itself, whenever possible. And, they'll happily pirate software intended to run on it. Everything from Games to Adobe products. that's not something to be proud of. As for photoshop not working under linux, thanks to VM technologies, that's not a real claim. it is a real claim. the fact that you have to run a vm proves it can't work in linux, and running photoshop in a vm is laughable. graphics professionals would never run photoshop virtualized because unlike you, they can afford professional tools. If you want to play with Apples OS without having to purchase a Mac, you can VM it's happy ass on your native Linux box, too. not legally, you can't, and regardless, it doesn't work particularly well. You can have Linux, OSX, And Windows all running on the same physical machine, pending you have the ram, hd space, and strong enough CPU to get the work done in a reasonable amount of time. that can only be done on a mac. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X OSX is based on it, infact. not based on. os x *is* unix. windows users generally do not upgrade partly because of the cost, partly because it's a pain in the ass, which is why there are still people running windows xp, a nearly 20 year old system. Windows users infact, do, upgrade, but with the changes MS has foisted upon them with Windows 8/8.1 and now, Windows 10, many are opting not to do so. PC based systems until the past few years with MS have been about user choice and user options. Unlike Apple. windows users in general do *not* upgrade because it's a pain in the ass. Yup! It's much easier to purchase a new machine. I admit I have never upgraded a Mac. With my Lenovo, it's trivial to increase HD capacity. With my old HP, which last time I looked was a Windows machine, I repaired and upgraded several times, to expand HD capacity, until I decided to get a new machine. windows xp-7 was hell. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
THE 20D JUST LOVES CATS! | annika1980.com | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | June 4th 07 06:56 AM |
Famous cats...... | William Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 24 | May 29th 07 08:20 AM |
Cats and flash | Roger (K8RI) | Digital SLR Cameras | 20 | November 7th 06 08:14 AM |
Storing Spare CF cards next to Spare Battery | Ken | Digital Photography | 5 | July 5th 06 08:58 PM |
Cats Eye... (D70) | Seymore | Digital Photography | 0 | December 23rd 04 05:42 PM |