Where I keep my spare cats.

In article , Diesel
wrote:


people buy computers to do actual work *not* to open it up and
swap parts, something totally lost on you.

Nothing lost on me. You defend what is essentially a niche market
intended for the types of users that require hand holding. More so
than that of Windows users.

nonsense.

windows users need a lot more handholding than mac users, they generate
far more support calls and overall, cost more to support.

https://www.jamf.com/blog/debate-ove...acs-are-535-le
ss-expensive-than-pcs/
But isn¹t it expensive, and doesn¹t it overload IT? No. IBM found
that not only do PCs drive twice the amount of support calls, they¹re
also three times more expensive. That¹s right, depending on the
model, IBM is saving anywhere from $273 - $543 per Mac compared to a
PC, over a four-year lifespan. ³And this reflects the best pricing
we¹ve ever gotten from Microsoft,² Previn said. Multiply that number
by the 100,000+ Macs IBM expects to have deployed by the end of the
year, and we¹re talking some serious savings.

there's much more to life than mining whichever cryptocurrency is
the latest fad (and that's all it is). if you think you're going
to get rich that way, you're in for a very big and unpleasant
surprise.

Rich? No, but, depending on the coins you're dealing in, it's not
chump change either. One coin could buy you a new mac, if you wanted
to waste that kind of money on it.

one coin could buy a whole bunch of macs, and it wouldn't be a waste
either. quite the opposite, actually.

Point is, for less money, I get a faster machine that has
upgradability. Unlike the mac you claimed was 'better'

better depends on the task.

Indeed.

yet you dismiss anything apple without even seeing if it's the best
choice (which in many cases, it is).

there is no single computer that is better at everything.

I never claimed otherwise.

yes you did claim otherwise, including below, where you try to justify
a mining system for photo editing and writing papers.

a system optimized for cryptocurrency is not ideal for other
tasks, such as editing photos or writing school papers.

You're showing gross ignorance of the subject again. I think you'd
find editing photos on a mining rig to be quite responsive.

you're showing just how little you know about photo editing, among many
other things.

mining is highly compute bound, not i/o bound.

a system optimized for one will have numerous compromises for the other.

one obvious difference is that a system optimized for mining isn't
going to have multiple wide gamut displays. there would be no point.
it's not like anyone is going to sit there watching the mining. it
could even be a headless system with no display at all.

Writing
papers could be done too, but, a total waste of good hardware in
doing so.

it could, but it would be about the worst possible choice for all sorts
of reasons.

what makes something better is how well it does the tasks someone
needs to do, not what the number on the box says or how many parts
you can stuff inside.

Part specs matter. Not to you, obviously, but to those of us who
aren't simply end users tied to a particular name, it does.

i'm not talking about what matters to me, nor am i tied to a particular
name.

i get the best product for a given task, no matter who makes it, which
is what most people do.

you don't.

you're also incorrectly assuming that the only thing that matters
are hardware specs, completely ignoring software. even the most
tricked out pc can't do things a mac can do.

Which things, specifically? Cite examples.

what for? you're just going to argue.

your mind is made up and you aren't interested in learning anything.

nevertheless, here's a few that come to mind and in no particular
order: easy migration, target disk mode, target display mode on select
models, handoff & continuity, airdrop, quicklook, universal clipboard,
touchid, applepay, touchbar, secure element, unix under the hood,
cocoa, metal, multitouch gestures, forcetouch trackpad, wide gamut
display, messages/calls with any device, versioning, local facial &
scene recognition, differential privacy, machine learning, time
machine, snapshots, higher user productivity, lower cost of ownership
and higher resale value.

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.

I'll try again.

it's best you don't, because you will fail even worse than you
already have.

Despite your efforts to spin, I'm not the one who's fallen on my arse
in this subject.

yes you have, and hard.

Do you have any reputable sites that state an Apple computer
costs about the same as an equivalent PC? If yes, provide url(s).
Seems like a simple request to me.

what part of *all* is not clear?

Urls then?

*every* site that does a fair and unbiased comparison (i.e.,
reputable) will not only find that macs and pcs with similar specs
cost about the same, but in many cases, the mac is *less*
expensive.

Urls then?

already supplied. you ignored them.

when a pc computer costs less, it's because its specs are less.

I already demonstrated in the post from May that your statement
wasn't accurate. At the time of my post, Apple had weaker machines
that cost more than the PC I forked specs of...And, it wasn't even a
high end PC.

no they didn't.

you claimed imacs didn't have i7 chips when they've had them for years.

your acer also lacks thunderbolt 3, usb-c 3.1 gen 2 and ships with
windows home.

so it's no surprise it costs less. the specs are less.

just about every product apple makes has custom apple-designed
components. in fact, apple has over 10,000 engineers designing a
wide variety of custom chips, well beyond what's available to a
run of the mill pc.

Propreitary, closed source, so Apple and Apple alone can fleece you
for whatever amount they deem appropriate.

you have that entirely *backwards*.

windows is closed source, while much of macos is open source.

microsoft fleeces customers, charging $200 for windows 10 pro, which is
almost half the price of the least expensive mac and that's just for
the operating system!

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/stor...77x4d43rkt/48D
N

if it wasn't for mac os being free, there never would have been a free
upgrade to windows 10 for the first year.

I think if we took a head
count of all the PC engineers, it would grossly exceed the amount
Apple has.

you're confusing quantity with quality.

PC technologies are so good, Apple is going with Intel
processors, in lieu of their own.

wrong on that too.

apple designs their own processors for ios devices and soon for macs.

apple's processors are already matching intel in benchmarks and in some
cases, exceeding.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/16/1...fusion-process
or-apple-intel-future
The iPhone's new chip should worry Intel
It is Apple, not AMD, that threatens Intel¹s hegemony
....
...A quick look at the Geekbench scores attained by the iPhone 7
quantifies a staggering achievement: the single-core performance of
Apple¹s latest generation of smartphone processors has basically
caught up with Intel¹s laptops CPUs. The A10 chip inside the iPhone 7
comfortably outpaces its predecessors and Android rivals, and even
outdoes a wide catalog of relatively recent Mac computers (including
the not-so-recent Mac Pro).

and that's *last* year's processor. the next iphone, with the a11
processor, is expected in just two months (and unlike intel, it won't
be late).

microsoft is also moving away from intel processors because they too
see the writing on the wall.

the future are mobile devices powered by arm based processors.

no it definitely doesn't, and you're also fixated on solely
hardware specs, which means very little in the grand scheme of
things.

It means quite a bit more than you're willing to admit, actually.

it doesn't at all.

what matters is choosing the best tool for the job.

even the most tricked out pc can't do many of the things even a
low end mac can do.

Examples?

see above.

you snipped the links that show you to be wrong. here they are
again:

Let's not even begin with link snipping accusations. I left a few in
my post from May with cost figures. You didn't include any of it.

yes i did include them, along with price corrections because you lied
about the prices.

what you're also unaware of is that apple has first dibs at the
panels, with dell getting the leftovers. apple gets the cream of
the crop.

Do you have any urls to support your claim?

that's not the kind of thing that is documented in a url, but it's well
known in the industry.

apple buys components in such huge quantities that they can (and do)
decide what specs or modifications are needed, and only for them.

that's not unusual either. sony makes sensors for nikon to nikon's
specs. nikon is *not* buying an off the shelf component.

Er, it is infact a commercial grade monitor. And, it's not a
meaningless claim or statement. You clearly know nothing about
this...

*far* more than you do.

I doubt it. But, I'm willing to find out one way or the other.

you're not at all willing to learn anything. all you do is argue out of
ignorance.

commercial grade means nothing. it's fluff words.

No, heh, it isn't either.

cite the definition of 'commercial grade'.

not that it matters, because the display in the imac has much better
specs than that hp display, which is no longer even in production.

The specs are from Apples website, accurate at the time of my
original post on this subject.

bull**** they were. not only are you full of ****, but now you're
flat out lying.

I provided the links so anyone could check for themselves. You've
neglected to include them. From apple.com no less.

wrong again. i included them and refuted them.

anyone who looks at the specs at apple.com can clearly see that you're
full of ****, not that they need to do that to realize it.

In article , Diesel
wrote:

in the wild means propagates on its own.

Technically, that isn't what it means. As a former virus writer
who has stuff that went ITW, I'll defer to your assumptions
concerning the term. Hell, why not. You have far more credibility
concerning it that I ever would. /sarcasm.

i'm using the industry standard definitions, not what some wannabe
script kiddie thinks.

I'm not a wannabe script kiddie, but, thanks for the label. It only
further demonstrates your ignorance of the subject, and, what you
think you know about me or the knowledge I possess.

i'm going by your posts, which clearly show that you know very little
about all sorts of things.

for macs and all things apple, you know basically nothing.

https://us.norton.com/internetsecuri...is-a-computer-
virus. html
A computer virus, much like a flu virus, is designed to spread
from host to host and has the ability to replicate itself.

I'm well aware of the definition of a computer virus, thanks. I've
actually written a few, back in the day. Not scripts, mind you, but
actual executable based infection.

that's not something to be proud of.

regardless of whatever definition you want to use, there is no
self-propagating malware on a mac and the chances of that are so
close to zero that it can be considered to be zero.

A virus isn't the only item that propogates into the wild.

argue all you want about semantics. the fact is that mac malware
doesn't propagate on its own. period.

malware on the mac requires tricking the user, which means it's not
actually exploiting anything in the mac itself, but rather exploiting
users. there's a never ending supply of stupid users.

wannacry and petya affected *millions* of pcs and millions more
are still vulnerable.

the number of affected macs was *zero*. 0. none.

It wasn't intended for macs.

of course not, because it wouldn't have worked.

there's no point in trying to do the impossible.

tl;dr macs are *far* more secure than windows can ever hope to be.

You seem a bit more than confused on this subject.

i'm not at all confused.

Macs weren't
targeted due to the extremely low target base.

nope. macs weren't targeted because something like wannacry is not
possible on a mac.

Not enough of you
exist in positions where real harm can be caused. If your usage was
anywhere near that of Windows, various malware authors would take
more interest in you. As you only serve a niche market though, you're
of little to no consequence and the malware code base reflects that.

wrong.

macs rarely have any anti-malware software installed, which is
*exactly* the scenario a malware author would *love* to have.

the problem is that it's *really* hard to write effective malware on a
mac and getting harder every day.

Despite the forgetful userbase you do have, itw malware (viruses are
a subset, actually) does exist for your platform.

nobody is forgetful nor has anyone said there's no mac malware.

the part you do not understand is that mac malware *requires* user
participation. it cannot propagate on its own.

mac os is secure enough that the only way in is by tricking the user to
hand over the keys. once the user does that, game over.

Don't ignorantly
assume you're more secure because of your tiny userbase. You aren't.

wrong.

macs are without question, far more secure than windows can ever hope
to be, so much so that companies such as google prohibit windows except
for specific circumstances.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ogle-bans-empl
oyees-running-Microsoft-Windows-security-fears.html
Google has banned its employees from using Microsoft Windows after a
series of security scares.
Instead the firm¹s more than 10,000 workers will be forced to use
Apple¹s OSX or the less-common Linux operating system.
....
Those members of staff who wish to continue using Windows on their
machine will need clearance from 'quite senior levels'.

nospam
Fri, 07 Jul 2017
04:55:11 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

In article , Diesel
wrote:

in the wild means propagates on its own.

Technically, that isn't what it means. As a former virus
writer who has stuff that went ITW, I'll defer to your
assumptions concerning the term. Hell, why not. You have far
more credibility concerning it that I ever would. /sarcasm.

i'm using the industry standard definitions, not what some
wannabe script kiddie thinks.

I'm not a wannabe script kiddie, but, thanks for the label. It
only further demonstrates your ignorance of the subject, and,
what you think you know about me or the knowledge I possess.

i'm going by your posts, which clearly show that you know very
little about all sorts of things.

ROFL. You probably wish that were the case, but, it's not.

for macs and all things apple, you know basically nothing.

HAHAHAHA. Again, not true.

I'm well aware of the definition of a computer virus, thanks.
I've actually written a few, back in the day. Not scripts, mind
you, but actual executable based infection.

that's not something to be proud of.

I said nothing about being proud of it. I only mention it because you
assumed I was a 'wannabe script kiddie'; I've never been one.

regardless of whatever definition you want to use, there is no
self-propagating malware on a mac and the chances of that are
so close to zero that it can be considered to be zero.

A virus isn't the only item that propogates into the wild.

argue all you want about semantics. the fact is that mac malware
doesn't propagate on its own. period.

Perhaps I'm using terminology that's just too hard for you to
understand? Self propogation is NOT a requirement for being 'in the
wild'. Stupid users passing things around via email suffices, quite
nicely.

malware on the mac requires tricking the user, which means it's
not actually exploiting anything in the mac itself, but rather
exploiting users. there's a never ending supply of stupid users.

Actually, most of the time, the crap that passes for malware these
days for Windows or mac, requires atleast one dumbass to execute the
code the first time. And another set of dumbasses with improper
networking configuration for it to do anything else without further
dumbasses clicking on it. It's not 'magical' Wannacry,petya,notpetya
didn't 'spread' entirely on their own. NONE of them are actually a
virus, but, two did more closely resemble a worm. Again though, it
required several dumbasses in order to become threatening and active.

I'd much rather deal with a worm than an actual virus anyday, myself.
The worm is self contained, find and kill it. The virus, oth, not so
much, no. It has a nasty tendency of making various
executables/documents, etc (other forms where executable code can
live) it's home. Requiring careful removal so as not to destroy the
host file(s)/home(s) in the process. A virus+worm (yes, those exist
too) is a pain, because you must not only kill the worm aspect, but
the viral component too. And, that's not done simply by deleting
files deemed infected, unless you have good backups you can resort
to.

I realize that's quite a ways above your paygrade, but, not mine.

wannacry and petya affected *millions* of pcs and millions more
are still vulnerable.

the number of affected macs was *zero*. 0. none.

It wasn't intended for macs.

of course not, because it wouldn't have worked.

What part of it wasn't intended for macs wasn't clear?

there's no point in trying to do the impossible.

It's far from impossible to infect your mac.

tl;dr macs are *far* more secure than windows can ever hope to
be.

You seem a bit more than confused on this subject.

i'm not at all confused.

You could have fooled me.

Macs weren't
targeted due to the extremely low target base.

nope. macs weren't targeted because something like wannacry is not
possible on a mac.

Uhm...

Not enough of you
exist in positions where real harm can be caused. If your usage
was anywhere near that of Windows, various malware authors would
take more interest in you. As you only serve a niche market
though, you're of little to no consequence and the malware code
base reflects that.

wrong.

Uhm.. No, Actually, I'm not wrong.

macs rarely have any anti-malware software installed, which is
*exactly* the scenario a malware author would *love* to have.

Actually, if the author is worth his/her salt, av present/not present
doesn't matter. AV can only detect what they know or what looks like
something they've seen before. Don't believe the hype various AV
companies like to peddle to the masses.

the problem is that it's *really* hard to write effective malware
on a mac and getting harder every day.

ROFL, No, it's not.

Despite the forgetful userbase you do have, itw malware (viruses
are a subset, actually) does exist for your platform.

nobody is forgetful nor has anyone said there's no mac malware.

You seem to be disillusioned into thinking mac malware isn't itw.
That's in the wild. Which, isn't the case.

the part you do not understand is that mac malware *requires* user
participation. it cannot propagate on its own.

Your efforts to redefine the requirements for in the wild are
hilarious . Really, they are. A newbie might actually go for it.
Anyone else here who actually has experience in AV/AM or the creation
of malware though, isn't going to drink your koolaid. They know
better.

mac os is secure enough that the only way in is by tricking the
user to hand over the keys. once the user does that, game over.

You continue believing that, if you want. Ignorance is bliss, so I'm
told.



--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

AIBOHPHOBIA - the fear of palindromes.

nospam
Fri, 07 Jul 2017
04:55:10 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

Nothing lost on me. You defend what is essentially a niche market
intended for the types of users that require hand holding. More
so than that of Windows users.

nonsense.

*yawn*

Rich? No, but, depending on the coins you're dealing in, it's not
chump change either. One coin could buy you a new mac, if you
wanted to waste that kind of money on it.

one coin could buy a whole bunch of macs, and it wouldn't be a
waste either. quite the opposite, actually.

How much do you think these coins are worth individually? And, what
model mac, specifically?

Point is, for less money, I get a faster machine that has
upgradability. Unlike the mac you claimed was 'better'

better depends on the task.

Indeed.

yet you dismiss anything apple without even seeing if it's the
best choice (which in many cases, it is).

Can you cite even one MID where I've stated any such thing?

there is no single computer that is better at everything.

I never claimed otherwise.

yes you did claim otherwise, including below, where you try to
justify a mining system for photo editing and writing papers.

You're demonstrating that you don't know a damn thing about a mining
rig, actually. Specifically, the hardware. It's not your standard run
of the mill desktop PC or tower.

Writing papers would be a waste of good hardware, but, hey, if you
wanna fire up word or something, feel free. It's not going to run
slow.

You're showing gross ignorance of the subject again. I think
you'd find editing photos on a mining rig to be quite responsive.

you're showing just how little you know about photo editing, among
many other things.

Granted, I'm no wizard with photoshop, but, I know what the mining
rigs typical hardware consists of. I've built several of them. Some
were infact, using liquid cooling and I don't mean recirculating
water.

mining is highly compute bound, not i/o bound.

Heh. What do you suppose does most of the computations on the mining
rig? I'll give you a free clue, it's not the CPU.

one obvious difference is that a system optimized for mining isn't
going to have multiple wide gamut displays. there would be no
point. it's not like anyone is going to sit there watching the
mining. it could even be a headless system with no display at all.

Uhm. See above. The fact it may/may not have a monitor attached
doesn't mean it couldn't actually have several attached,if one wanted
to do so. The hardware to drive them is most certainly present.

it could, but it would be about the worst possible choice for all
sorts of reasons.

i'm not talking about what matters to me, nor am i tied to a
particular name.

Sure you are. You assume that mac is the best for a variety of tasks,
none of which you've bothered to specify.

i get the best product for a given task, no matter who makes it,
which is what most people do.

you don't.

I enjoy your assumptions. As unfounded as they are, I find great
amusement in them.

you're also incorrectly assuming that the only thing that
matters are hardware specs, completely ignoring software. even
the most tricked out pc can't do things a mac can do.

Which things, specifically? Cite examples.

what for? you're just going to argue.

You don't have any examples?

your mind is made up and you aren't interested in learning
anything.

More assumptions. Hilarious!

nevertheless, here's a few that come to mind and in no particular
order: easy migration, target disk mode, target display mode on
select models, handoff & continuity, airdrop, quicklook, universal
clipboard, touchid, applepay, touchbar, secure element, unix under
the hood, cocoa, metal, multitouch gestures, forcetouch trackpad,
wide gamut display, messages/calls with any device, versioning,
local facial & scene recognition, differential privacy, machine
learning, time machine, snapshots, higher user productivity, lower
cost of ownership and higher resale value.

Aside from the Apple specific ones you've listed, the others are open
to debate. Especially the lower cost of ownership and higher resale
value. As for Unix, you seem to be quite ignorant concerning the OSes
a PC can run. Unix IS one of them.


Despite your efforts to spin, I'm not the one who's fallen on my
arse in this subject.

yes you have, and hard.

ROFL. You do amuse me. It's like trying to explain the difference
between an NE, PE, or ELF binary to someone who knows nothing about
executable file structure.

Do you have any reputable sites that state an Apple computer
costs about the same as an equivalent PC? If yes, provide
url(s). Seems like a simple request to me.

what part of *all* is not clear?

Urls then?

*every* site that does a fair and unbiased comparison (i.e.,
reputable) will not only find that macs and pcs with similar
specs cost about the same, but in many cases, the mac is *less*
expensive.

Urls then?

already supplied. you ignored them.

MID then to the post where you've already supplied them?

when a pc computer costs less, it's because its specs are less.

I already demonstrated in the post from May that your statement
wasn't accurate. At the time of my post, Apple had weaker
machines that cost more than the PC I forked specs of...And, it
wasn't even a high end PC.

no they didn't.
you claimed imacs didn't have i7 chips when they've had them for
years.

*I* made no such claim. I went with what Apple had on display when I
visited the page.

your acer also lacks thunderbolt 3, usb-c 3.1 gen 2 and ships with
windows home.

On May 24, 2017, Intel announced that Thunderbolt 3 would become a
royalty-free standard to OEMs and chip manufacturers in 2018, as part
of an effort to boost the adoption of the protocol. USB is a bit more
popular, you see in the PC world. Everything can talk to USB these
days. Thunderbolt, outside of Apple for the most part, not so much,
no. Certain PC based laptops have actually supported Thunderbolt
since 2015, but, it hasn't really caught on. Intel is obviously
hoping to change that, only time will tell if PC users take enough
interest in it. It might be like the VESA local bus wars of
yesteryear all over again. A superior technology in some respects
loses out at the end of the day. VHS vs Betamax, that sort of thing.

And it doesn't come without it's own share of problems. AKA,
vulnerabilities you previously claimed don't exist on Apple. ROFL!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunde...28interface%29
The oldie but goodie optionrom attack. Gotta love it.

Propreitary, closed source, so Apple and Apple alone can fleece
you for whatever amount they deem appropriate.

you have that entirely *backwards*.

You obviously have no ****ing clue how any of this works on the
technical level. Apple hardware is closed source. MUCH of Apple
software is closed source.

windows is closed source, while much of macos is open source.

Er, no, not much of Macos is open source. Some apps created by Apple
are open source, but, MacOS itself most certainly is not open source.
Neither is the hardware Apple creates to run it.

Windows is one operating system an individual can choose to run on
his/her PC. PC gives people options, including the OS you want to run
on it. This is because the PC hardware architecture is open source.
Not closed, not proprietary like Apple. Apple has always liked doing
their own thing in their own way. And charging insane (imo) amounts
for the shiny case.

microsoft fleeces customers, charging $200 for windows 10 pro,
which is almost half the price of the least expensive mac and
that's just for the operating system!

What specifically is to you so confusing for you that you can't
remain on the subject?

if it wasn't for mac os being free, there never would have been a
free upgrade to windows 10 for the first year.

MacOS isn't completely free. Conditions apply:

Upgrading from OS X Leopard

If you’re running Leopard and would like to upgrade to macOS Sierra,
first you’ll need to upgrade to OS X Snow Leopard. You can purchase
OS X Snow Leopard from the Apple Online Store.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201475

You really think Microsoft pushed Win**** 10 on people for 'free'
because Apple released a 'free' upgrade with limitations? Not hardly.

Microsoft no longer wants to have to support the older flavors of
Windows out there. They want everyone running the same version, and,
they would very much like to turn the whole thing into a subscription
service where you pay them to continue using it. But, thats
Microsoft; it's not the PC world itself. Microsoft plays a part, mind
you, but they are not what everyone else thinks of when you mention
PC.

I think if we took a head
count of all the PC engineers, it would grossly exceed the amount
Apple has.

you're confusing quantity with quality.

That's nothing more than a personal opinion. One of which I don't
share or have any real interest in debating with you.

PC technologies are so good, Apple is going with Intel
processors, in lieu of their own.

wrong on that too.

Nope. You admitted it yourself, they're using Intels Ix series CPUS.
Instead of their own.

apple designs their own processors for ios devices and soon for
macs.

An ios device is comparable to a PC now? Or, is this another weak
attempt by you to move the goalposts? If Apples processors are so
much better than Intels, why are they using Intels?

apple's processors are already matching intel in benchmarks and in
some cases, exceeding.

Same question as above. Are we still discussing what's found in
Desktop/Tower PCs and Apple All in Ones, or the ARM processors found
in mobile devices? You keep trying to move the goalposts, it's hard
to tell.

microsoft is also moving away from intel processors because they
too see the writing on the wall.

Really now? You have urls to back that claim up do you? I'm not
talking about mobile devices, either. I'm still talking about PCs and
Apples over priced version.

the future are mobile devices powered by arm based processors.

You can't be serious. You think everyone wants to trade in their
desktop/latop for a tiny gadget with limited battery life, limited
lifespan as compared to the former, etc and get real work done?

what matters is choosing the best tool for the job.

I never disagreed with that...

even the most tricked out pc can't do many of the things even a
low end mac can do.

Examples?

see above.

See what above? Your article about an iphone? Do you have actual
examples or not?

Let's not even begin with link snipping accusations. I left a few
in my post from May with cost figures. You didn't include any of
it.

yes i did include them, along with price corrections because you
lied about the prices.

MID of your post where they were included with price corrections?

what you're also unaware of is that apple has first dibs at the
panels, with dell getting the leftovers. apple gets the cream
of the crop.

Do you have any urls to support your claim?

that's not the kind of thing that is documented in a url, but it's
well known in the industry.

So you don't have any way for anyone else to verify your claim then?

you're not at all willing to learn anything. all you do is argue
out of ignorance.

Says the one who foolishly called me a 'wannabe script kiddie' It's
alright though, you don't know anything about me and I haven't
exactly been forthcoming concerning who I am or what I've done,
either. You assume you know my knowledge level/expertise, but, you
don't. Not by a long shot.

commercial grade means nothing. it's fluff words.

No, heh, it isn't either.

cite the definition of 'commercial grade'.

A commercial grade device is designed for longer periods of runtime,
and, may also include things a normal 'residential' or consumer grade
device doesn't have. It's designed to tolerate more 'abuse' than a
consumer grade unit was designed for. It's not simply a buzzword.

You have heard of commercial grade routers, switch gear, lawn mowers,
cooking equipment, dishwashers, etc, right?

not that it matters, because the display in the imac has much
better specs than that hp display, which is no longer even in
production.

It does matter to some of us. We can get more out of the device
without expectation of failure.

The specs are from Apples website, accurate at the time of my
original post on this subject.

bull**** they were. not only are you full of ****, but now
you're flat out lying.

I provided the links so anyone could check for themselves. You've
neglected to include them. From apple.com no less.

wrong again. i included them and refuted them.

Again, I'll ask for the MID of your post where you did this.

anyone who looks at the specs at apple.com can clearly see that
you're full of ****, not that they need to do that to realize it.

I last looked at Apple.com in May, when I wrote the post. Whatever
new products they've added since then wouldn't obviously, be included
in my comparison.




--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

And yesterday the planet seemed to be going so well..

In article , Diesel
wrote:



Point is, for less money, I get a faster machine that has
upgradability. Unlike the mac you claimed was 'better'

better depends on the task.

Indeed.

yet you dismiss anything apple without even seeing if it's the
best choice (which in many cases, it is).

Can you cite even one MID where I've stated any such thing?

the one to which i'm replying, among numerous others.

there is no single computer that is better at everything.

I never claimed otherwise.

yes you did claim otherwise, including below, where you try to
justify a mining system for photo editing and writing papers.

You're demonstrating that you don't know a damn thing about a mining
rig, actually.

nonsense, nor does it matter.

this is about choosing the best tool for a given task.

mining, photo editing and school papers call for *very* different
systems.

this concept is totally lost on you.

Specifically, the hardware. It's not your standard run
of the mill desktop PC or tower.

exactly the point, which makes it the *wrong* choice for everyday
tasks, such as photoshop or writing school papers.

Writing papers would be a waste of good hardware, but, hey, if you
wanna fire up word or something, feel free. It's not going to run
slow.

nobody said you couldn't run word, but it's not the best choice for
that task. in fact, it's actually one of the worst possible choices for
all sorts of reasons.

a chromebook would actually be a very good choice for school papers,
particularly when schools want the papers submitted via google. it's
also cheap enough that it doesn't matter a whole lot if it's damaged,
lost or stolen.

You're showing gross ignorance of the subject again. I think
you'd find editing photos on a mining rig to be quite responsive.

you're showing just how little you know about photo editing, among
many other things.

Granted, I'm no wizard with photoshop, but, I know what the mining
rigs typical hardware consists of. I've built several of them. Some
were infact, using liquid cooling and I don't mean recirculating
water.

big deal. liquid cooling isn't going to make photos look any better or
make the user more productive.

mining is highly compute bound, not i/o bound.

Heh. What do you suppose does most of the computations on the mining
rig? I'll give you a free clue, it's not the CPU.

nobody said it was the cpu.

the point you *still* don't grasp is that a system designed to mine
coins is going to be an incredibly poor choice for photo editing.

sure, you 'can' run photoshop on a mining system, but it won't work
anywhere near as well as running it on a system designed for photo
editing, and quite possibly with so many compromises that it's not
usable.

one obvious difference is that a system optimized for mining isn't
going to have multiple wide gamut displays. there would be no
point. it's not like anyone is going to sit there watching the
mining. it could even be a headless system with no display at all.

Uhm. See above. The fact it may/may not have a monitor attached
doesn't mean it couldn't actually have several attached,if one wanted
to do so. The hardware to drive them is most certainly present.

still missing the point.

it could, but it would be about the worst possible choice for all
sorts of reasons.

i'm not talking about what matters to me, nor am i tied to a
particular name.

Sure you are. You assume that mac is the best for a variety of tasks,
none of which you've bothered to specify.

wrong. i've given several.

every product has strengths and weaknesses.

some tasks are best done with a mac. others not. pick the best tool for
the job.

your problem is you don't even consider a mac as a viable option. you
rule it out before even seeing what it can do.



your mind is made up and you aren't interested in learning
anything.

More assumptions. Hilarious!

not an assumption.

every time i mention facts with references you snip it and argue.

nevertheless, here's a few that come to mind and in no particular
order: easy migration, target disk mode, target display mode on
select models, handoff & continuity, airdrop, quicklook, universal
clipboard, touchid, applepay, touchbar, secure element, unix under
the hood, cocoa, metal, multitouch gestures, forcetouch trackpad,
wide gamut display, messages/calls with any device, versioning,
local facial & scene recognition, differential privacy, machine
learning, time machine, snapshots, higher user productivity, lower
cost of ownership and higher resale value.

Aside from the Apple specific ones you've listed,

no aside anything.

the entire point is that macs can do a whole ****load of things than
other systems can't ever do (particularly linux), which means the user
will be more productive than they otherwise would have been.

hardware specs aren't everything.

the others are open
to debate. Especially the lower cost of ownership and higher resale
value.

none are open to debate.

https://www.jamf.com/blog/debate-ove...acs-are-535-le
ss-expensive-than-pcs/
But isn¹t it expensive, and doesn¹t it overload IT? No. IBM found
that not only do PCs drive twice the amount of support calls, they¹re
also three times more expensive. That¹s right, depending on the
model, IBM is saving anywhere from $273 - $543 per Mac compared to a
PC, over a four-year lifespan. ³And this reflects the best pricing
we¹ve ever gotten from Microsoft,² Previn said. Multiply that number
by the 100,000+ Macs IBM expects to have deployed by the end of the
year, and we¹re talking some serious savings.

http://www.cio.com/article/2438339/i...inancial-reaso
ns-why-you-should-use-mac-os.html
In 1999, for instance, Gistics released a landmark report analyzing
Macs and PCs in terms of return on investment (ROI). Gistics' study
was limited strictly to the publishing, graphics and new media
fields. Among many other findings, the authors concluded that Mac
creative professionals were producing $26,000 more each in annual
revenues for their employers than their Windows counterparts.
....
...But at his own small enterprise‹then known as Interpact and now
dubbed The Security Awareness Company‹three-year TCO turned out to be
twice as high for Windows than Mac.
....
In contrast to the largely server-based Linux OS, Mac remains an
operationally viable choice for widespread use on servers and
desktops alike. And despite all the energy Microsoft has poured into
the new Vista, Mac is still king of the hill when it comes to desktop
ease of use‹translating, at the end of the day, into higher
productivity and lower tech support and training expenditures.

As for Unix, you seem to be quite ignorant concerning the OSes
a PC can run. Unix IS one of them.

it ain't me who is ignorant.

and i didn't say run unix. i said unix under the hood.

one of the major attraction of a mac is that it can run mainstream apps
that don't exist on unix (and never will) *and* has unix under the hood
for those who want to tinker.

a generic unix box is stuck with ****ty unix apps, and a vm doesn't
count. no graphic artist would ever run photoshop or linux in a vm on
top of unix.

it's all about productivity, a concept entirely lost on you.



when a pc computer costs less, it's because its specs are less.

I already demonstrated in the post from May that your statement
wasn't accurate. At the time of my post, Apple had weaker
machines that cost more than the PC I forked specs of...And, it
wasn't even a high end PC.

no they didn't.
you claimed imacs didn't have i7 chips when they've had them for
years.

*I* made no such claim.

oh yes you did.

In article
XnsA7841A9453C1AHT1@z2EEd70JefktzJb64TMQebUU311gP 5hrG.npCmT206Xn5lh.90b
6e2Gl51, Diesel wrote:
i7 (all retina imacs are i5) 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'

here's the key line:
i7 (all retina imacs are i5) CPU

clear enough for you?

I went with what Apple had on display when I
visited the page.

then you didn't look very hard, or more likely, not at all.

the retina 5k imac has *always* had an i7 configuration as well as an
i5 configuration, just as a non-retina imac does.

i already explained this several times but you refuse to learn.

your acer also lacks thunderbolt 3, usb-c 3.1 gen 2 and ships with
windows home.

On May 24, 2017, Intel announced that Thunderbolt 3 would become a
royalty-free standard to OEMs and chip manufacturers in 2018, as part
of an effort to boost the adoption of the protocol. USB is a bit more
popular, you see in the PC world. Everything can talk to USB these
days. Thunderbolt, outside of Apple for the most part, not so much,

actually, thunderbolt is very common outside of apple, not that it
matters, and blows away anything usb can ever hope to do.

macs have thunderbolt which must be included in any comparison.

you don't get to ignore specs that a mac has that other systems do not.

no. Certain PC based laptops have actually supported Thunderbolt
since 2015, but, it hasn't really caught on. Intel is obviously
hoping to change that, only time will tell if PC users take enough
interest in it. It might be like the VESA local bus wars of
yesteryear all over again. A superior technology in some respects
loses out at the end of the day. VHS vs Betamax, that sort of thing.

And it doesn't come without it's own share of problems. AKA,
vulnerabilities you previously claimed don't exist on Apple. ROFL!

you're lying again. i never said it didn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunde...28interface%29
The oldie but goodie optionrom attack. Gotta love it.

theoretical, never seen in the wild, and it's been patched, so not an
issue at all.

meanwhile, usb exploits are *easy*:

tl;dr thunderbolt is actually safer.

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/08/beware-of-juice-jacking/
³One attendee claimed his phone had USB transfer off and he would be
fine. *When he plugged in, it instantly went into USB transfer mode,²
Markus recalls.* ³He then sheepishly said,* ŒGuess that setting
doesn¹t work.'²

Another DefCon attendee remarked, ³This freaked my boss out so much
he sent an email across the entire company stating employees are now
required to bring power cables and/or extra batteries on travel, and
no longer allowed to use charging kiosks for smart devices in open
public areas.²

http://www.infoworld.com/article/269...usb-is-deadly-
but-hackers-wont-use-it.html
Nine years ago, I created what I believe was the world¹s first USB
worm. By playing around with a USB thumb drive and placing a hidden
file on it, I was able to make any computer in which the ³infected²
USB drive was plugged into automatically spread the file to the host
computer, then back again when a new USB device was plugged in.

It worked in digital cameras and mobile phones. I was able to get any
USB device -- in fact, any removable media device -- to run my worm
file. I had a bunch of fun playing with it.
....
That brings me to today. There's now posted on GitHub the source code
for BadUSB (not to be confused with faux malware program called
BadBIOS), which makes my experiment nine years ago look like a
child's game. BadUSB is a real threat that has serious consequences
for computer hardware input devices.
....
Second, the problem isn¹t limited to USB devices. In fact, USB
devices are the tip of the iceberg. Any hardware device plugged into
your computer with a firmware component can probably be made
malicious. I¹m talking FireWire devices, SCSI devices, hard drives,
DMA devices, and more.

https://arstechnica.com/security/201...hacks-computer
s-badusb-exploit-makes-devices-turn-evil/
"If you put anything into your USB [slot], it extends a lot of
trust," Karsten Nohl, chief scientist at Security Research Labs in
Berlin, told Ars. "Whatever it is, there could always be some code
running in that device that runs maliciously. Every time anybody
connects a USB device to your computer, you fully trust them with
your computer. It's the equivalent of [saying] 'here's my computer;
I'm going to walk away for 10 minutes. Please don't do anything evil."

http://gizmodo.com/now-anyone-can-ge...ploits-usbs-fu
nda-1641821985
Don't plug strange USB sticks into your computers. Don't do it. A
pair of hackers just made public the code for super scary malware
that takes advantage of a fundamental flaw in USB firmware. They
didn't do this to be mean, but you can be sure some evil hackers will
use it to be mean.
The malware in question is very similar to the so-called BadUSB
attack we saw a couple of months ago. Security researchers Karsten
Nohl and Jakob Lell basically reversed engineered USB firmware so
that they could create virtually undetectable malware that can't be
patched. In brief, BadUSB can "be installed on a USB device to
completely take over a PC, invisibly alter files installed from the
memory stick, or even redirect the user's internet traffic."
....
They do have a point. Now the onus is on USB makers to fix the
vulnerability. This is no easy ask, especially since Nohl said that
BadUSB was "unfixable for the most part," when he explained the
exploit at the Black Hat conference in July. Since anybody can get
their paws on the new BadUSB clone, there's definitely a strong
incentive to figure out a fix. And until they do, be careful what you
stick in your slot. [Wired]

https://www.extremetech.com/computin...ling-usb-drive
s-now-on-sale-for-less-than-60
It sounds like something out of a B-grade Hollywood plot ‹ a flash
drive that you plug into a computer and is capable of destroying it
within seconds. Last year, hacker Dark Purple disclosed a USB flash
drive designed to fry a modern system as soon as you plug it in. The
drive works by discharging -220V through the USB port.
....
At the same time, however, studies have shown that up to 50% of
people will cheerfully plug in a USB drive they found on the ground
without taking precautions for what kind of data or malware might be
on the drive. If the USB Kill 2.0 is actually shipping in volume,
it¹s probably a good idea to revisit that tendency ‹ or at least keep
an old computer around for testing.


Propreitary, closed source, so Apple and Apple alone can fleece
you for whatever amount they deem appropriate.

you have that entirely *backwards*.

You obviously have no ****ing clue how any of this works on the
technical level. Apple hardware is closed source. MUCH of Apple
software is closed source.

some is, but not all, and it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

state of the art hardware and software is *not* open.

companies are *not* going to give away their secret sauce. that would
be *stupid*.

windows is closed source, while much of macos is open source.

Er, no, not much of Macos is open source. Some apps created by Apple
are open source, but, MacOS itself most certainly is not open source.
Neither is the hardware Apple creates to run it.

far more of apple's software is open source than microsoft, some of
which is used by apple's own competitors, including android.

not that it matters, because users want to get work done, not read and
possibly modify the source code.

Windows is one operating system an individual can choose to run on
his/her PC. PC gives people options, including the OS you want to run
on it. This is because the PC hardware architecture is open source.
Not closed, not proprietary like Apple. Apple has always liked doing
their own thing in their own way. And charging insane (imo) amounts
for the shiny case.

nonsense.

prices are competitive and macs are the *only* platform that can run
mac, windows *and* unix.

hackintosh doesn't count because it doesn't work particularly well, it
doesn't support everything a real mac can do and is at best, a pain in
the ass to get to work.

microsoft fleeces customers, charging $200 for windows 10 pro,
which is almost half the price of the least expensive mac and
that's just for the operating system!

What specifically is to you so confusing for you that you can't
remain on the subject?

i'm responding to what *you* wrote.

*you* brought up fleecing customers, not me.

if anyone fleeces customers, it's microsoft.

if it wasn't for mac os being free, there never would have been a
free upgrade to windows 10 for the first year.

MacOS isn't completely free.

yes it is. mac os is completely free.

Conditions apply:

nope. no conditions apply.

Upgrading from OS X Leopard

leopard is *ten* years old, as are the macs that could run it.

no recent mac can run leopard.

you're desperately grasping at straws, and failing hard.

there was no upgrade path for vista-win10.

If you’re running Leopard and would like to upgrade to macOS Sierra,
first you’ll need to upgrade to OS X Snow Leopard. You can purchase
OS X Snow Leopard from the Apple Online Store.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201475

you keep demonstrating just how ignorant you are.

you don't even realize that what you pull up with google *does* *not*
*apply*.

first of all, there is no mention of leopard in that link at all.

second, a mac that can run leopard is too old to run sierra.

in other words, it's not possible to upgrade from leopard to sierra,
but even if it was, no purchase would be required.

You really think Microsoft pushed Win**** 10 on people for 'free'
because Apple released a 'free' upgrade with limitations? Not hardly.

yes hardly.

microsoft *had* to compete with apple, which is why the windows 8
upgrade was $40 and why the windows 10 upgrade was free for a year.

Microsoft no longer wants to have to support the older flavors of
Windows out there. They want everyone running the same version, and,
they would very much like to turn the whole thing into a subscription
service where you pay them to continue using it. But, thats
Microsoft; it's not the PC world itself. Microsoft plays a part, mind
you, but they are not what everyone else thinks of when you mention
PC.

windows *is* what people think when they hear pc.

I think if we took a head
count of all the PC engineers, it would grossly exceed the amount
Apple has.

you're confusing quantity with quality.

That's nothing more than a personal opinion. One of which I don't
share or have any real interest in debating with you.

it's not an opinion.

apple's chip design team is one of the best in the business.

in less than a decade, apple's own processors are matching intel in
benchmarks, and in some cases, exceeding it.

apple's custom hardware is more than just processors too. they've been
designing custom chips since the beginning of apple.

PC technologies are so good, Apple is going with Intel
processors, in lieu of their own.

wrong on that too.

Nope. You admitted it yourself, they're using Intels Ix series CPUS.
Instead of their own.

for now they do, just like other pc makers, but that is going to change
real soon now, and across the industry too.

intel missed the boat on mobile.

apple designs their own processors for ios devices and soon for
macs.

An ios device is comparable to a PC now?

absolutely, especially since it can do things a pc cannot.

again, pick the best tool for the job.

Or, is this another weak
attempt by you to move the goalposts? If Apples processors are so
much better than Intels, why are they using Intels?

i'm not moving anything.

there will be macs with apple-designed processors in the not so distant
future.

there will also be windows systems with arm cpus, which have already
been demoed and expected by year's end.

apple's processors are already matching intel in benchmarks and in
some cases, exceeding.

Same question as above. Are we still discussing what's found in
Desktop/Tower PCs and Apple All in Ones, or the ARM processors found
in mobile devices? You keep trying to move the goalposts, it's hard
to tell.

i'm not moving a thing.

microsoft is also moving away from intel processors because they
too see the writing on the wall.

Really now? You have urls to back that claim up do you?

sure do.

you're incredibly out of touch with what's going on in the industry.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/12/...essly-run-lega
cy-x86-win32-apps-on-arm/
As we learned last month, ARM-powered Windows 10 devices should
start hitting the market by the end of 2017. Unlike previous
mobile-friendly versions of Windows though, Microsoft is working hard
to make sure the ARM release will be able to properly support
full-fledge desktop apps, rather than the mish-mash of apps that
showed up in Windows RT and devices like the Surface 2. At the Build
2017 conference this week, Microsoft showed off the new seamless
experience by downloading, installing and running x86 Win32
applications on an ARM machine.

For end users and app developers, there's effectively no difference
between an Intel-based machine and one with a Snapdragon processor
under the hood. As PC Magazine notes, the ARM build of Windows 10
works its magic using a built-in emulator that translates
instructions in realtime. Those translations are also cached so Win32
apps should get a performance boost over time. The setup also means
that users with ARM-based Windows 10 machines won't be restricted to
Windows Store apps, so they'll get a bit more variety than even the
limited Windows 10 S platform. If manufacturers are able to hit the
right price point when the devices debut later this year, an
ARM-based Windows machine could even become a more attractive
low-cost alternative to Chromebooks and tablets.

I'm not
talking about mobile devices, either. I'm still talking about PCs

there is no longer a distinction (and never really was either).

for many people, a mobile device is their only computer, and they do
more with it than you do on your liquid cooled system.

and
Apples over priced version.

not overpriced.

the future are mobile devices powered by arm based processors.

You can't be serious.

i'm very serious.

You think everyone wants to trade in their
desktop/latop for a tiny gadget with limited battery life, limited
lifespan as compared to the former, etc and get real work done?

they're not tiny nor are they a gadget, the battery life is comparable
to most laptops (if not better) and their lifespan is no different than
any other computer.

many people are doing real work on mobile devices, some of which is not
possible on a desktop/laptop.

the number of tasks that require a desktop or laptop is shrinking, and
shrinking fast.

pc sales have been declining for several years and showing no signs of
changing. mobile sales continues to grow.

the future is mobile.

what matters is choosing the best tool for the job.

I never disagreed with that...

yet you keep arguing that the only tool is a pc, now you're even
dismissing mobile devices.

sure looks like you disagree.

even the most tricked out pc can't do many of the things even a
low end mac can do.

Examples?

see above.

See what above? Your article about an iphone? Do you have actual
examples or not?

what article about an iphone? i listed things a mac could do that a pc
can't. there's a ****load more that i didn't list.

if you want to include iphones and ipads, that list gets *much* longer.

again, pick the best tool for the job.

sometimes it's a mac, sometimes it's a pc, sometimes it's a smartphone
and sometimes it's a tablet. sometimes it's a combination. sometimes
it's none of those.

no single device is best at everything, which you claim to agree with,
yet you keep arguing otherwise.



what you're also unaware of is that apple has first dibs at the
panels, with dell getting the leftovers. apple gets the cream
of the crop.

Do you have any urls to support your claim?

that's not the kind of thing that is documented in a url, but it's
well known in the industry.

So you don't have any way for anyone else to verify your claim then?

if you actually worked in the industry you'd learn what *really* goes
on, not what you read about in a google search.

you're not at all willing to learn anything. all you do is argue
out of ignorance.

Says the one who foolishly called me a 'wannabe script kiddie' It's
alright though, you don't know anything about me and I haven't
exactly been forthcoming concerning who I am or what I've done,
either. You assume you know my knowledge level/expertise, but, you
don't. Not by a long shot.

i'm going by your posts.

so far, everything you've said about apple has been *completely* wrong
and you keep arguing when shown to be wrong.

commercial grade means nothing. it's fluff words.

No, heh, it isn't either.

cite the definition of 'commercial grade'.

A commercial grade device is designed for longer periods of runtime,
and, may also include things a normal 'residential' or consumer grade
device doesn't have. It's designed to tolerate more 'abuse' than a
consumer grade unit was designed for. It's not simply a buzzword.

it's a buzzword and hp doesn't even say it's commercial grade anyway.

regardless, a retina imac qualifies for that description and there's no
reason why a display would be abused anyway, and even if it was, it
would not be likely to fail.

commercial grade also costs more, and you're very concerned about
cheapest price.

You have heard of commercial grade routers, switch gear, lawn mowers,
cooking equipment, dishwashers, etc, right?

that doesn't mean they're more rugged.

enterprise routers and switches have features that consumers don't need.

although anecdotal, i've had far more problems with enterprise class
routers/switches than i have with consumer grade stuff.

not that it matters, because the display in the imac has much
better specs than that hp display, which is no longer even in
production.

It does matter to some of us. We can get more out of the device
without expectation of failure.

you can't get more out of it when its specs are worse and there's no
reason why it would fail. displays are very reliable.



anyone who looks at the specs at apple.com can clearly see that
you're full of ****, not that they need to do that to realize it.

I last looked at Apple.com in May, when I wrote the post. Whatever
new products they've added since then wouldn't obviously, be included
in my comparison.

apple didn't add any new products. all they did was bump up the specs
of the existing products.

you said that all retina imacs are i5:

In article
XnsA7841A9453C1AHT1@z2EEd70JefktzJb64TMQebUU311gP 5hrG.npCmT206Xn5lh.90b
6e2Gl51, Diesel wrote:
i7 (all retina imacs are i5) 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'

that's false and always has been false, as i explained already.

retina imacs are either an i5 or an i7, depending on which one the user
bought.

here's your 'comparison':

Price for the only Imac with retina that has the same HD size, but
half the ram, and i5 cpu (where as the Acer has an i7): 2299.99

monitor: 1399.74 - new in the box, 899.99 (used like new)
System.: 769.99 - new in the box
total cost:
2169.93 if all new
1669.98 if going with 'used like new' monitor
Neither price includes shipping.

Near equ apple (less ram, less cpu power) 2299.99

first of all, you don't get to count 'used like new' prices when
comparing to full retail prices.

if you want to do that, then you must also check used prices for macs.

apple sells a refurb retina 5k imac for $1300 with full warranty, which
a 'used like new' would not have at all. a 'used like new' imac would
be *less* than that.

second, you can't skip shipping. it's part of the total cost.

apple includes *free* 2 day shipping, but in reality, it's almost
always next day for no extra charge, and for those who live near an
apple store, they can pick it up within an hour or so, which means it
can be same day 'shipping', all for free.

third, retina imacs start at $1799, not $2299.

using *your* $1400 display, that means the computer part of the imac is
just $400 more, and it's not possible to match its specs for that.

a i7 retina imac (which do exist, despite your claims otherwise), is an
additional $300, bringing the price to $2099.

that's only $70 *less* than your system. close enough to call it a
wash, and they're still not equivalent.

the imac has numerous features your system does not, including a wide
gamut dci-p3 display, thunderbolt and the equivalent of windows pro
(not home, which your system comes with) along with the ability to do
the numerous things i listed above and many more i forgot to list.

in other words, the mac is very competitive with other offerings.

In article , Diesel
wrote:

in the wild means propagates on its own.

Technically, that isn't what it means. As a former virus
writer who has stuff that went ITW, I'll defer to your
assumptions concerning the term. Hell, why not. You have far
more credibility concerning it that I ever would. /sarcasm.

i'm using the industry standard definitions, not what some
wannabe script kiddie thinks.

I'm not a wannabe script kiddie, but, thanks for the label. It
only further demonstrates your ignorance of the subject, and,
what you think you know about me or the knowledge I possess.

i'm going by your posts, which clearly show that you know very
little about all sorts of things.

ROFL. You probably wish that were the case, but, it's not.

for macs and all things apple, you know basically nothing.

HAHAHAHA. Again, not true.

don't laugh too hard because everything you've said about apple has
been completely wrong.

I'm well aware of the definition of a computer virus, thanks.
I've actually written a few, back in the day. Not scripts, mind
you, but actual executable based infection.

that's not something to be proud of.

I said nothing about being proud of it. I only mention it because you
assumed I was a 'wannabe script kiddie'; I've never been one.

you keep bringing it up, so clearly you think it's some sort of
accomplishment.

regardless of whatever definition you want to use, there is no
self-propagating malware on a mac and the chances of that are
so close to zero that it can be considered to be zero.

A virus isn't the only item that propogates into the wild.

argue all you want about semantics. the fact is that mac malware
doesn't propagate on its own. period.

Perhaps I'm using terminology that's just too hard for you to
understand? Self propogation is NOT a requirement for being 'in the
wild'. Stupid users passing things around via email suffices, quite
nicely.

i didn't say self propagation was a requirement for being in the wild.

i said mac malware doesn't propagate on its own. it *requires* user
participation.

on windows, there *is* self-propagating malware and users don't need to
do anything to get pwned.

wannacry/petya have shut down entire companies.

malware on the mac requires tricking the user, which means it's
not actually exploiting anything in the mac itself, but rather
exploiting users. there's a never ending supply of stupid users.

Actually, most of the time, the crap that passes for malware these
days for Windows or mac, requires atleast one dumbass to execute the
code the first time. And another set of dumbasses with improper
networking configuration for it to do anything else without further
dumbasses clicking on it. It's not 'magical' Wannacry,petya,notpetya
didn't 'spread' entirely on their own. NONE of them are actually a
virus, but, two did more closely resemble a worm. Again though, it
required several dumbasses in order to become threatening and active.

I'd much rather deal with a worm than an actual virus anyday, myself.
The worm is self contained, find and kill it. The virus, oth, not so
much, no. It has a nasty tendency of making various
executables/documents, etc (other forms where executable code can
live) it's home. Requiring careful removal so as not to destroy the
host file(s)/home(s) in the process. A virus+worm (yes, those exist
too) is a pain, because you must not only kill the worm aspect, but
the viral component too. And, that's not done simply by deleting
files deemed infected, unless you have good backups you can resort
to.

I realize that's quite a ways above your paygrade, but, not mine.

you realize wrong, again.

wannacry and petya affected *millions* of pcs and millions more
are still vulnerable.

the number of affected macs was *zero*. 0. none.

It wasn't intended for macs.

of course not, because it wouldn't have worked.

What part of it wasn't intended for macs wasn't clear?

what part of it could not have worked even if they wanted it to is not
clear?

it's well established that macs are far more secure than windows,
something which you still refuse to accept.

there's no point in trying to do the impossible.

It's far from impossible to infect your mac.

this isn't about my systems (which aren't all just macs), but macs in
general.

the reality is that *self-propagating* malware on a mac, without *any*
user participation, can't spread, and it certainly can't take down
entire companies.

a malware author isn't going to bother to even try because the return
on investment is simply not worth the effort. windows is much easier
and they'll get their bounty with a *lot* less work.


Not enough of you
exist in positions where real harm can be caused. If your usage
was anywhere near that of Windows, various malware authors would
take more interest in you. As you only serve a niche market
though, you're of little to no consequence and the malware code
base reflects that.

wrong.

Uhm.. No, Actually, I'm not wrong.

actually, you are *very* wrong.

malware authors target windows and now android because it's easy and
the return on investment is huge.

macs rarely have any anti-malware software installed, which is
*exactly* the scenario a malware author would *love* to have.

Actually, if the author is worth his/her salt, av present/not present
doesn't matter. AV can only detect what they know or what looks like
something they've seen before. Don't believe the hype various AV
companies like to peddle to the masses.

i don't believe any of the hype.

anti-malware utilities are utter **** and cause far more problems than
they attempt to solve.

worse, some anti-malware companies have actually written their own
malware and released it, then bragged that they were first to 'detect'
it.

it's easy to detect what you wrote yourself. it's also disgusting that
they'd resort to such scams to generate sales.

the problem is that it's *really* hard to write effective malware
on a mac and getting harder every day.

ROFL, No, it's not.

yes it absolutely is, which is why there is almost none and what does
exist is fairly lame.

nothing is perfect, but the risk of mac malware is *extremely* low.

it's far more likely that something *else* will happen, such as a hard
drive failure (moving parts and all that), spilling coffee into the
laptop, deleting the wrong file by mistake, etc.

malware is *waaaaaay* down on the list.

Despite the forgetful userbase you do have, itw malware (viruses
are a subset, actually) does exist for your platform.

nobody is forgetful nor has anyone said there's no mac malware.

You seem to be disillusioned into thinking mac malware isn't itw.
That's in the wild. Which, isn't the case.

you seem to think that the existence of a theoretical exploit means
that macs are sitting ducks. that's wrong.

as i said before, if the user isn't tricked into installing something
*and* overrides all the protections that are in place for trying, the
risk is basically zero.

something *else* is more likely to cause problems than malware.

the part you do not understand is that mac malware *requires* user
participation. it cannot propagate on its own.

Your efforts to redefine the requirements for in the wild are
hilarious . Really, they are. A newbie might actually go for it.
Anyone else here who actually has experience in AV/AM or the creation
of malware though, isn't going to drink your koolaid. They know
better.

i'm not redefining anything.

mac malware cannot spread on its own. the user *must* do something to
install it. end of story.

mac os is secure enough that the only way in is by tricking the
user to hand over the keys. once the user does that, game over.

You continue believing that, if you want. Ignorance is bliss, so I'm
told.

then you must be the happiest person on earth.

nospam
Tue, 11 Jul 2017
21:43:40 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

for macs and all things apple, you know basically nothing.

HAHAHAHA. Again, not true.

don't laugh too hard because everything you've said about apple
has been completely wrong.

Nope. I shared urls yesterday concerning Apples DRM and it's lockdown
limitations. Although they don't do that silly **** anymore with
their compressed music tracks, they used to. And, it was restrictive,
as I said. There were limits to the amount of authorized hardware at
one time. You couldn't just copy drm tracks to all the devices you
wanted at one time. Which is obvious as that would defeat the entire
point of having DRM in the first place.

I'm well aware of the definition of a computer virus, thanks.
I've actually written a few, back in the day. Not scripts,
mind you, but actual executable based infection.

that's not something to be proud of.

I said nothing about being proud of it. I only mention it because
you assumed I was a 'wannabe script kiddie'; I've never been one.

you keep bringing it up, so clearly you think it's some sort of
accomplishment.

Nope. I bring it up because you were wrong with your label and
assumption concerning me. I find that to be very amusing, so, I
remind you of your screwup. Again, your screwup. Assumptions and
inaccurate label as a result of your assumptions.

regardless of whatever definition you want to use, there is
no self-propagating malware on a mac and the chances of that
are so close to zero that it can be considered to be zero.

A virus isn't the only item that propogates into the wild.

argue all you want about semantics. the fact is that mac
malware doesn't propagate on its own. period.

Perhaps I'm using terminology that's just too hard for you to
understand? Self propogation is NOT a requirement for being 'in
the wild'. Stupid users passing things around via email suffices,
quite nicely.

i didn't say self propagation was a requirement for being in the
wild.

So your attempted redefinition of what itw malware is is a moot point
then. Fact is, Malware for mac does exist, ITW. End of story as far
as that's concerned.

on windows, there *is* self-propagating malware and users don't
need to do anything to get pwned.

Unless it's actually a virus and/or worm and/or combination of the
two, a user must do something as stupid as they would on a mac;
execute the attachment (excluding exploits with vulnerable software,
but again, that usually requires the user to be doing something
stupid). And, even if it is the aforementioned nasty, it still
requires atleast one individual along the way to say "yes, you can
come in". Once the individual does so, all bets are off as to the
underlying security of the network the stupid individual is using.

wannacry/petya have shut down entire companies.

Due to phishing emails and stupid office workers and stupid IT dept
staff that had improper security policies in place. It's one thing to
****up and allow a workstation to be compromised as a result of
malware, gross incompetence to allow said workstation to compromise
other machines on the network because the network is improperly
configured.


Actually, most of the time, the crap that passes for malware
these days for Windows or mac, requires atleast one dumbass to
execute the code the first time. And another set of dumbasses
with improper networking configuration for it to do anything else
without further dumbasses clicking on it. It's not 'magical'
Wannacry,petya,notpetya didn't 'spread' entirely on their own.
NONE of them are actually a virus, but, two did more closely
resemble a worm. Again though, it required several dumbasses in
order to become threatening and active.

I'd much rather deal with a worm than an actual virus anyday,
myself. The worm is self contained, find and kill it. The virus,
oth, not so much, no. It has a nasty tendency of making various
executables/documents, etc (other forms where executable code can
live) it's home. Requiring careful removal so as not to destroy
the host file(s)/home(s) in the process. A virus+worm (yes, those
exist too) is a pain, because you must not only kill the worm
aspect, but the viral component too. And, that's not done simply
by deleting files deemed infected, unless you have good backups
you can resort to.

I realize that's quite a ways above your paygrade, but, not mine.

you realize wrong, again.

If you understood what I just wrote, you wouldn't even bother
continuing this.


what part of it could not have worked even if they wanted it to is
not clear?

You have a very real false sense of security concerning your mac.

it's well established that macs are far more secure than windows,
something which you still refuse to accept.

Heh, that's not well established at all, actually. Quite the
contrary, infact.

It's far from impossible to infect your mac.

this isn't about my systems (which aren't all just macs), but macs
in general.

Again, you haven't got the foggiest idea how this works from a low
level aspect. You've likely never written low level code yourself on
any modern machine (mac, or pc) and certainly nothing intended to be
propagating, either via user interaction and/or on it's own.

the reality is that *self-propagating* malware on a mac, without
*any* user participation, can't spread, and it certainly can't
take down entire companies.

You just keep believing that.

a malware author isn't going to bother to even try because the
return on investment is simply not worth the effort. windows is
much easier and they'll get their bounty with a *lot* less work.

That's only part of the reason, with exceptions. It's not about ease
per say, it's about value. Macs have no value for the intended
purpose. If one day, the user base grows to where a mac is in charge
of something worth taking datawise and/or control over, things will
change. Until then, malware authors (myself included at one point) go
for the big fish. And, that's not mac. As a hobby though, some
malware authors do like to **** around with mac users, just to remind
them that they aren't as immune as they'd like to think.

Again though, it's more to do with the userbase and value of target
than it is anything else. You're in the minority. For the time being.
Make a greater effort to plant macs in more important roles, and,
you'll become a value target and you'll learn the hard way you were
never safe from malware in the first place.

malware authors target windows and now android because it's easy
and the return on investment is huge.

Please don't pretend to tell me what malware authors do. You've never
been one.

i don't believe any of the hype.

Obviously you do if you think mac is immune. And if you actually knew
wtf you were writing about, you wouldn't have made the statement
concerning what a malware author would love/not love to have, either.
AV has never really gotten in the way of a serious author. It was
always retroactive with my stuff and that of my peers.

anti-malware utilities are utter **** and cause far more problems
than they attempt to solve.

Personal opinion which isn't really backed up by much evidence. What
evidence that does exist is mostly speculation and can be attributed
to user error along the way.

worse, some anti-malware companies have actually written their own
malware and released it, then bragged that they were first to
'detect' it.

Heh, that's actually a common myth. I'm surprised someone of your
supposed stature actually bought it. even for a second. Well, not
really, but...

it's easy to detect what you wrote yourself. it's also disgusting
that they'd resort to such scams to generate sales.

They do nothing of the sort. You have no idea how any of this works.

the problem is that it's *really* hard to write effective
malware on a mac and getting harder every day.

ROFL, No, it's not.

yes it absolutely is, which is why there is almost none and what
does exist is fairly lame.

almost none? By what do you base such a silly claim on?

nothing is perfect, but the risk of mac malware is *extremely*
low.

Not for the reasons you think...

malware is *waaaaaay* down on the list.

Ignorance is bliss, so I'm told.

Despite the forgetful userbase you do have, itw malware
(viruses are a subset, actually) does exist for your platform.

nobody is forgetful nor has anyone said there's no mac malware.

You seem to be disillusioned into thinking mac malware isn't itw.
That's in the wild. Which, isn't the case.

you seem to think that the existence of a theoretical exploit
means that macs are sitting ducks. that's wrong.

Once you're itw, You're beyond 'theoretical'; but thanks for trying
to pretend you know this subject. It amuses me, greatly.


Your efforts to redefine the requirements for in the wild are
hilarious . Really, they are. A newbie might actually go for it.
Anyone else here who actually has experience in AV/AM or the
creation of malware though, isn't going to drink your koolaid.
They know better.

i'm not redefining anything.

mac malware cannot spread on its own. the user *must* do something
to install it. end of story.

Again, nothing to do with itw status.

mac os is secure enough that the only way in is by tricking the
user to hand over the keys. once the user does that, game over.

You continue believing that, if you want. Ignorance is bliss, so
I'm told.

then you must be the happiest person on earth.

ROFL. Not even close. Nice try though.




--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

A bird in the hand is always greener than the grass under the other
guy's bushes.

nospam
Tue, 11 Jul 2017
21:43:38 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

In article , Diesel
wrote:



Point is, for less money, I get a faster machine that has
upgradability. Unlike the mac you claimed was 'better'

better depends on the task.

Indeed.

yet you dismiss anything apple without even seeing if it's the
best choice (which in many cases, it is).

Can you cite even one MID where I've stated any such thing?

the one to which i'm replying, among numerous others.

So that's a no? You made a specific claim and I've asked for specific
MIDs to support it. Your vague reply isn't an answer to the question I
presented you.

there is no single computer that is better at everything.

I never claimed otherwise.

yes you did claim otherwise, including below, where you try to
justify a mining system for photo editing and writing papers.

You're demonstrating that you don't know a damn thing about a
mining rig, actually.

nonsense, nor does it matter.

It certainly does matter. And, the more you try to dismiss it, the more
it shows you have no first hand knowledge of mining rigs.

this is about choosing the best tool for a given task.

Yes and? A mining rig would be a costly way to run photoshop, but,
you'd be pleased with the response times for everything you did with
the program. It would be gross overkill for writing a school paper,
but, you could do that too.

this concept is totally lost on you.

It's not lost on me. I've built mining rigs and thousands of other
machines for specific purposes as well as general purpose use.

Specifically, the hardware. It's not your standard run
of the mill desktop PC or tower.

exactly the point, which makes it the *wrong* choice for everyday
tasks, such as photoshop or writing school papers.

I didn't say it was the perfect choice for everyday tasks, but, it is
more than capable of performing the examples you selected more than
sufficiently. In fact, it's overkill in both examples you've given.

Writing papers would be a waste of good hardware, but, hey, if
you wanna fire up word or something, feel free. It's not going to
run slow.

nobody said you couldn't run word, but it's not the best choice
for that task. in fact, it's actually one of the worst possible
choices for all sorts of reasons.

I didn't disagree with you...Despite you thinking I did...

a chromebook would actually be a very good choice for school
papers, particularly when schools want the papers submitted via
google. it's also cheap enough that it doesn't matter a whole lot
if it's damaged, lost or stolen.

Almost anything can make use of google docs. So I see no real
comparison here...

Granted, I'm no wizard with photoshop, but, I know what the
mining rigs typical hardware consists of. I've built several of
them. Some were infact, using liquid cooling and I don't mean
recirculating water.

big deal. liquid cooling isn't going to make photos look any
better or make the user more productive.

That depends on how much time the user is forced to wait for photoshop
to perform various functions. If you can reduce the wait time, you get
a more productive user.

mining is highly compute bound, not i/o bound.

Heh. What do you suppose does most of the computations on the
mining rig? I'll give you a free clue, it's not the CPU.

nobody said it was the cpu.

Another vague reply. You really have no clue about any of this.

the point you *still* don't grasp is that a system designed to
mine coins is going to be an incredibly poor choice for photo
editing.

Other than a significant difference in costs for hardware, it's a damn
good choice. The response time would blow a normal desktop right out of
the water.

sure, you 'can' run photoshop on a mining system, but it won't
work anywhere near as well as running it on a system designed for
photo editing, and quite possibly with so many compromises that
it's not usable.

Again, you demonstrate gross ignorance on what a mining rig is, what
hardware is present, and, how it works. Photoshop is childs play to a
mining rig. A waste of good hardware, infact.

one obvious difference is that a system optimized for mining
isn't going to have multiple wide gamut displays. there would
be no point. it's not like anyone is going to sit there
watching the mining. it could even be a headless system with no
display at all.

Uhm. See above. The fact it may/may not have a monitor attached
doesn't mean it couldn't actually have several attached,if one
wanted to do so. The hardware to drive them is most certainly
present.

still missing the point.

Nope. I've gotten the point. You don't know WTF you're writing about
concerning a mining rig, it's hardware, limitations, abilities, etc.
and you've been talking **** about this for awhile now. I doubt you've
even tried mining for a single coin.

your problem is you don't even consider a mac as a viable option.
you rule it out before even seeing what it can do.

That's just not true.

every time i mention facts with references you snip it and argue.

I'm *still waiting* for you to do that, actually. You tend to accuse me
of the very things you've been doing, instead.

no aside anything.

the entire point is that macs can do a whole ****load of things
than other systems can't ever do (particularly linux), which means
the user will be more productive than they otherwise would have
been.

As I wrote above, you tend to accuse me of doing the things you've been
doing. You essentially snipped most of my reply to that comparison you
selected. And, cut me off midsentence in what little you did leave...

the others are open
to debate. Especially the lower cost of ownership and higher
resale value.

none are open to debate.

The context is missing because you removed what I wrote.

In 1999, for instance, Gistics released a landmark report
analyzing Macs and PCs in terms of return on investment (ROI).
Gistics' study was limited strictly to the publishing, graphics
and new media fields. Among many other findings, the authors
concluded that Mac creative professionals were producing $26,000
more each in annual revenues for their employers than their
Windows counterparts.

1999 was a long time ago.
...
...But at his own small enterprise‹then known as Interpact and
now dubbed The Security Awareness Company‹three-year TCO turned
out to be twice as high for Windows than Mac.
...
In contrast to the largely server-based Linux OS, Mac remains an
operationally viable choice for widespread use on servers and
desktops alike. And despite all the energy Microsoft has poured
into the new Vista, Mac is still king of the hill when it comes
to desktop ease of use‹translating, at the end of the day, into
higher productivity and lower tech support and training
expenditures.

Vista? You can't be serious.

You seem to be cherry picking some seriously out of date articles.

one of the major attraction of a mac is that it can run mainstream
apps that don't exist on unix (and never will) *and* has unix
under the hood for those who want to tinker.

You're contradicting yourself and demonstrating (again) that you really
don't know how the machine in front of you actually works 'under the
hood'. You seem to think a varient of UNIX (which is what mac runs) is
completely isolated from the cute GUI mac has. That's simply, not the
case. The 'mainstream apps' designed to run on a mac are infact,
running on that uber 'cute' varient of unix your mac has.

A closed source, proprietary varient, I might add.

a generic unix box is stuck with ****ty unix apps, and a vm
doesn't count. no graphic artist would ever run photoshop or linux
in a vm on top of unix.

Those lines are nothing more than your own, tainted, personal opinion.

it's all about productivity, a concept entirely lost on you.

It's not lost on me.

On May 24, 2017, Intel announced that Thunderbolt 3 would become
a royalty-free standard to OEMs and chip manufacturers in 2018,
as part of an effort to boost the adoption of the protocol. USB
is a bit more popular, you see in the PC world. Everything can
talk to USB these days. Thunderbolt, outside of Apple for the
most part, not so much,

actually, thunderbolt is very common outside of apple, not that it
matters, and blows away anything usb can ever hope to do.

If that were the case, Intel wouldn't have changed it's mind about
royalties in an effort to boost the adoption of the protocol.

macs have thunderbolt which must be included in any comparison.

you don't get to ignore specs that a mac has that other systems do
not.

I didn't ignore it, I stated that it's just not as popular as you seem
to think on the PC platform. Which is why Intel changed their policy
concerning royalties. They'd like to make it more common by having more
manufactuers of PC components adopt it. It seems to be going very slow,
considering how long it's been available. Intel obviously shares the
same opinion, why else would they forgo royalties in an effort to
increase it's adoption.

no. Certain PC based laptops have actually supported Thunderbolt
since 2015, but, it hasn't really caught on. Intel is obviously
hoping to change that, only time will tell if PC users take
enough interest in it. It might be like the VESA local bus wars
of yesteryear all over again. A superior technology in some
respects loses out at the end of the day. VHS vs Betamax, that
sort of thing.

And it doesn't come without it's own share of problems. AKA,
vulnerabilities you previously claimed don't exist on Apple.
ROFL!

you're lying again. i never said it didn't exist.

No, I'm not. You've preached from the mountains (figure of speech)
multiple times now on the inherent security offered by mac. Which can
be defeated by an optionrom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunde...28interface%29
The oldie but goodie optionrom attack. Gotta love it.

theoretical, never seen in the wild, and it's been patched, so not
an issue at all.

Some systems load Option ROMs during firmware updates, allowing the
malware in a Thunderbolt device's Option ROM to potentially overwrite
the SPI flash ROM containing the system's boot firmware.[71][72] In
February 2015, Apple issued a Security Update to Mac OS X to eliminate
the vulnerability of loading Option ROMs during firmware updates,
although the system is still vulnerable to Option ROM attacks during
normal boots.[73]

meanwhile, usb exploits are *easy*:

That depends on the system configuration and policy settings, but, you
don't know much about PCs, so it's no surprise you wouldn't know that.

Second, the problem isn¹t limited to USB devices. In fact, USB
devices are the tip of the iceberg. Any hardware device plugged
into your computer with a firmware component can probably be
made malicious. I¹m talking FireWire devices, SCSI devices, hard
drives, DMA devices, and more.

This isn't new news for those of us involved in security circles and/or
prior experience writing what would qualify as malicious code.

They do have a point. Now the onus is on USB makers to fix the
vulnerability. This is no easy ask, especially since Nohl said
that BadUSB was "unfixable for the most part," when he explained
the exploit at the Black Hat conference in July. Since anybody
can get their paws on the new BadUSB clone, there's definitely a
strong incentive to figure out a fix. And until they do, be
careful what you stick in your slot. [Wired]

*yawn* old news, and, it's a mitigable risk to boot.

It sounds like something out of a B-grade Hollywood plot ‹ a
flash drive that you plug into a computer and is capable of
destroying it within seconds. Last year, hacker Dark Purple
disclosed a USB flash drive designed to fry a modern system as
soon as you plug it in. The drive works by discharging -220V
through the USB port.

That's to be expected if you decide to take something that's
essentially a hv generator and stick it on a circuit that isn't
intended to deal with much more than 5 volts. Why not just add a dab of
magnesium powder while you're at it? As far as fry a modern system,
that depends on the protection circuitry present on the mainboard. Some
do contain circuitry to limit further damage beyond permanently
disabling one or more usb ports.

You obviously have no ****ing clue how any of this works on the
technical level. Apple hardware is closed source. MUCH of Apple
software is closed source.

some is, but not all, and it makes absolutely no difference
whatsoever.

What isn't is slim pickings. And, it makes a hell of a difference.

state of the art hardware and software is *not* open.

Not true.

companies are *not* going to give away their secret sauce. that
would be *stupid*.

Ehh, some companies won't. Others will. And, those who won't don't
always have the option of keeping it closed source. Some of us have the
required skills and ability to write our own software to have us a peek
under that 'sealed' hood, whether the company likes it or not.

Case in point, hardware dongles for copy protection (like you might?
still find with Autocad) software based copy protection that's been
broken. All cracked. Ho hum. Short of using serious crypto, whatever is
done with software (firmware is software on a chip), it can be undone
with software. And, even when using serious crypto, if it's not
properly implemented, it's going to be cracked if enough interest in
present in the product. What you call 'piracy' I believe.

windows is closed source, while much of macos is open source.

Er, no, not much of Macos is open source. Some apps created by
Apple are open source, but, MacOS itself most certainly is not
open source. Neither is the hardware Apple creates to run it.

far more of apple's software is open source than microsoft, some
of which is used by apple's own competitors, including android.

You stated that much of MacOS was open source, and, that's not the
case, it's never been the case. The only way to have a good look around
is to break copyright/patent laws as you do so. I wasn't comparing
Apple to microsoft, I was correcting your erroneous statement
concerning what is/what isn't 'open source'

not that it matters, because users want to get work done, not read
and possibly modify the source code.

Correction. That's all *some* users want to do. They don't care about
how it works, have no interest in learning how it works. That's *not*
all users. Some users infact do have an interest in knowing more about
how that shiny box in front of them actually does what it does, and,
they like being able to modify some aspects to it. To make it do things
it's original manufacturer may not have even considered.

Windows is one operating system an individual can choose to run
on his/her PC. PC gives people options, including the OS you want
to run on it. This is because the PC hardware architecture is
open source. Not closed, not proprietary like Apple. Apple has
always liked doing their own thing in their own way. And charging
insane (imo) amounts for the shiny case.

nonsense.

The last two lines are my own personal opinion, otherwise, the rest is
factual and not simply my own opinion.

prices are competitive and macs are the *only* platform that can
run mac, windows *and* unix.

http://emulators.com/

if anyone fleeces customers, it's microsoft.

I don't disagree, but, I'm not defending microsoft. A PC is more than
'microsoft'

if it wasn't for mac os being free, there never would have been
a free upgrade to windows 10 for the first year.

MacOS isn't completely free.

yes it is. mac os is completely free.

ROFL, only if you meet the requirements. Hence, conditions. Otherwise,
it's NOT free.

Conditions apply:

nope. no conditions apply.

According to Apple, there are.

Upgrading from OS X Leopard

leopard is *ten* years old, as are the macs that could run it.

no recent mac can run leopard.

you're desperately grasping at straws, and failing hard.

I'm not the one who's grasping and failing here...

there was no upgrade path for vista-win10.

I wasn't talking about a microsoft upgrade path. I was disputing your
erroneous statement concerning macOS being 'free'. It's not free in all
cases.

If you’re running Leopard and would like to upgrade to macOS
Sierra, first you’ll need to upgrade to OS X Snow Leopard. You
can purchase OS X Snow Leopard from the Apple Online Store.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201475

you keep demonstrating just how ignorant you are.

That's from Apples link. I don't think Apple is ignorant concerning
their own OS...or the required hardware to run it. They are giving you
options, after all.

second, a mac that can run leopard is too old to run sierra.

If that were the case, Apple wouldn't provide an upgrade path from
Leopard to Sierra, they'd tell you that your machine isn't capable of
doing it. Not offer you a method in which to do so.

in other words, it's not possible to upgrade from leopard to
sierra, but even if it was, no purchase would be required.

According to Apple, your statement isn't true.

You really think Microsoft pushed Win**** 10 on people for 'free'
because Apple released a 'free' upgrade with limitations? Not
hardly.

yes hardly.

ROFL. Umm, you're wrong. MS wants everybody using the SAME version of
windows. It's *easier* for them from a suppport pov if that happened.
One code base, instead of several others with differences. Much less
headache, for them. You clearly aren't quite the coder? you claimed to
be if you don't understand that.

windows *is* what people think when they hear pc.

Only the sheeple think that. We're not all sheeple though. Some of us
are smart enough to know we have options.

I think if we took a head
count of all the PC engineers, it would grossly exceed the
amount Apple has.

you're confusing quantity with quality.

That's nothing more than a personal opinion. One of which I don't
share or have any real interest in debating with you.

it's not an opinion.

You really should consult with a dictionary.

apple's chip design team is one of the best in the business.

Another opinion.

in less than a decade, apple's own processors are matching intel
in benchmarks, and in some cases, exceeding it.

Some specific processors intended for very specific roles. We're not
talking about desktop cpus here, though. Different design purpose n
all.

apple's custom hardware is more than just processors too. they've
been designing custom chips since the beginning of apple.

I know. I've had the pleasure (or misfortune) depending on your pov of
having access to many of those ancient by todays standards machines
along the way. They weren't the only ones doing that, even then,
though.


PC technologies are so good, Apple is going with Intel
processors, in lieu of their own.

wrong on that too.

Nope. You admitted it yourself, they're using Intels Ix series
CPUS. Instead of their own.

for now they do, just like other pc makers, but that is going to
change real soon now, and across the industry too.

Apple doesn't make PCs. They make Apple products. Although the term
actually stands for Personal Computer, when an individual hears the
word PC, they aren't thinking about Apple. According to you, they're
thinking about Microsoft. Technically, the coco series, the commodores,
the amigas, original Apples, etc, are all 'PC's, but, nobody thinks of
them that way these days. Micro computers really, but, why split hairs
at this point...

intel missed the boat on mobile.

Yep. Do I personally care? Nope. The right cpu for the task, right?

An ios device is comparable to a PC now?

absolutely, especially since it can do things a pc cannot.

Likewise, a real desktop/tower can do things the Ios devices aren't
able to do...What's your specific point here?

Or, is this another weak
attempt by you to move the goalposts? If Apples processors are so
much better than Intels, why are they using Intels?

i'm not moving anything.

there will be macs with apple-designed processors in the not so
distant future.

That doesn't answer my question...

there will also be windows systems with arm cpus, which have
already been demoed and expected by year's end.

Will be? Try, already exists and have for several years now. MS Surface
RT is a fine example of that, actually. But, it's not the only one...

apple's processors are already matching intel in benchmarks and
in some cases, exceeding.

Same question as above. Are we still discussing what's found in
Desktop/Tower PCs and Apple All in Ones, or the ARM processors
found in mobile devices? You keep trying to move the goalposts,
it's hard to tell.

i'm not moving a thing.

Yes, you are. We've gone from x86/amd64 to Arm cpus in this discussion.
What else would you call it? You seem to think ARM chips are 'new' as
well. They are RISC processors, which isn't 'new'...Unless you think
the 1980s is just around the corner.

For end users and app developers, there's effectively no
difference between an Intel-based machine and one with a
Snapdragon processor under the hood. As PC Magazine notes, the
ARM build of Windows 10 works its magic using a built-in
emulator that translates instructions in realtime.

Did you skim the article? The ARM processor is using emulation. It's
*not* a native instruction set to that CPU. And contrary to claims,
emulation does slow down the process. Additional steps are required to
do it.

I'm not
talking about mobile devices, either. I'm still talking about PCs

there is no longer a distinction (and never really was either).

Actually, there is. For end users, evidently like yourself, it doesn't
matter. But, we're not all end users.

for many people, a mobile device is their only computer, and they
do more with it than you do on your liquid cooled system.

LOL. I doubt that.

they're not tiny nor are they a gadget, the battery life is
comparable to most laptops (if not better) and their lifespan is
no different than any other computer.

They are disposable devices.. for a reason.

many people are doing real work on mobile devices, some of which
is not possible on a desktop/laptop.

You aren't running a full blown copy of Autocad 2018 on a 'mobile'
device. I'd say that is one example of 'real work'

the number of tasks that require a desktop or laptop is shrinking,
and shrinking fast.

Umm...

pc sales have been declining for several years and showing no
signs of changing. mobile sales continues to grow.

Yes, but, not for the reasons you seem to think.

yet you keep arguing that the only tool is a pc, now you're even
dismissing mobile devices.

Cite MID where I wrote that.

sure looks like you disagree.

I disagree with alot of what you've written, but, that's beside the
point. You're trying to put words in my mouth.

what article about an iphone? i listed things a mac could do that
a pc can't. there's a ****load more that i didn't list.

You listed Apple specific applications. And with emulation, a PC can
run many of them.. so...

sometimes it's a mac, sometimes it's a pc, sometimes it's a
smartphone and sometimes it's a tablet. sometimes it's a
combination. sometimes it's none of those.

Again, I don't disagree with that.

no single device is best at everything, which you claim to agree
with, yet you keep arguing otherwise.

You're the one moving goalposts and making inaccurate statements as you
do so.

So you don't have any way for anyone else to verify your claim
then?

if you actually worked in the industry you'd learn what *really*
goes on, not what you read about in a google search.

So you don't have any way for anyone else to verify your claim then?

Says the one who foolishly called me a 'wannabe script kiddie'
It's alright though, you don't know anything about me and I
haven't exactly been forthcoming concerning who I am or what I've
done, either. You assume you know my knowledge level/expertise,
but, you don't. Not by a long shot.

i'm going by your posts.

Obviously you're being very selective in the sections of my posts you
base that erroneous assumption on, then.

so far, everything you've said about apple has been *completely*
wrong and you keep arguing when shown to be wrong.

Nope.

A commercial grade device is designed for longer periods of
runtime, and, may also include things a normal 'residential' or
consumer grade device doesn't have. It's designed to tolerate
more 'abuse' than a consumer grade unit was designed for. It's
not simply a buzzword.

it's a buzzword and hp doesn't even say it's commercial grade
anyway.

Again, it's not a buzzword. There is a difference between consumer,
commercial, and industrial grade products. Quite a difference,
actually.

commercial grade also costs more, and you're very concerned about
cheapest price.

I'm not concerned about cheapest price...I typically don't go for the
cheapest, myself. I don't even haggle about price when I decide to
purchase something that says a dollar amount or best offer. **** it, I
don't have time to waste and I don't want to waste the sellers time
either. So, if I want what you're selling, I'm just going to pay your
asking price. We're both happy that way.

You have heard of commercial grade routers, switch gear, lawn
mowers, cooking equipment, dishwashers, etc, right?

that doesn't mean they're more rugged.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

enterprise routers and switches have features that consumers don't
need.

Which is why such 'grades' exist.

although anecdotal, i've had far more problems with enterprise
class routers/switches than i have with consumer grade stuff.

I find myself wondering how much of that might be attributed to your
own mistakes/lack of understanding of the product vs an actual
failure/design flaw with the product. Granted, I wasn't there when the
issues took place and don't know what you did to try to resolve them,
but going by your posts, and only your posts in the limited time I've
know of your existance, it does make me wonder if the failure was with
you, not the product.

you can't get more out of it when its specs are worse and there's
no reason why it would fail. displays are very reliable.

I don't know of any commercial grade products whos specs are actually
worse than that of the consumer grade by the same manufacturer. That
doesn't even make sense.

I last looked at Apple.com in May, when I wrote the post.
Whatever new products they've added since then wouldn't
obviously, be included in my comparison.

apple didn't add any new products. all they did was bump up the
specs of the existing products.

Okay, so, as I said, I visited the page in May, whatever they've done
since then I wouldn't have first hand knowledge of. Duh. So, you can
stop accusing me of lying anytime, then. As, I wasn't.

that's false and always has been false, as i explained already.

You're contradicting your previous statement. How would I know what
they've done since May as far as bumping specs up? At the time I
visited, it was i5. Not i7.

apple includes *free* 2 day shipping, but in reality, it's almost
always next day for no extra charge, and for those who live near
an apple store, they can pick it up within an hour or so, which
means it can be same day 'shipping', all for free.

We had an apple store roughly 100 miles or so away, give or take a few.
It closed. The next closest one is a considerable drive further. For
the price apple charges, I'd expect free shipping, myself. Although,
it's probably not actually free, it's most likely included already in
the purchase price. You rarely get anything for free.

using *your* $1400 display, that means the computer part of the
imac is just $400 more, and it's not possible to match its specs
for that.

The PC itself is under a grand with superior hardware specs than that
offered by Apple in May for $2299.99;excluding video as the PC doesn't
have it 'built in', it's NOT an all in one. Rather, it's actually
upgradable and easily serviced.

Apples computer is an all in one which makes the 'comparison' a bit
jaded in the first place. As I wrote, when you first brought it up,
prior to my taking a closer look at them and writing that post.

a i7 retina imac (which do exist, despite your claims otherwise),
is an additional $300, bringing the price to $2099.

I didn't see any i7 imac in May on Apple.com. And by your own words in
this very post, Apple 'bumped' up the specs, AFTER I'd already written
the post. Which would explain why it took you until July to respond to
my post.

in other words, the mac is very competitive with other offerings.

The mac isn't easily upgraded. You most likely can bump up the ram and
single internal hd, but, otherwise, you won't be adding additional
cards to it's mainboard for more features. The PC, oth, will happily
accept new cards, more ram, bigger HD (multiple HDs internally infact),
etc.

They aren't that competitive when you factor those differences in.


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Making a book is a craft, like making a clock; it needs more than
native wit to be an author. --Jean de la Bruyere

On Thursday, July 13, 2017 at 9:27:41 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
nospam wrote:
...
That's only part of the reason, with exceptions. It's not about ease
per say, it's about value.

You're heading the right direction, but still slightly off base:
it is about the ROI (Return on Investment), which incorporates
both the Investment cost (such as the technical challenges to
create the attack vector) as well as the Return (revenue potential,
prestige, etc).

Point being that one can have a very high return potential, but
when the investment cost to get there is also very high, the
resulting ROI can be unfavorable.



Macs have no value for the intended
purpose. If one day, the user base grows to where a mac is in charge
of something worth taking datawise and/or control over, things will
change. Until then, malware authors (myself included at one point) go
for the big fish. And, that's not mac.

That sort of claim depends on just how sophisticated one's
target assessment is. For example, some people will simply say that
the Mac's global marketshare (currently ~7% based on sales) is "too
small" and stop there. Others will instead look at the US domestic
marketshaer (currently ~12% based on sales), then also consider in
that most Macs are in homes, not Enterprise, so SWAG a "2x" factor
onto that 12% to get a "1 in 4 Households" perspective, and then
recognize further that demographically, Macs are found in more
affluent households ("big fish"), not the dirt poor ones.

Case in point (2012, so slightly dated):

"The average household income for adult owners of Mac computers
is $98,560, compared with $74,452 for a PC owner..."

https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/06/26/why-the-apple-demographic-is-so-important-to-orbitz-and-retailers/

Similarly,

"Apple took 65% of U.S. phone buyers making $100,000+ a year"

http://fortune.com/2014/02/21/apple-took-65-of-u-s-phone-buyers-making-100000-a-year/

So then! Based on better insight, who still wants to honestly claim
that Mac users are a target that's not worth bothering with?

Now do keep in mind that this is just the "Return" side of the ROI;
there's still the question of how steep the "Investment" (how hard
it is to create a viable vulnerability):

Again though, it's more to do with the userbase and value of target
than it is anything else. You're in the minority. For the time being.
Make a greater effort to plant macs in more important roles, and,
you'll become a value target and you'll learn the hard way you were
never safe from malware in the first place.

And there's tons & tons of gold in Ft. Knox ... but despite its
huge windfall potential, no one breaks in there, either. Again,
its an ROI where the Investment is too high for the Return.


malware authors target windows and now android because it's easy
and the return on investment is huge.

Please don't pretend to tell me what malware authors do. You've never
been one.

You've also never been a Grizzly Bear ... but so does that mean
that you're willing to walk into a cage with one? Video please! /S


-hh

In article
S3DQmpBqD, Diesel
wrote:

for macs and all things apple, you know basically nothing.

HAHAHAHA. Again, not true.

don't laugh too hard because everything you've said about apple
has been completely wrong.

Nope. I shared urls yesterday concerning Apples DRM and it's lockdown
limitations. Although they don't do that silly **** anymore with
their compressed music tracks, they used to.

nope. apple never did what you claimed they did.

you are wrong (again).

And, it was restrictive,
as I said. There were limits to the amount of authorized hardware at
one time.

where 'hardware' is *computers*, not ipods or cds.

it was and still is an unlimited number of ipods and cds.
the only limitation was the number of *computers*.

it was the least restrictive of any drm at the time.

you're also oblivious to the fact that ipods could play music from
*any* source, not just the itunes store, including pirated music, which
is what a lot of ipod users actually did and one reason why apple
created the music store.

this is a fact.

You couldn't just copy drm tracks to all the devices you
wanted at one time.

you could copy to unlimited ipods and burn unlimited audio cds, so yes.

Which is obvious as that would defeat the entire
point of having DRM in the first place.

except that's exactly what they did.

that's why it was the least restrictive of any drm at the time.



So your attempted redefinition of what itw malware is is a moot point
then. Fact is, Malware for mac does exist, ITW. End of story as far
as that's concerned.

i never said it didn't exist. i said that unlike windows, it requires
user participation and isn't a significant risk unless the user ****s
up, which is a user exploit, not a mac exploit.


it's well established that macs are far more secure than windows,
something which you still refuse to accept.

Heh, that's not well established at all, actually. Quite the
contrary, infact.

nonsense.

it's so well established that google prohibits using windows internally
unless it's absolutely required.

i linked this before but you either didn't read it or chose to ignore
it because it proves you wrong. again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...le-bans-Micros
oft-Windows-on-office-computers.html
Google staff will instead be asked to use Apple's OS X operating
system, or an open-source Linux platform, as the search giant tries
to close the security loopholes that made it possible for Chinese
hackers to gain access to email accounts. Security experts believe
the hackers exploited a loophole in Microsoft's Internet Explorer
browser to hack in to the Gmail accounts of human rights activists
and Chinese dissidents.

https://www.engadget.com/2010/05/31/...ac-or-linux-bu
t-no-more-windows/
...any Google staffers, however, were already heading for the Mac as
a security measure, and at this point things have been pretty well
laid down in stone: "Getting a new Windows machine now requires CIO
approval," according to one anonymous Googler quoted by the FT.

in addition, *millions* of windows systems have been pwned by wannacry
and petya in recent months, shutting down entire companies.

not a single instance of mac malware has ever shut down an entire
company or even part of a company. not one.


It's far from impossible to infect your mac.

this isn't about my systems (which aren't all just macs), but macs
in general.

Again, you haven't got the foggiest idea how this works from a low
level aspect. You've likely never written low level code yourself on
any modern machine (mac, or pc) and certainly nothing intended to be
propagating, either via user interaction and/or on it's own.

nonsense and it's *you* who hasn't the slightest idea how macs work.

you know *nothing* about macs, other than they're made by apple.

everything you've said about macs is anywhere from wrong to flat out
absurd.



a malware author isn't going to bother to even try because the
return on investment is simply not worth the effort. windows is
much easier and they'll get their bounty with a *lot* less work.

That's only part of the reason, with exceptions. It's not about ease
per say, it's about value. Macs have no value for the intended
purpose. If one day, the user base grows to where a mac is in charge
of something worth taking datawise and/or control over, things will
change. Until then, malware authors (myself included at one point) go
for the big fish. And, that's not mac. As a hobby though, some
malware authors do like to **** around with mac users, just to remind
them that they aren't as immune as they'd like to think.

more accurately, they're too incompetent to know how to do an effective
job writing mac malware (or anything else for that matter), so they go
for the *easy* fish and the low hanging fruit, which is windows and
android.

they might experiment with macs, but they don't get very far.

Again though, it's more to do with the userbase and value of target
than it is anything else. You're in the minority. For the time being.
Make a greater effort to plant macs in more important roles, and,
you'll become a value target and you'll learn the hard way you were
never safe from malware in the first place.

it has more to do macs being more secure from the start.


malware authors target windows and now android because it's easy
and the return on investment is huge.

Please don't pretend to tell me what malware authors do. You've never
been one.

i'm not pretending. that's exactly what they do.

writing mac malware is not worth the greater effort, while writing
windows malware is easy and profitable. simple as that.


i don't believe any of the hype.

Obviously you do if you think mac is immune. And if you actually knew
wtf you were writing about, you wouldn't have made the statement
concerning what a malware author would love/not love to have, either.
AV has never really gotten in the way of a serious author. It was
always retroactive with my stuff and that of my peers.

i never said macs were immune. stop lying. nothing is immune, it's that
the risk is so low that it isn't an issue.

the *user* is the weak point, not the mac.

and if something does go wrong, regardless of reason, simply restore
from backup. a savvy user can be up and running in as little as 10-15
seconds. no big deal at all.

anti-malware utilities are utter **** and cause far more problems
than they attempt to solve.

Personal opinion which isn't really backed up by much evidence. What
evidence that does exist is mostly speculation and can be attributed
to user error along the way.

absolutely wrong. there's *extensive* evidence.

the only 'user error' is that of the inept 'coders' who wrote the
****ty anti-malware apps and the lack of testing it.

my personal favourite is when a mac anti-malware utility quarantined
the virtual memory swap files. needless to say, that didn't end well.
the level of stupidity for that to even happen, nevermind get past
testing, is mind boggling.

over on the windows side, it's a *complete* mess (and below is just a
small sample):

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/25/webroot_windows_wipeout/
Updated Webroot's security tools went berserk today, mislabeling key
Microsoft Windows system files as malicious and temporarily removing
them * knackering countless PCs in the process.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/norton-antivirus-1.2694494
Multiple "critical" vulnerabilities have been found in all antivirus
software made by Symantec, including Norton brand products, Google's
Project Zero blog reported this week.

http://www.securityweek.com/antiviru...ve-impact-http
s-security-researcher
German journalist and researcher Hanno Böck has analyzed three
popular antivirus products and determined that each one of them
lowers security when they intercept HTTPS traffic.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/avira-a...les-millions-o
f-windows-pcs/
German security company Avira is experiencing serious technical
difficulties. A defective antivirus update that has been downloaded
millions of times is bringing Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows
7 computers to a screeching halt across the world, according to user
reports (1, 2).

https://blog.hboeck.de/archives/869-...ou-vulnerable-
to-the-FREAK-attack-and-other-ways-Antivirus-software-lowers-your-HTTPS-
security.html
Having a look at Kaspersky, I saw that it is vulnerable to the FREAK
attack, a vulnerability in several TLS libraries that was found
recently. Even worse: It seems this issue has been reported publicly
in the Kaspersky Forums more than a month ago and it is not fixed
yet. Please remember: Kaspersky enables the HTTPS interception by
default for sites it considers as especially sensitive, for example
banking web pages. Doing that with a known security issue is
extremely irresponsible.


worse, some anti-malware companies have actually written their own
malware and released it, then bragged that they were first to
'detect' it.

Heh, that's actually a common myth. I'm surprised someone of your
supposed stature actually bought it. even for a second. Well, not
really, but...

actually, it's a fact, not a myth.

i have direct first-hand personal knowledge of one company that did
exactly that, creating malware, releasing it and then bragging that
they were first to detect it. i know several people involved and what
transpired and that's all i'm going to say about it.

there's another company that offered a free 'clean up' utility that
supposedly deleted files that weren't needed to 'speed up' the computer
(itself a bogus claim), but it actually installed obnoxious adware to
harass the user into buying their paid apps.

there's also this:
https://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/...irus-accused-o
f-creating-malware-for-over-10-years/
Here¹s a crazy report: Kaspersky Lab, makers of a popular antivirus
service, might*have created fake malware for over ten years to harm
its competitors.*The software was benign, but Kaspersky fooled other
antivirus software into marking it as infected.

Two ex-employees told Reuters that the clandestine attack was
originally meant to punish smaller rivals that Kaspersky felt were
Œstealing¹ its technology.


it's easy to detect what you wrote yourself. it's also disgusting
that they'd resort to such scams to generate sales.

They do nothing of the sort. You have no idea how any of this works.

they *have*, and i do, much more than you do. see above.

the problem is that it's *really* hard to write effective
malware on a mac and getting harder every day.

ROFL, No, it's not.

yes it absolutely is, which is why there is almost none and what
does exist is fairly lame.

almost none? By what do you base such a silly claim on?

a solid understanding of mac os and windows.

wannacry and petya can't happen on a mac.