which PC

On 6/6/07 11:12 AM, in article
, "jdear64"
wrote:

On Jun 6, 6:42 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message

...





In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

Do you want to look at that in detail?

Obviously you haven't.

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

Uh...name for me just one virus or piece of spyware in the wild which
is capable of infecting OS X (HINT: there are none).

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798

Quite a large number have been patched so far assuming you have installed
the patches that is.
You may not have as you appear to be invulnerable.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Randall Ainsworth asked you to name one virus or spyware capable of
infecting OS X. Your response was to post a link to security
updates. Is your reading comprehension REALLY this bad? A possible
security exploit does NOT mean it has been exploited.

I really don't care what OS others use. Just don't be an idiot.

He can't help it.

On 6/6/07 1:43 PM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


"M-M" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?

Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into
everyone's system to check if they paid for it.

If Gates can get in, so can you.

Irrational that one.
At least M$ don't embed personal data in media.


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

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

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:02:11 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

WinXP supports automatic updates, but I don't do them that way because
it often reboots the machine after the update is performed and I often
leave work open on the computer for several days at a time, and I don't
want to come back and find that the changes I have made weren't saved
before the reboot. Most annoying!

Ron-
Not saving periodically is just asking to lose work. Not being bothered
to save in order to avoid an update seems also like you're playing
unnecessarily with fire.

Even if the computer did not automatically reboot after installing
an automatic update, automatically installing *all* updates is also
playing with fire. As Windows experts have long known, it's best to
install only needed updates, since some will produce adverse
effects. Unfortunately, MS provides minimal information about what
is contained in the updates, who they would most benefit, and most
importantly, who might be well advised to pass on the updates. This
isn't to say that I have any interest in using a Mac, but NT and
Vista are siblings of Microsoft's Topsy family of Operating Systems,
whose excessive, bloated growth sometimes seems gruesome.

On 6/6/07 2:52 PM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


"George Kerby" wrote in message
...


What do you think is the reason for this? And DON'T come up with "no one
wants to mess with such a small percentage" ****.

The successful Mac hacker would become famous and welcomed to the Hacker
Hall of Fame. It's not that they aren't TRYING. THEY CAN'T! So far, at
least...



If I were a Windows user, my next box would be an Intel Mac, so if I
were
still afraid of a new OS, I could boot right into Vista or whatever.

My next PC is going to be a tablet.. something lacking in apples line up.

Oh really? 'Big Chief', I'd bet...


???


Too young, eh?

On 6/6/07 3:33 PM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

Mac OS X has less functionality than Vista (not that it matters to me as
I
run applications and not OSes as such).

specifically, how?

OS updates for windows install themselves and what's more they are free
and
don't cost $150 pa when a new "version" arrives.

nonsense. os x automatically updates itself for free, unless the user
disables that feature. major updates occur every two years or so, with
quite a lot of enhancements; the suggested retail price of os x is $129
and it can easily be found for $99 or less.

Do you want to remind us what the major enhansments were in the last $99
dollar upgrade?


There are security issues on Macs if you haven't been patching them you
are
asking for trouble.

they are all *potential* issues; none have actually been exploited in a
mass attack. there are some proof of concepts that could do some
damage, but they almost universally require the user to explicitly
install something and/or supply their administrator password. malware
that needs user permission is hardly a threat.

Oh the hardware in Macs is as close to a PC as you can get too.
Just as well really as Mac performance was getting very slow compared to
PCs.

not based on benchmarks.

Oh come on, even Apple admit that Macs were getting slow compared to PCs and
that is why they went to Intel PC architectures.
Now they are the same speed as PCs.
You really are about as much in touch with reality as the Iraqui Information
Minister aren't you?!?

They went to Intel because TI wouldn't/couldn't make RAM that wouldn't run
faster without overheating.

On 6/6/07 3:36 PM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

Because there's is no Bill Gates who needs to be able to get into
everyone's system to check if they paid for it.

If Gates can get in, so can you.

Irrational that one.
At least M$ don't embed personal data in media.

if you are referring to the itunes drm-free music, what did you expect
them to do? if there was no identifying information, then people would
post the songs to the filesharing sites. having an email embedded in
it enables apple and the music companies to see who is illicitly
sharing music and breaking the law. it is essentially the same as
having a name & serial number to register an application.

No its embedding personal data when a serial number would do the job without
giving away personal data that other people are not entitled too.


And those folks shouldn't be giving it away.

On Jun 7, 1:38 am, Ron Hunter wrote:
Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

the patches that is.
You may not have as you appear to be invulnerable.

There are none now, nor have there been since it was introduced way
back in 2001 - no viruses or spyware for OS X.

sigh.
You go on thinking that, but the facts are not as you believe.

You may be right ( or not ), but can you provide any evidence of any?

On 6/7/07 2:20 AM, in article , "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

What do you think makes OSx invulnerable?

That's an easy one. By default, you're not logged on as an admin with
root access. DOH!

You don't understand computer security at all do you?


Sure he does. He owns a Mac.

OTOH, you have to baby your bloated OS to keep the malware from making them
zombies. Get over it...

John McWilliams wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
Shawn Hirn wrote:

Not true at all. Try the latest Macs with Photoshop and see for
yourself or just check out iPhoto 6, which is great for the typical
amateur photographer. I use Macs and Windows XP daily. Mac OS X
runs rings around Windows for functionality, reliability, and ease
of use, plus I spend a lot less time doing maintenance stuff such
as installing OS updates and no security issues.
Oh? You mean you haven't been installing the updates to Mac OS X?
Maybe you should pay attention to them. I understand there are
several. It pays to keep up with such things. And ALL computers
are subject to security issues.

Can't speak for Shawn, but when I say I spend less time with updates
is because they are automatic, sure, and easy. It does pay to be up
to date, and it's more important on 'Doze due to sheer number of
exploits.

WinXP supports automatic updates, but I don't do them that way because
it often reboots the machine after the update is performed and I often
leave work open on the computer for several days at a time, and I
don't want to come back and find that the changes I have made weren't
saved before the reboot. Most annoying!

Ron-
Not saving periodically is just asking to lose work. Not being bothered
to save in order to avoid an update seems also like you're playing
unnecessarily with fire.

I hope that he has a UPS.
Allen

ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:02:11 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

WinXP supports automatic updates, but I don't do them that way because
it often reboots the machine after the update is performed and I often
leave work open on the computer for several days at a time, and I don't
want to come back and find that the changes I have made weren't saved
before the reboot. Most annoying!
Ron-
Not saving periodically is just asking to lose work. Not being bothered
to save in order to avoid an update seems also like you're playing
unnecessarily with fire.

Even if the computer did not automatically reboot after installing
an automatic update, automatically installing *all* updates is also
playing with fire. As Windows experts have long known, it's best to
install only needed updates, since some will produce adverse
effects. Unfortunately, MS provides minimal information about what
is contained in the updates, who they would most benefit, and most
importantly, who might be well advised to pass on the updates. This
isn't to say that I have any interest in using a Mac, but NT and
Vista are siblings of Microsoft's Topsy family of Operating Systems,
whose excessive, bloated growth sometimes seems gruesome.

Of course you don't; nor does Ron. It'd be far to easy, and there'd be
less to argue over.

Note I didn't suggest blindly installing updates on 'Doze, but that Ron
save his work more judiciously.

--
john mcwilliams