which PC

In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

Just answer the question.
You keep saying macs are safer than other systems.. that is not true as the
user can still install malware.
I say they are more likely too as other mac users keep telling them that
they are invulnerable.

Yeah, stupid people can install malware...*IF SOME EXISTED*!

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

What? Don't you know that Mac users, like their computers, are without
flaw, and invulnerable? They would NEVER install malware. At least
that is the position many seem to take here.

Gee, I don't know. I guess we'll have to wait until some malware for OS
X exists in the wild.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:41:43 +0100, dennis@home wrote:



"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 05:11:47 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
wrote:


In article , David J
Taylor
wrote:

Which has nothing to do with a longer-term evaluation of how well it
protects its users - the topic under discussion.

Annoying users by asking them to Allow or Deny every time they touch
the mouse is hardly security. Users will tire of it soon and turn off
the "feature." Now, if Microsoft had designed the operating system
right from the beginning...

Even if they don't turn it off, they will ignore all the "security
warnings"
and just click there way past all the warning labels to try and accomplish
what they want to do.

Well at least you see what the biggest problem is in computer security.. the
users.

Sounds like detroit and their deathtraps of the 50's and 60's. Turn
hard and the car flips over -- obviously it's operator error.

Sorry, it is *not* the users fault that microsoft has failed to embrace 60's
technology and protect the operating system.

"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.


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.


Its you who thinks everyone should use a mac even if its cr@p for the job.

This is yet another flat-out lie by "Dennis".



-hh

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Ron Hunter wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
was in XP or Vista when saw it. Do Microsoft
filesystems actually still need to be defragged????)

Yes, as do ALL file systems. The OS you use MAY do it
transparently, but it MUST be done.

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.

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.

however, for normal day to day activities, disk fragmentation is not
critical, except perhaps, for windows.

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
was in XP or Vista when saw it. Do Microsoft
filesystems actually still need to be defragged????)

Yes, as do ALL file systems. The OS you use MAY do it
transparently, but it MUST be done.

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.

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.

If you have a single tasking, single user system it is
possible to have an otherwise decent file system that
can benefit from defraggging (but it is still
"relatively" a poor design, because others don't need to
be defragged at all).

however, for normal day to day activities, disk fragmentation is not
critical, except perhaps, for windows.

Exactly my point (which is why I was precise in defining
it as multi-user multi-tasking).

Of course a modern hard disk with sufficient internal
buffering and ordered disk write makes it somewhat
difficult to actually come up with a filesystem so poor
that it required defragging. But Microsoft seems to
manage it...

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

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.

Ron Hunter wrote:
-hh wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
I sincerely hope I NEVER have to use an OS that will protect me from
myself.


If this applies to products other than an OS, perhaps you'll open your
eyes and see just in how many ways your "freedoms" are already being
curtailed.

There's pharmaceuticals that you're not allowed to buy, for example.

And if you own a car, the odds are around 95% that it understeers (not
neutral, not oversteer). This is an element of design that is now
specifically present "to protect you from yourself". But I'll bet
that you'll give up driving a car.


YMMV, but I know that I'm subject to human errors. As such, a system
that is designed to be forgiving of faults is a more desirable
characteristic than one that waits for me to screw up and then mets
out a severe punishment. Who here would be willing to let their
keyboard be rewired to have 50,000 volts so that the first typo they
make result in a lethal shock?

Yes, this is a bit Reductio Ad Absurdium, but there are elements to
design for how to interface with forgiveness instead of
intolerance...and with your political comment (deleted), you're trying
to be one of the intolerant types, so perhaps a dose of your own
medicine is in order.


Suppose the designers decide I shouldn't be able to do
something I NEED to do, or just WANT to do.

Such as perhaps elements of DRM? It doesn't sound like that bad of a
thing if the DRM's purpose was perhaps to restrict the ability of
others to steal your copyrighted photos, doesn't it?


There's always more than one side to any story. Deal with it.

I refuse to let devices relieve me of the responsibility for my actions.

So your car is without any safety features? You disconnected the
grounding wire in your house? Threw out the smoke alarms?

I don't use the 'recycle bin'. I don't use 'system restore' (which
can make matters worse), and I turn off warnings about deletions, etc.

Drive through red lights (you don't need a machine telling you when
it's safe to drive through an intersections).

Most of these things waste space, and time, ALL the time to prevent a
rare error from causing data loss. This violates the principles of
'loss management'. If I screw up, then the pain makes me more careful
in the future.

I think that you are an idiot.

--
Ray Fischer

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Ron Hunter wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
was in XP or Vista when saw it. Do Microsoft
filesystems actually still need to be defragged????)

Yes, as do ALL file systems. The OS you use MAY do it
transparently, but it MUST be done.

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.

I would have to agree at least in part.. you don't need to defrag a disk
(note disk not file system as a file system may not be on a disk).
You don't even have to defrag windows.

However there /is/ a performance boost from defraging a file system.


I have software that does this automatically on my
computers, so it may seem that I never do it, but the
software DOES do the job, just without my attention.

Then you are using a exceedingly crude filesystem.

Anyone who thinks this job need not be done just doesn't
understand the realities of disk storage.

You don't understand file system.

I understand filesystem and that he was talking about disk based
filesystems.
Disks are faster if you can stream the file without having to do seeks..
without defragging and compaction you will end up with files that require
seeks and it will slow the system down.
The only systems where this isn't true are specialised ones like some
databases use and even then the database will have some sort of optimisation
built in.

"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..
however older disks did stupid things like thermal recalibration which
effectively rendered the drive unusable for a short period and this caused
dropped frames.. it appeared that they did these stupid things less often if
the disk wasn't seeking as much and so defragging appeared to be the cure.
At one time you could even buy AV compatible drives.. these had different
firmware that spread the thermal recalibration out (at the expense of
performance). These days modern disks don't usually suffer from these odd
randomish pauses at all so you probably need some new drives.