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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
On 6/6/07 1:43 PM, in article , "dennis@home" wrote: "M-M" wrote in message ... In article , "dennis@home" wrote: What do you think makes OSx invulnerable? Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into everyone's system to check if they paid for it. If Gates can get in, so can you. Irrational that one. At least M$ don't embed personal data in media. Do yourself a favor and run ShieldsUp! and see what happens: http://www.grc.com/stevegibson.htm#projects |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:02:11 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
WinXP supports automatic updates, but I don't do them that way because it often reboots the machine after the update is performed and I often leave work open on the computer for several days at a time, and I don't want to come back and find that the changes I have made weren't saved before the reboot. Most annoying! Ron- Not saving periodically is just asking to lose work. Not being bothered to save in order to avoid an update seems also like you're playing unnecessarily with fire. Even if the computer did not automatically reboot after installing an automatic update, automatically installing *all* updates is also playing with fire. As Windows experts have long known, it's best to install only needed updates, since some will produce adverse effects. Unfortunately, MS provides minimal information about what is contained in the updates, who they would most benefit, and most importantly, who might be well advised to pass on the updates. This isn't to say that I have any interest in using a Mac, but NT and Vista are siblings of Microsoft's Topsy family of Operating Systems, whose excessive, bloated growth sometimes seems gruesome. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
On 6/6/07 2:52 PM, in article , "dennis@home" wrote: "George Kerby" wrote in message ... What do you think is the reason for this? And DON'T come up with "no one wants to mess with such a small percentage" ****. The successful Mac hacker would become famous and welcomed to the Hacker Hall of Fame. It's not that they aren't TRYING. THEY CAN'T! So far, at least... If I were a Windows user, my next box would be an Intel Mac, so if I were still afraid of a new OS, I could boot right into Vista or whatever. My next PC is going to be a tablet.. something lacking in apples line up. Oh really? 'Big Chief', I'd bet... ??? Too young, eh? |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
On 6/6/07 3:33 PM, in article , "dennis@home" wrote: "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , "dennis@home" wrote: Mac OS X has less functionality than Vista (not that it matters to me as I run applications and not OSes as such). specifically, how? OS updates for windows install themselves and what's more they are free and don't cost $150 pa when a new "version" arrives. nonsense. os x automatically updates itself for free, unless the user disables that feature. major updates occur every two years or so, with quite a lot of enhancements; the suggested retail price of os x is $129 and it can easily be found for $99 or less. Do you want to remind us what the major enhansments were in the last $99 dollar upgrade? There are security issues on Macs if you haven't been patching them you are asking for trouble. they are all *potential* issues; none have actually been exploited in a mass attack. there are some proof of concepts that could do some damage, but they almost universally require the user to explicitly install something and/or supply their administrator password. malware that needs user permission is hardly a threat. Oh the hardware in Macs is as close to a PC as you can get too. Just as well really as Mac performance was getting very slow compared to PCs. not based on benchmarks. Oh come on, even Apple admit that Macs were getting slow compared to PCs and that is why they went to Intel PC architectures. Now they are the same speed as PCs. You really are about as much in touch with reality as the Iraqui Information Minister aren't you?!? They went to Intel because TI wouldn't/couldn't make RAM that wouldn't run faster without overheating. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
On 6/6/07 3:36 PM, in article , "dennis@home" wrote: "nospam" wrote in message ... In article , "dennis@home" wrote: Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into everyone's system to check if they paid for it. If Gates can get in, so can you. Irrational that one. At least M$ don't embed personal data in media. if you are referring to the itunes drm-free music, what did you expect them to do? if there was no identifying information, then people would post the songs to the filesharing sites. having an email embedded in it enables apple and the music companies to see who is illicitly sharing music and breaking the law. it is essentially the same as having a name & serial number to register an application. No its embedding personal data when a serial number would do the job without giving away personal data that other people are not entitled too. And those folks shouldn't be giving it away. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
On Jun 7, 1:38 am, Ron Hunter wrote:
Randall Ainsworth wrote: In article , "dennis@home" wrote: the patches that is. You may not have as you appear to be invulnerable. There are none now, nor have there been since it was introduced way back in 2001 - no viruses or spyware for OS X. sigh. You go on thinking that, but the facts are not as you believe. You may be right ( or not ), but can you provide any evidence of any? |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
On 6/7/07 2:20 AM, in article , "dennis@home" wrote: "Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message ... In article , "dennis@home" wrote: What do you think makes OSx invulnerable? That's an easy one. By default, you're not logged on as an admin with root access. DOH! You don't understand computer security at all do you? Sure he does. He owns a Mac. OTOH, you have to baby your bloated OS to keep the malware from making them zombies. Get over it... |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
John McWilliams wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: John McWilliams wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: Shawn Hirn wrote: Not true at all. Try the latest Macs with Photoshop and see for yourself or just check out iPhoto 6, which is great for the typical amateur photographer. I use Macs and Windows XP daily. Mac OS X runs rings around Windows for functionality, reliability, and ease of use, plus I spend a lot less time doing maintenance stuff such as installing OS updates and no security issues. Oh? You mean you haven't been installing the updates to Mac OS X? Maybe you should pay attention to them. I understand there are several. It pays to keep up with such things. And ALL computers are subject to security issues. Can't speak for Shawn, but when I say I spend less time with updates is because they are automatic, sure, and easy. It does pay to be up to date, and it's more important on 'Doze due to sheer number of exploits. WinXP supports automatic updates, but I don't do them that way because it often reboots the machine after the update is performed and I often leave work open on the computer for several days at a time, and I don't want to come back and find that the changes I have made weren't saved before the reboot. Most annoying! Ron- Not saving periodically is just asking to lose work. Not being bothered to save in order to avoid an update seems also like you're playing unnecessarily with fire. I hope that he has a UPS. Allen |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
which PC
ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:02:11 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: WinXP supports automatic updates, but I don't do them that way because it often reboots the machine after the update is performed and I often leave work open on the computer for several days at a time, and I don't want to come back and find that the changes I have made weren't saved before the reboot. Most annoying! Ron- Not saving periodically is just asking to lose work. Not being bothered to save in order to avoid an update seems also like you're playing unnecessarily with fire. Even if the computer did not automatically reboot after installing an automatic update, automatically installing *all* updates is also playing with fire. As Windows experts have long known, it's best to install only needed updates, since some will produce adverse effects. Unfortunately, MS provides minimal information about what is contained in the updates, who they would most benefit, and most importantly, who might be well advised to pass on the updates. This isn't to say that I have any interest in using a Mac, but NT and Vista are siblings of Microsoft's Topsy family of Operating Systems, whose excessive, bloated growth sometimes seems gruesome. Of course you don't; nor does Ron. It'd be far to easy, and there'd be less to argue over. Note I didn't suggest blindly installing updates on 'Doze, but that Ron save his work more judiciously. -- john mcwilliams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|