If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
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 isnıt it expensive, and doesnıt it overload IT? No. IBM found that not only do PCs drive twice the amount of support calls, theyıre also three times more expensive. Thatıs 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 weıve 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 weıre 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 Intelıs hegemony .... ...A quick look at the Geekbench scores attained by the iPhone 7 quantifies a staggering achievement: the single-core performance of Appleıs latest generation of smartphone processors has basically caught up with Intelıs 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. |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
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 firmıs more than 10,000 workers will be forced to use Appleıs 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'. |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
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. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
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 youre running Leopard and would like to upgrade to macOS Sierra, first youll 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.. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
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 isnıt it expensive, and doesnıt it overload IT? No. IBM found that not only do PCs drive twice the amount of support calls, theyıre also three times more expensive. Thatıs 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 weıve 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 weıre 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 enterprisethen known as Interpact and now dubbed The Security Awareness Companythree-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 usetranslating, 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,* Guess that setting doesnıt 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 worldıs 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 isnıt 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. Iım 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, itıs 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 youre running Leopard and would like to upgrade to macOS Sierra, first youll 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. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
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. |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
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. |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
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 enterprisethen known as Interpact and now dubbed The Security Awareness Companythree-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 usetranslating, 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 isnıt 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. Iım 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 youre running Leopard and would like to upgrade to macOS Sierra, first youll 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 |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
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 |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Where I keep my spare cats.
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/ Hereıs 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 stealingı 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
THE 20D JUST LOVES CATS! | annika1980.com | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | June 4th 07 06:56 AM |
Famous cats...... | William Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 24 | May 29th 07 08:20 AM |
Cats and flash | Roger (K8RI) | Digital SLR Cameras | 20 | November 7th 06 08:14 AM |
Storing Spare CF cards next to Spare Battery | Ken | Digital Photography | 5 | July 5th 06 08:58 PM |
Cats Eye... (D70) | Seymore | Digital Photography | 0 | December 23rd 04 05:42 PM |