Originally posted by: addragyn
Originally posted by: ElFenix
if the exam software we have to use for school ran on macs i would have bought a 12" powerbook
The best of both worlds is having your fast PC and Apple laptop.
Microsoft's RDC (Remote Desktop Client) allows a remote GUI connection to your 2k or XP box from a Mac. It's fast & free.
RDC Review
Originally posted by: littlegoku
the interface is turd and the computer is slow (relatively to the price)
complete garbage
...what I want to know is: if it is so horrible, why aren't gnome and KDE making something better? I like the menu at the top, but that's all any other UI has over what I have in Win2k*. Otherwise they're Win clones to a T.Originally posted by: drag
Originally posted by: littlegoku
the interface is turd and the computer is slow (relatively to the price)
complete garbage
You have no clue. Windows has one of the worst user interfaces imaginable. It's just that people have been using windows for so long that they are used to it and don't see the problems that they've learned to work around. Most windows users have been trained by the IU to think about computers in a very specific way.
How much can you customize things in any other OS more than you can in Windows, and do so easily?Originally posted by: Sunner
It's funny how many Windows lovers keep mentioning the lack of customization, while I could say the same about Windows compared to Linux, *BSD, etc, but in those cases customization suddenly becomes a moot point.
And given the number of people who seem to think compuers have the sole purpose of gaming, I wonder how many people around here actually use their computers to ever get something useful done.
Originally posted by: Horsepower
Here's my recent and ONLY experience with a Mac. A friend is in a business that heavily relies on graphics. He spent 75 grand last year farming out and manipulating files. He asked me to purchase him a Mac with a large monitor. I got him the single G5 with a 20 inch monitor and it was $3500! I set it up for him, and it was rather simple. He feels he will save half of the farm out costs by having this. I couldn't convince him that he could have done it all with high end software on his PC. <fwiw>
What graphics industry is his primary focus? Is it web or print? Because if it's print, then no... you can't just as easily accomplish things on PCs as you can with Macs.
The printing industry is completely geared towards accepting, ripping, and printing Mac files. Macs are much better with handling postscript fonts and color correction/accuracy. It usually takes twice as long for printers to RIP PC files because they're not the ideal way to go, and over the years, Printers have embraced the functionality of the Mac to integrate them directly into their business structure because of it.
Some places have even been known to charge extra for having to handle PC files because they run into all sorts of issues when porting PC files to their equipment (and some of this equipment is UNIX stuff too).
And anyonetrying to do the same would have the same problem on my Windows box...and they'd have to get an attachment to run all by itself. In just a week now of my reinstall, Thunderbird has gotten 861 spams...I've manually told it no more than 30 of those, for sure, and it's getting better. And...running attachments is something we like to call a PEBKAC.Originally posted by: GL
You know, there is this myth that if Macs were just more popular, they would be inundated with viruses. And that may have been true with Macs pre OS X. But OS X is a lot more difficult to attack with a virus. Let me illustrate why I think this is the case.
1) Mail.app, which is the e-mail client that comes pre-installed with Mac OS X has built in spam detection. It uses a very effective Latent Semantec Analysis system-wide framework to accomplish this and, like other technologies, "learns" with time. It correctly identified about 95% of spam messages out of the box in my experience, and is now at such a level that of the 100 spam messages I receive per day, only 1 or 2 get through to my inbox. I cannot put a number on the tremendous amount of spam messages with infected file attachments that Mail.app correctly realized was spam and put into my junk folder. Somebody attempting to infect Mac OS X using a similar approach would have to navigate around a spam detector first on the vast majority of systems - not a particularly impossible task. But not a straightforward one either. An attacker tweaking the spam message might beat the filter on his own system, but not beat filters on other systems which have learned from previous infected spam messages. This very basic spam feature alone, acts as a huge virus deterrent as e-mail is an extremely attractive conduit for infection to attackers.
Any Linux will do this as well, and M$ should do it. Yes, that means PC users can get all of that functionality. Of course not running attachments is step #1.2) These file attachments were of course, binary incompatible with Mac OS X and could not have infected it even if I opened them. But, assuming an attacker is good enough to beat the spam detector and get an e-mail with a file attachment infected with a Mac OS X-compatible virus into my inbox, there is yet another level of defense. Users with administrator privileges in Mac OS X do not operate with administrator privileges all the time. In order to do something that requires administrative privileges, they must enter their login and password. So, for instance, to copy this hypothetical Mac OS X virus into the /System folder so that it would infect the entire computer system, administrator users would have to enter their username and password. This should alarm warning bells to the user - "Why does an e-mail attachment bring up this administrator authentication prompt?".
Of course, running an AV client could stop it even so...maybe that's why they exist?3) Mac OS X makes it much easier for people to NOT have to run in administrator mode compared to Windows XP. For those users who might be so uninformed as to go along and simply enter their username and password to allow an infected virus as in point #2, there is a standard user mode. Like its Windows XP equivalent, these users would not be able to infect the entire system. Unlike its Windows XP equivalent, these users can get along fine with ALL software. There aren't any software titles that would require administrative privileges to work properly as is the case in Windows XP.
OK, so what on earth does this feature, requiring root access, actually do FOR you?4) There are some features of Mac OS X that are huge security concerns. One that springs to mind is Universal Access' assistive-device functionality. With this enabled, a potential virus could not only read information from the system at increasingly detailed object levels, they could interact with these objects too. For instance, one could write a virus that focuses in on a Mail.app mail composition window while a user is typing an e-mail, and find out all the e-mail addresses that are in the To: field. Or even worse, add an e-mail address to the Bcc: field so that when the user sends the e-mail, it gets sent to an unintended recipient. However, this feature is DISABLED by default. Enabling it brings up an administrator authentication to proceed. Exploiting this vulnerability would require having it enabled in the first place - something the vast majority of users would not have done - or asking the user to enable it, which again should send warning alarms to the user.
Me too. After going almost six months w/o any AV client running, I tried Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D, and finally putting Norton on there, to see what I missed. Two viruses, neither a reasonable threat according to Symantec, and only spyware found was the windows media player stuff and tracking cookies that're almost always there. Domain and machine admin account, BTW, so no-holds-barred access and ability to screw things up.So what we are left with is the possibility that a virus might be able to infect a system at the user level. That is, the virus would typically be isolated to operating at the times when a particular user was logged in. This user would have to be given the right to download and install programs within their own directory. This would generally be the case. So in default conditions, the typical case that a virus writer can expect is that their virus will only be able to do rudimentary things, in isolation, a fraction of the amount of time a system is operating (e.g. because the infected user may only use the computer half the time and share it with another user). In order to make their virus more virulent and fertile, they have to navigate around several thorny issues that are present on every system by default. I quite like my odds as a user - especially an informed one.
Actually, no...it is wrought from BSD. I won't say the attitude isn't elitist, but they are right. It would be much more dificult to crack into, unless Apple opened it up for no good reason (not that they couldn't have done so). Just as if you are running a default stable Debian distro, you'll have little to worry about, even if it were as popular as Windows.Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
It cracks me up when Mac people talk about not having to worry about getting a virus. Like the Mac is impervious to malicious code. It's just that the people who write the virus write it for the machines that the majority of the world use...that would be the PC. That doesn't mean the Mac is superior, just that it is in the minority and not enticing enough a target.
The elitist attitude of some die hard Mac fanbois is really quite annoying.
Hey! VCRs are confusing! I really think they try hard to make them that way, too. A PVR PC is so much simpler.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
of course your going to get a lot of posts against macs on at forums but really, for the general pop, some of which are still confused by vcrs, macs do wonderfully. and the arguement that they can't run as many games doesn't hold much water for REAL people i know a decent amount about pcs, and well, trouble shooting/installing/reinstalling sh*t takes a lot of time and i know what i'm doing. i would never suggest a pc for someone that doesn't know what they are doing...esp if i don't want to be their 24/7 free tech support.
Originally posted by: Cerb
Any Linux will do this as well, and M$ should do it. Yes, that means PC users can get all of that functionality. Of course not running attachments is step #1.
Of course, running an AV client could stop it even so...maybe that's why they exist?
OK, so what on earth does this feature, requiring root access, actually do FOR you?
Me too. After going almost six months w/o any AV client running, I tried Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D, and finally putting Norton on there, to see what I missed. Two viruses, neither a reasonable threat according to Symantec, and only spyware found was the windows media player stuff and tracking cookies that're almost always there. Domain and machine admin account, BTW, so no-holds-barred access and ability to screw things up.
I'm afraid I can't feel sorry for anybody, on any platform, getting nasty viruses. If you get more than one every six months on Windows XP, you're just being careless.
...and I get a dialog asking me what to do, and telling it is an executable. If my grandmother, who needs me just to hook up her new DVD player, can figure out not to open executable files, anybody can.Originally posted by: GL
Originally posted by: Cerb
Any Linux will do this as well, and M$ should do it. Yes, that means PC users can get all of that functionality. Of course not running attachments is step #1.
In the event that a user does run an infected attachment that wishes to infect the system, Windows fails poorly. In the event that a user runs an infected attachment on Mac OS X that wishes to infect the system, Mac OS X does not fail poorly. The infected file may have gotten into the system, and the user may want to run it. But before a complete failure, there is one added step - authentication - that is enough to tip off the user and send up warning signs. That can make all the difference.
...and if I feel like a lot of security instead of being able to use most programs, I don't use Windows. I'd give more of a reply if the two were not mutually exclusive for gamers as it is now (how many current games are out there for Linux, and/or run flawlessly under the free version of WINE?). Overall, though, education is the best security.Of course, running an AV client could stop it even so...maybe that's why they exist?
When an antivirus fails from a lack of, or non-existence of definition updates, only the default protections of the OS are in place to guard against viruses. And again, Windows fails poorly whereas Mac OS X fails a little less poorly. Using an anti-virus software on Windows is good practice - it's akin to using condoms to prevent pregnancy. But using an anti-virus program on Mac OS X is like using condoms and the birth control pill. If the condom breaks, you've got an insurance policy. Layered security, is more robust security.
You didn't answer...if it is just an inconvinience, then why did bother to make this feature and disable it, instead of never including it to begin with? It must do *something* useful.OK, so what on earth does this feature, requiring root access, actually do FOR you?
It's one more hoop to jump through. It's a slight inconvenience to the user that makes them think about what they are about to do. The irony of Apple introducing an inconvenience to users whereas Microsoft tries to lessen them, in this scenario, says a lot about the two company's philosophy regarding security at the times they designed their operating system.
And if you can get relatives to stop using Juno, SUSE 9 looks like SUCH a good option...but even now, spyware and viruses haven't been a big problem, and we both are baffled as to why they are, when we have both set up PCs to very non-techie people. Mainly in that my mother and grandmother, for instance, will never be more than power users. And they have yet to run into a hitch. I think there are just some people that will screw it up no matter what you do.Me too. After going almost six months w/o any AV client running, I tried Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D, and finally putting Norton on there, to see what I missed. Two viruses, neither a reasonable threat according to Symantec, and only spyware found was the windows media player stuff and tracking cookies that're almost always there. Domain and machine admin account, BTW, so no-holds-barred access and ability to screw things up.
I'm afraid I can't feel sorry for anybody, on any platform, getting nasty viruses. If you get more than one every six months on Windows XP, you're just being careless.
I am not an engineer, but one of the pillars of engineering is to realize that everything fails given the right circumstances. Every attempt must be made to make these failures as graceful and predictable as possible. If you're the engineer of the Chunnel and realize that the tunnel could be penetrated by large amounts of water, it might be worth your while to put water sensors at various points in the tunnel that set off barriers at the entrances so that cars and trains don't continue to enter it once trouble begins.
I already agree on that one. I wouldn't bother hosting a web server and paying extra for Windows 200x Server when you can even do ASP for free, now.And again, let us look at an example where the "if there are more users there will be more attacks/viruses" myth but from a practical standpoint. Microsoft IIS has been the victim of countless attacks and had been the #1 world wide web server on the Internet. Apache has since taken its place according to Netcraft, and yet we don't see the same number and degree of attacks on Apache that we see on Microsoft IIS.
No, they should not be admins. If I can help it, those I don't trust messing with settings aren't.Marketplace dominance may increase the attractiveness of a particular piece of software as a victim of attacks and viruses. However, just because there is potential for something to happen, doesn't mean it can and should happen. I admit that Windows is a juicier target for hackers and virus writers because the stake is so high. That should not detract from the fragility of Windows. Microsoft has a great multi-user OS - they should start demanding that third parties ensure their apps work nicely as multi-user-aware applications as some are doing now, with the same vigor that they did back in 1995 when they forced these same third parties to develop applications that were 32-bit and played nicely with Windows 95's Add/Remove wizard. Moreover, Microsoft should take a look at their own practices and make it much easier for users to operate at more restrictive user levels than power user and administrator. There is no excuse in this day and age, and with the infrastructure in place in a win32 environment, for as many people as there are out there having to run as administrators.
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Can you say "Over-priced ?" I would try it, but not at the prices I see now. I also like being able to build my own using generic parts. Not an option with Apple ?? (not that I know of anyway)