Apple makes Macs run Windows XP

"William Davis" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Callan Browne wrote:


Actually, I can't think of anything I'd LESS rather do than play the
"latest games" on my Mac.

Same here, but there's a lot more GPS/mapping stuff for PC than there are
for Macs.


Since this is a photo group, let's twist the discussion it back on topic
and wonder if the Aperature development team does something similar to
what the FCP team did, building more and superior features into their
implementation of the software tool, so that in places like Ad Agencies
where Macs are tremendously strong - Mac photo retuouching starts to
catch on and becomes a solid "standard" just like FCP has in the video
editing relm.


I hope that's the case. Aperture (I finally got over mispelling Aperture as
Aperature) has a looooooooooooooooong way to go to catch up with the quality
of FCP.

Greg

On 2006-04-06, Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Tom Warner wrote:

"Offensive rootkits, which are used hide malware programs and maintain
an undetectable presence on an infected machine, have become the
weapon of choice for virus and spyware writers and, because they
often use kernel hooks to avoid detection, Danseglio said IT
administrators may never know if all traces of a rootkit have been
successfully removed."

I never had one nor will I ever get one since I know better than to agree to
install software on my system(s) that use this dastardly and despicable
strategy.

And when the virus writers decide to start asking if they can install
software on your system, I'm sure that that strategy will work.
Unfortunately, in the real world that we live in, most malware authors
don't ask for the administrator's permission before doing so. Do you
even know what a rootkit is?

Even a fully up-to-date system is vulnerable to 0-day exploits,
particularly if you don't have any third-party security software (virus
scanner, firewall, etc.) in place. Anyone who would claim that Windows
was the most secure platform available is someone that I wouldn't allow
to even touch my system. Even if we grant that it is not more insecure
by virtue of design (which is already a stretch), the fact that it has
such high penetration in the market guarantees that most malicious
people will target it.

Paul Arthur MacIain
--

Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , Peter A. Stavrakoglou
wrote:

You're not implying that AMD based systems are prone to problems that
Intel
systems are not, are you? This is not meant to start a flame war but
specifically noting *Intel* based systems seems to imply that anything
else
will lead to problems. AMD systems are just as stable as Intel systems.

While I think that AMD sucks, they are not more susceptible to
viruses/spyware than Intel. The real crap is the software (Windows)

Mac would have done better to go with AMD rather than Intel. AMD is the
performance leader.

"William Davis" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4880022.stm

Interesting topic.....


Discussion on!!!!!


Just dying to see all you ms/apple freaks go nuts lol


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will be
able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will still only
be able to run Windows Apps.

Not earth shaking, but quite nice for us Apple loyalists.


Are you certain? I thought one of the things Apple loyalists liked was that
98% of the viruses written (and legitimate software as well) wouldn't run on
a Mac. Are you sure you really want EVERYTHING this change might entail?


Plus it's going to put a LOT of pressure Microsoft after just announcing
that VISTA is delayed yet again. If they don't watch out, they'll lose a
solid sliver of market share this holiday buying season when people
figure out they can buy another PC and run most stuff - or buy a MAC and
run anything they like.

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:

BINGO!!! We have a winner! That's why picking the *PROPER*
hardware and paying a small premium upfront is key for any OS to run
properly and reliably. The people that use Supermicro and Intel
based systems are immune
to the majority of these problems we hear whined about.

You're not implying that AMD based systems are prone to problems that
Intel systems are not, are you? This is not meant to start a flame
war but specifically noting *Intel* based systems seems to imply that
anything else will lead to problems. AMD systems are just as stable
as Intel systems.

Hell no! Why would I have to make that implication when the Intel
processor
is the number one choice of knowledgeable system builders and integrators?
Granted, the AMD is *ALMOST* up to Intel in performance and reliability
standards for mission critical applications, but has a long way to go
before
it will even be considered a contender in the professional IT world.

So knowledgable system builders don't use AMD processors? That's laughable.
It's this dismissal type of attitude that's making it difficult for AMD to
make inroads but they are and their superior products will win out in the
end.

Michael Schnell wrote:

Supposedly there soon will be a version of VMWare or something similar
that runs on OSX and allows running Windows (and/or Linux, or DOS, ...)
at the same time side by side with OSX.

That's today:

http://www.parallels.com/

But the site is a bit busy.

All the best,
Tom
--
With or without religion,
you would have good people doing good things
and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

"G.T." wrote in message
...

"C J Southern" wrote in message
...

"William Davis" wrote in message
...

Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will be
able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will still only
be able to run Windows Apps.

Having said that, why would I want to run anything other than WinXP on my
computers when it continues to perform flawlessly?


Count your blessings and be happy, you're one of the very few.

Sorry, I manage a support team that takes care of over 5,000 desktops, 99%
of which run XP. It's very good. Two things I believe to be true: Windows
isn't as bad as people think, and Linux/Unix/Mac aren't as good as people
think.


Greg

"Kinon O'cann" Yes.it's.me.Bowser wrote in message
...

"G.T." wrote in message
...

"C J Southern" wrote in message
...

"William Davis" wrote in message
...

Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will
be
able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will still
only
be able to run Windows Apps.

Having said that, why would I want to run anything other than WinXP on
my
computers when it continues to perform flawlessly?


Count your blessings and be happy, you're one of the very few.

Sorry, I manage a support team that takes care of over 5,000 desktops, 99%
of which run XP. It's very good. Two things I believe to be true: Windows
isn't as bad as people think, and Linux/Unix/Mac aren't as good as people
think.


Do you manage any Macs? I thought not.

Greg

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
...

AMD systems are just as stable as Intel systems.

In my experience AMD don't have the same safety margin (eg overclockers
always seem to be able to over-clock intel chips by a higher percentage).
The two seem to start out equal but as dust starts to accumulate on fans +
inlet and exhaust ports + inbetween cooling fins and temperatures start to
rise we typically see less stability from the AMD camp.

Every few years we build a system with an AMD CPU to see if anything has
changed - and every couple of years we stick with Intel.

"G.T." wrote in message
...

We have 12 full time deskside techs for 600 PC users backed by a team of
6 deskside engineers at HQ backed by a team of dedicated TAMS at
Microsoft and Dell. And we have only one full time deskside tech for 80
Mac users, and he ends up helping with the PCs, and we have no deskside
engineers at HQ for Macs, and no special deals with Apple.

So what you're saying is 1 engineer per 33 PCs and 1 (part time) engineer
per 80 macs?

If that were the case then there's 1 of 2 possibilities:

(1) You've bought non-complient hardware / software and setup it up and
continue to maintain it in an incompetent fashion, or

(2) The Macs really do require a lot less support.

If (b) were true then the Macs TCO would be soo soo sooo much better they
would have wiped PCs off the planet by now. The reality is however that the
Macs are a failure - their market share has declined to the point of being
practially non-existent and the switch to being able to run Wintel code is
their last desperate attempt to survive.

If those figures you've given me are accurate, I'd suggest that you've got
some serious issues you need to get sorted. I personally look after several
hundred PCs all by my lonesome - it's just not an issue.