which PC

Allen wrote:
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
Yes, UPS on both desktops, and the laptop has a working battery
installed. Power here is irregular enough to make an UPS necessary for
those who use their computers 24/7.

M-M wrote:
In article ,
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.

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.


Well, frankly, if I had to use a Mac, I just wouldn't use a computer.

As for Windows restarting without asking to save, yes, it WILL if you
let updates run automatically. BAD Karma!

As for updates that harm, or slow down, the system, you never REALLY
know how an update may affect your installation until you install it.
Thats why MOST Windows updates have uninstall facilities. It's rare,
but I have had to uninstall a couple over the years.

ASAAR wrote:
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.



Woz is much too 'techy-Geek' to appeal to the masses. Jobs has the
business accumen to make the company work, and the feel for what the
public wants. I suspect Woz. hardly realizes there IS a 'public'.
I feel pretty much as you do about D. Trump. Some of his hijinks remind
me of Rush Limbaugh.

Savageduck wrote:
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.


Hummm. WinXP service pack 1 and 2. OS X is up to what? 6?

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.


Java and quickTime exploits may affect Windows users as well, given both
are on both platforms.

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


How wonderful, BUT, given that most Mac users seem to think they are
invulnerable, how may users actually install these fixes, or even know
about them?

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


Go ahead and ignore them, and don't do the updates, and don't bother
using your seat belts either.

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.


Different ways of thinking, and doing things, demand different tools.
And ANY tool will require some amount of attention in order to continue
to function properly, so I don't buy the 'maintenance-free' Mac concept,
not at all.
At the very LEAST one needs to go through periodically and eliminate
useless files, and ALL disk formats fragment, yet I have never heard of
a Mac user mentioning this. Or do they just ignore the realities of
disk fragmentation until their disk access slows to a crawl, and buy a
new computer?

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...


Unix was designed to work with several users and has built in protection.
Of
course, the first worms were UNIX based. It is one of the oldest OS there
is. Your assertion of many problems since is not based on fact.

I know what unix is thanks.. I have designed and delivered systems used by
50 million people based on unix.


Windoze was built with a single operator in mind and from the get-go could
be compromised. Vista has made that a little more difficult but it is a
sloth.

To this date, NO successful trojan, worm, viri, etc., has compromised OS
X,
partially due to the fact that the OS automatically updates itself, with
the
owner's permission, of course. Windoze has more unknown holes than swiss
cheese.


I see you qualify it with successful.
I suppose that safari was unsuccessful in that after it had installed itself
it corrupted files. However all software has bugs but they will be fixed.

Have a look on kaspersky's viruslist.com at the vulnerabilities while run a
mac if you still think you are safe.

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...



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


You actually think Steve knows anything about security?

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
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.

Its not personal data though is it.

Although if you include author and copyright in there then it will.

"-hh" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

No its idiots that think there computer is secure just because of its brand.
I have never said that PCs are better than Macs.

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.

Rubbish.
The amount of malware has little to do with the needs of security.
If you understood even the basics of security you would know that.
What the quantity does effect is the cost of dealing with it and what tools
you can get to help.

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.

Your points aren't much better IMO.
You just make assumptions like its a Mac/PC war when it isn't.

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.

Well at least you admit that I am right when I said OS x wasn't invulnerable
and any one who thinks it is is stupid.
The same stupid people that got into the Macs are better than PCs when it
was security that was the issue and not which is better.
All because I pointed out that macs are not more secure than PCs.

Personally I use whichever runs the application I want to run in an
acceptable way.
If I need to run mac software I use a mac.
If I need to run windows I use a PC.
I also run Linux and a few others.
All are keept as secure as I can and I have had zero viruses on any of my
machines in the many years I have been using them.

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.

That would be the myth that OS x has a bigger market share than vista.
How many copies of OS x have been sold v vista then?
How many copies of vista are running which haven't been sold?
If you really think OS x is a major player then I have a nice bridge for
sale.. its in London.


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.

Just run freeBSD its the core of OS x without all the frills that you don't
see while running applications.
Its a bit of a pain to administer though.. but at least you will better
understand how OS x works.

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...




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?


Probably not a yank, I doubt if I am too young I have been designing
computer hardware and systems for 28 years..

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...


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.


And the effect of that was... Oh I know Macs could run as fast as Intel PCs.
How does that differ from what I said?

Apple aren't stupid.. they can see when a technology is causing problems and
change tack.