which PC

M-M wrote:
ASAAR wrote:
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.

Maybe you aren't saying you're interested in a Mac, but you're getting
close.

As one gets older, their tolerance for bull**** tends to decline. The
problem is that one's willingness to change also tends to decline
too. As such, it becomes a "better the Devil you know" trap.

I can't believe Windows would automatically restart without asking you
to save first.

I can't understand how Windows users tolerate updates that harm or
slow down the system.

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

Dennis makes motions that he's an expert on system security, while
remaining blind to the fact that the amount of malware on the
platforms is grossly disproportionate to their market shares.

Randall tries to point this out to him, but lacks anal correctness in
his nomenclature, so his points are sharpshooted in classical Usenet
debating style, rather than their actual substance understood and
engaged.

The bottom line is that nothing is going to be perfect, or
invulnerable. Similarly, from an advocacy perspective, people tend
to make recommendations based on the assumption that everyone else's
needs are the same as their own.

When it comes to security, on OSX, there have been a few exploits
demonstrated before patches have closed those holes, plus there are
potential exploits that remain unpatched. However, there's been no
meaningful real-world risks (yet). And while Windows has had plenty
over the years, they try to claim that they're targeted merely because
of market share instead of design elegance, while conveniently
overlooking the fact that Vista has already been compromised
("Animated Cursor" exploit), even though Vista still doesn't have the
market share of OSX. Whoopsie, another myth skewered like a bloated
pig.

There's also lots of talk about which platform is cheaper ... or
overpriced ... or whatever "value" terminology de jour you wish to
use. In the meantime, the same participants will extoll a certain
size or type of sensor chip design that's twice the cost of another's,
specifically because of aspects of photonic quantum physics that Aunt
Mabel will never be able to see with her bifocals: you have to be an
obscessed pixel peeper to have a chance of finding, while using a $500
copy of Photoshop.

Indeed, we have our priorities set straight!


Personally, I use XP and OSX on a daily basis. The one because I have
to and the other because I prefer it. My preference is strong enough
that I am willing to spend the extra money out of my own damn pocket
to avoid using the other OS when I don't have to.

Much of the reason for my personal preference is because I don't want
to be effectively forced to maintain said 'inferior OS' on my own.
Proponents of said OS claim "oh, its not that much of an effort" and
"you can set up macros to automatically update on every Patch Tuesday"
and so forth, but the bottom line is that all of that is simply
bull**** that I don't have to tolerate when there's an alternative
that I can buy and spend my time actually being productive and
enjoying what I'm doing.

In a similar fashion, I don't bother assembling my own PC anymore.
That's just like doing my own oil change to save $20, but these days,
I have much better things to do, so I'm content in paying someone else
to do that sort of drudge work. If you similarly have more money than
time, you're a fool not to.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program, of
rec.photo.digital.


-hh

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:21:59 -0400, M-M wrote:

Maybe you aren't saying you're interested in a Mac, but you're getting
close.

Close enough to not look a gift horse in the mouth, but not
otherwise.


I can't believe Windows would automatically restart without asking you
to save first.

It hasn't happened to me, but I've avoided all versions between
Win95 and XP.


I can't understand how Windows users tolerate updates that harm or slow
down the system.

They generally don't, but occasionally MS releases a fix or update
that works and is generally benign, but breaks some previously
functioning software. Their XP fixpack #2 wreaked havoc for Sony's
Sonic Stage for a good number of months (or perhaps years). I
wasn't using it, but watched the fireworks from a safe distance.
Win XP's Media Center Edition, virtually the only type installed on
most new hardware for the last couple of years before Vista, turned
out to be incompatible Palm' Desktop software, so much so that
rather than try to get it running, Palm chose to not support MCE.
Fancy that, another of MS's competitors meeting MS's Murphy.

Some users have only inertia or their investment to prevent them
from seeking a non-MS solution. Most though, are locked into
Windows because it's widely used in the office, and they're fear
compatibility issues (real and imagined) if they switch. There's
also the problem I'd have, which is that contributing in any way to
Steve Job's bank account would be just as onerous as continuing to
enrich Billy Boy Gates. Wozzup with that!

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:22:57 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




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.

Good lord, every MS document, spreadsheet and database is id'd to the
originating computer.



Do yourself a favor and run ShieldsUp! and see what happens:

http://www.grc.com/stevegibson.htm#projects

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:09:41 -0400, M-M wrote:

problem I'd have, which is that contributing in any way to
Steve Job's bank account would be just as onerous as continuing to
enrich Billy Boy Gates.

Why would either bother you?

Don't like 'em, nor have I ever set foot in a Trump hotel, casino,
tower or watched any of his TV appearances, but I sometimes can't
avoid glimpsing an ad (dis)graced by his smarmy mug. He has a
particularly repulsive smile in a recent ad where he's pushing his
overpriced line of steaks. I guess he doesn't care as long as his
ad spells his own name right.

If there was a well built, efficient, inexpensive to own and
operate vehicle that was called the Bushmobile or Cheney Carriage,
I'd try to find a reasonable alternative, assuming that one existed.
I also stopped going to an unnamed food establishment for a
considerable number of years when they tried to convert me from
asking for french fries to having to ask for a "Biggie Fry". The
same goes for wanting to try "Freedom Fries".

In the same vein, although I like the NY Yankees, when Der
Steinbrenner tried to drum up support for getting the public to
contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to help him move Yankee
Stadium to an already overcongested Manhattan by repeatedly trying
to inject anti-Latino racism and mendaciously smear the Stadium's
location as being excessively dangerous and crime ridden, I stopped
attending games. As for Manhattan's congestion, there are currently
plans in the works that would charge the public an $8 toll if want
to drive their cars into some parts of Manhattan. And now
Steinbrenner is constructing Yankee Stadium's replacement across the
street, in what is still one of the safer parts of the city. And of
course his "fear" and "smear" tactics have long been abandoned.

I still don't like the unethical Gates nor the slick, unctuous
Jobs. As I hinted, I'd be more inclined towards Apple if the overly
style conscious Jobs was replaced by the forthright Wozniak, but
that's not about to happen, and I never cared enough about Apple or
its products to hope that they'd change for the better. Somehow I
have a warm glow, knowing that I don't use a computer that has a
marketing legacy of being referred to as "insanely great", and has
the fanatical support of those such as R.A., who probably makes many
reasonable Apple owners cringe whenever he comments on computers,
operating systems or malware. Not that he often does any better
when commenting on photography, although an occasionally useful
wedding photography tip might sneak in between the snide comments.

"dennis@home" wrote:

"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message
...

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.

Do you want to look at that in detail?

Mac OS X has less functionality than Vista (not that it matters to me as I
run applications and not OSes as such).
OS updates for windows install themselves and what's more they are free and
don't cost $150 pa when a new "version" arrives.
There are security issues on Macs if you haven't been patching them you are
asking for trouble.

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.

You can even buy a two or three button mouse for a Mac to make it useable.
PS what *idiot* invented a circular mouse for a Mac?


Hello, Dennis:

Why are you trying to reason with these Apple-addled, poor souls?
They're incurably confused, t'would seem! ;-)


Cordially,
John Turco

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:21:36 -0400, M-M wrote:

Don't like 'em, nor have I ever set foot in a Trump hotel

snippity snip snip

egads, you sure let a lot of things bother you.

Nope, you've got it all wrong. Some of those things *would*
bother me if I had to regularly deal with them, but since I don't,
I'm almost happy as a clam. As already remarked, if the price were
right I'd even use Stevie's little Mac wonder. And despite linux's
low entry price, I'm still submitting to Billy Boy's octopus. Der
George's antics never stopped my from enjoying games on the radio or
the few that made it to the tube, and even he has undergone age's
mellowing, so I'll probably make it to the Stadium once more before
it's torn down. But since you mentioned it, and I've made no secret
of it, there are one or two other things that do bother me, and
should bother others, so I'll continue . . .

Some are hard to avoid because their actions have consequences
that effect all of us, and that includes the aforementioned
Bush/Cheney. BTW, there's a scandal brewing that's getting
extensive coverage in Europe and Britain but so far that doesn't
seem to have been echoed here. Seems that Shrub's Saudi buddy,
"Bandar Bush", long time favorite of the Bush dynasty, and who was
an oft invited guest to Bush House (USA, not UK) has been collecting
secret payoffs arranged by the British gov't as stipulated in a
hidden clause in the Saudi contract for purchasing planes for their
Air Force from Britain, and the amount that Bandar Bush has been
collecting under the table for the last 10 years is the very tidy
sum of nearly 1/4 billion dollars per year. Tony Blair killed an
investigation into this scandal about a year ago, but now that it's
out, is trying to defend it by saying (among other things) that if
Britain didn't capitulate to the deal, or didn't keep it secret, the
Saudis would not only buy the jets elsewhere, but would hence refuse
to provide intelligence to Britain. Blair claims that this
intelligence was vital to being able to combat terrorism. However,
this deal was made four years before the Saudi terrorists piloted
their hijacked aircraft into USA targets back in 2001. Of course
the Saudis didn't want any of this made public. After all, 10 years
ago they had their hand full with a guy named Bin Ladn, who not only
wanted to overthrow Saddam, but the secular Saudi princes as well.
Yep, I'd say that many of Bush and Cheney's unreported deals have
also had consequences, many of which are affecting us negatively,
and yes, this is an example of something that bothers me, but it
doesn't bother most other people for several reasons. For one, they
have a hard time hearing of or reading about actions that don't get
reported. For another, they subscribe to "See no evil. Hear no
evil. Say no evil." as do all good, loyal, patriotic Americans.


What do you like?

Too many things to enumerate more than a tiny fraction or in any
detail, but broadly, good music, food, books, photography, family,
children, other cultures, especially those within walking distance
(and that means from 5 up to a 10 mile radius), many plants (even
those that target me with their pollen), animals and non-biting
bugs. Those that would bite me, that is. Oh, one more that I
really shouldn't fail to mention, several of your bluebird photos.

Ron Hunter wrote:
Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , M-M
wrote:

Macintosh, of course!
ALRIGHT! Someone with a clue!
Yes.. Apple.. they know how to exploit style over function.
Style makes money while you have to work harder with function.

I bet that if Apple took PC and put a logo and a white case on it you
would say it was the best PC ever.
Hang on that's what they have done.

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.

If you were actually familiar with Apple software updates, you would be
aware OS X has frequent(monthly) updates which detail the fixes dealing
mostly with such things as Java or QuickTime streaming vulnerabilities.
They are a simple download and install. There are very few major
"Service Pack" fixes as they are not needed.

As far as documented exploitations, whether they are "viruses" (or is
that Virii?) or a software security violation none have been put to
actual use. Those crowed about have been proof of concept bugs, mostly
exposing Java or QuickTime. The most recent of these was a QuickTime
vulnerability when using Safari, which only worked when the
"Competition" judges were directed to a specially constructed web site.

Apple plugged this hole without any victims being identified in less
than a week.

All of the talk of Apple vulnerabilities for the most part has turned
out to be FUD from so called IT security experts.

For those who care to deal with the OP's question, he should get the PC
he can afford together with software to do the work he wants to
accomplish. There are affordable Macs which can do this well, there
Windows machines which can do the same. Different strokes for different
folks, so to speak. Personally I have to use Windows machines at work
and I tolerate them knowing my four Macs at home do not have the
problems our IT has to deal with.

John McWilliams wrote:
Scott Schuckert wrote:
In article , Shawn
Hirn wrote:

Consider a Mac; there are several models to look at. With a Mac, you
get Apple's world class customer service, tops in user friendliness,
tops in reliability, and the ability to run all Windows and Mac
software. Out of the box, the Mac will come with a very good tool to
work with photos.

What he said. For the most part, you're using application software like
Photoshop, so re-learning your applications isn't an issue; in fact
re-buying it may not be either. Adobe offers an exchange where you can
swap your software for the Mac versions for just a few dollars.

And as stated, if for some reason you need specific Windows apps or
even want to go back to Windows entirely, you can keep the Macintosh
hardware. I know a few people who've bought high end Macs specifically
to run Windows because THEY WERE A BETTER VALUE.

While Apple refuses to compete in the bottom end of the market, their
better computers are actually cheaper than an equivalent PC.

So, it's cheaper, better made, better supported, may not require
retraining or repurchasing software, and will run virtually anything
out there - Windows, OSX, Linux... Seems like an easy choice.

I guess for so many years when the Mac was more expensive on the simple
test of cpu speed I now have a hard time thinking of the Mac as cheaper
in upfront costs. Even if it costs more initially, and clearly it always
doesn't, it's much cheaper to run in terms of maintenance and
reliability. (time=money). Not to mention more aesthetic than the boxes,
and more fun. Unless you're a gamer, then bye-bye.

An easy choice for those of us not tethered to some corporation with a
huge self fulfilling IT department.


I agree. Just remember those locked into the idea of rejecting a Mac
because of gaming could spent upwards of $6000 for a "state of the art"
Windows gaming machine. I doubt that the purchasers of those machines
would be running any serious photo editing software or any serious
software of any type for that matter.
The alternative is all the Mac has to offer, with the option to run XP
or Vista or Linux for that matter.
BootCamp will run Vista as well as any Dell
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/06...camp/index.php.

Parallels Desktop has released 3.0
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/06...lels/index.php

and there is TransGaming Cider
http://www.transgaming.com/index.php...eid= 24&meid=

More than enough Windows options for the Mac user needing a taste of the
Dark Side.

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 read stories (fanfiction) which are downloaded, and saved in a text
editor format. I often spend a week with such a story loaded on my
laptop, and minimized. I HATE losing my place, and any minor edits I
might have done. I also don't like the idea of a reboot being done
without my knowledge, and consent (control freak). Nothing much at risk
but my convenience. I also like to know what updates are being done,
and what they do, before I let them run.

jdear64 wrote:
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?

sure.
http://www.virusthreatcenter.com/art...x?articleId=75
http://secunia.com/advisories/11622/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-faq/

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2001/06/20.2.shtml
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125...w=wn_tophead_2

Mon Sep 26, 4:39 PM ET

Apple Computer (Nasdaq: AAPL - news) has issued fixes for 10 security
holes that have been rated as "critical" by security firms.

The patches, which are available through Apple's Web site, fix
vulnerabilities in versions 10.3.9 and 10.4.2 of the company's Mac
OS X operating system.

Although no exploits have been reported as of yet, both Symantec
(Nasdaq: SYMC - news) and the French Security Incident Response Team
have noted that the flaws are serious and that users with those systems
should apply the patches immediately.

Topic: Apple
UPDATE: There's a lot of debate about whether this is a real worm, or
merely an elaborate, executable script that the user is tricked into
running. It appears to be a worm -- it's self-containing code that
replicates itself over the Net (def.). But it also requires the user to
agree to accept it as an iChat file transfer, which is a Trojan trait.
It does not require the user to enter a password to be installed, like
an OS X application. Nor does it warn the user they may be dealing with
an executable file, as Safari does when downloading software off the
Net. So it's more than a simple script-kiddie Applescript. Also, it may
be mostly harmless now, but will likely lead to much nastier versions in
the future, according to this analysis from the programmers at Rixstep:
"Future versions of the same worm or spin-offs from it are bound to be
destructive and much more intrusive. By exploiting several weaknesses in
Apple's file system, (Leap-A) and its successors will work."


t took a hacker less than 30 minutes to gain root-level access to Mac
OS X, according to a report from ZDNet. The hacker who penetrated the
system called the Mac "easy pickings."
ADVERTISEMENT
[0]


The security breach took place on February 22 after a Swedish devotee of
the Mac set up a Mac Mini as a server and invited all takers to try to
compromise the system's security to gain root-level control. Once a
hacker has gained root access to a computer system, the attacker can
install applications, delete files and folders, and use the computer for
any nefarious purpose.

The competition was over in a matter of hours after a hacker, who asked
to be identified only as "Gwerdna," gained access to the server in
question and defaced the Web site with a message that read, "This sucks.
Six hours later this poor little Mac was owned and this page got defaced."

Reports in recent weeks of nasty viruses and hack attempts on the
Macintosh operating system have led security researchers to remind
everyone that both Mac
OS X and Microsoft Windows have roughly the same vulnerabilities. The
only difference has been that hackers prefer to go after Windows, which
runs on roughly 90 percent of all computers, rather than waste time on
the Macintosh, which has a market share of about 3.5 percent.

However, even with the protection of being in the minority, the Mac
enthusiast's days of security superiority -- and, some might say, smug
satisfaction -- could be waning. Once thought invulnerable by many in
its core user base, the Mac might finally be "worthy" of targeting by
hackers who once considered it small potatoes.

If that's true, then Apple's legion of defenders, whose devotion to the
company can border on evangelical zeal, will have to change more than
their perspective.


New Trojan Takes On Mac OS X


By Gregg Keizer, TechWeb Technology News

Just days after Apple Computer patched its Mac OS X for five
vulnerabilities, a security firm Friday warned that an exploit against
one of the fixed flaws has appeared.

Symantec posted a notice of a Trojan horse it called
"OSX.Exploit.Launchd" on its security site, but had few details other
than a successful installation would give an attacker root, or complete,
access to Mac OS X 10.4.6 and earlier systems.

Tuesday, Apple updated Mac OS X to 10.4.7 to, among other things, plug
five security holes. One of the five flaws was in "launchd," the
operating system's program launch mechanism; launchd was prone to a
local format-string vulnerability, Apple said in its 10.4.7 security
advisory.

The Tuesday update protects vulnerable Mac OS X users against the Trojan.

Although exploits against Apple's operating system are rare, it's common
in the Windows world for attack code to pop up within days of Microsoft
releasing security fixes; hackers often reverse engineer a patch to
figure out the exact vulnerability so that they can crank out a working
exploit.

03/04/2007
Viruses are not as big a problem as spyware. And with websites like
myspace you have to be very careful. I caught one even on my iMac,
but I have disabled it. The same virus created tons of typos in my
computer system whenever I wrote inside of my browsers, and would
freeze my computer if I left it on all night. It is easy to find bugs
in software that goes online, and spill stuff into the rest of memory
inside of the program and start rewriting code. Mozilla and other
pieces of software are built so they can patch themselves already, so
you just have to know how to get memory to patch software up and it
infects what you already have on your system. This is trivial, but
installing backdoors and spyware is near impossible anymore,
especially on myspace. Viruses make you think you have spyware, or at
least that you or your computer are having some issues.

That enough?

This list may be a bit old, but given that so many Mac users don't do OS
updates, I believe it is pertinent.