I thought maybe I saw pigs flying, or hell freezing over.
SOMEONE STOP THE MADNESS!
JB
Full Version: Can It Be?
... ahh Subtle, the memories from my old Mac IIsi (before I wanted to buy software from a store) ...
"The traditional Macintosh error codes are displayed like this: 0F0003 Where F indicates an exception occurred, and 3 indicates an illegal instruction occurred. On the Macintosh SE and II, the display would appear:
0000000F 00000003"
"The traditional Macintosh error codes are displayed like this: 0F0003 Where F indicates an exception occurred, and 3 indicates an illegal instruction occurred. On the Macintosh SE and II, the display would appear:
0000000F 00000003"
OK, Punks.
"Symantec said that it doesn't know of current attack code for any of the issues..."
So, I bought an MacBookPro in June. It has been continuously on (not yet shut down) since July 6. I run no virus protection, no pop-up-blockers, no nothing. I use its built in firewall.
... and not a cough. not even a sniffle.
I suppose you haven't read any of the articles stating that not a single bit of malicious OS-X related code has been found "in the wild" and any and all of these exploits are "theoretical." The only semi-serious one I have heard of is a M$oft Word-corrupting thing that affects both Windows and OS X.
How many security patches were there for windows in AUGUST? Answer: This Many.
Just because you have been sitting around pining for Vista for YEARS doesn't mean that you need to sling mud.
Try walking a mile in my Rodian-Mac-Loving shoes. You MIGHT find that you LIKE IT.
--Ruggiero
(Who never fails to rise to the bait)
"Symantec said that it doesn't know of current attack code for any of the issues..."
So, I bought an MacBookPro in June. It has been continuously on (not yet shut down) since July 6. I run no virus protection, no pop-up-blockers, no nothing. I use its built in firewall.
... and not a cough. not even a sniffle.
I suppose you haven't read any of the articles stating that not a single bit of malicious OS-X related code has been found "in the wild" and any and all of these exploits are "theoretical." The only semi-serious one I have heard of is a M$oft Word-corrupting thing that affects both Windows and OS X.
How many security patches were there for windows in AUGUST? Answer: This Many.
Just because you have been sitting around pining for Vista for YEARS doesn't mean that you need to sling mud.
Try walking a mile in my Rodian-Mac-Loving shoes. You MIGHT find that you LIKE IT.
--Ruggiero
(Who never fails to rise to the bait)
<--- so glad he's knows just what morsels to throw into the water ... 
JB
JB
Apple officials have been touting the price competitiveness of the Mac Pro and how for the first time in history a Mac is cheaper than the equivalent hardware on the PC side. "Professionals who are in the workstation market will find that the Mac Pro is priced $1,000 less than a comparably configured Dell computer," said Tom Boger, Apple's senior director of worldwide product marketing.
That's not just hyperbole. The Mac Pro is cheaper than similarly outfitted hardware from Dell inc. And it makes one heck of a machine on which to run both Mac OS X and Windows XP. (Like Apple's other Intel-based machines, the Mac Pro does Windows.) The standard configuration, as I mentioned earlier, starts at $2,499; A Dell Precision 690 configured the same goes for $3,448. Of course, Dell gives all sorts of discounts depending on the day, time, and position of the moons around Saturn -- so your mileage may vary. But the standard pricing is what most people will be offered.
That's not just hyperbole. The Mac Pro is cheaper than similarly outfitted hardware from Dell inc. And it makes one heck of a machine on which to run both Mac OS X and Windows XP. (Like Apple's other Intel-based machines, the Mac Pro does Windows.) The standard configuration, as I mentioned earlier, starts at $2,499; A Dell Precision 690 configured the same goes for $3,448. Of course, Dell gives all sorts of discounts depending on the day, time, and position of the moons around Saturn -- so your mileage may vary. But the standard pricing is what most people will be offered.
Stop CHUMMING THE FISH!
Some bite.
Some bite.
awwwww......the ruggmeister has to defend macs!! he has so much in common with em.....i mean they both aren't very pretty to look at....definately have flaws....can be annoying at times....but atleast they still prove to be somewhat useful and never seem go away dispite the competitions obvious advantages 
P.S. - Rugg you still got that mac vid i sent ya? Why dont ya post the link so others can see? hehe
P.S. - Rugg you still got that mac vid i sent ya? Why dont ya post the link so others can see? hehe
OOPS! They did it again!
Enjoy... you MASOCHISTS!
QUOTE
The most recent beta of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Vista operating system is the most unstable late development OS release from the company in over a decade, according to industry analysts.
"I have been testing Microsoft operating systems since Windows 95, and this is the buggiest OS I've seen this late in development," said Joe Wilcox, an analyst with Jupiter Research. "Look at the older operating systems, and by Beta 2 there is a stable foundation on which the [independent software vendors] can build."
In an article published at TopTechNews, Wilcox goes on to assimilate the recent Vista release to "a ship on stormy seas." A survey of 207 companies released by analyst's firm last week showed that nearly 50 percent of those companies plan to wait at least 13 months after Vista's release before deploying the software, while some don't plan to adopt it at all.
But Wilcox and his firm are not alone in their assessment of Vista. It's being reported that the broad range of Vista Beta 2 testers have found the release to be plagued by bugs and blue screens. Although Microsoft has not planned a Beta 3 release, some testers are suggesting that the company reconsider.
According to TTN, Vista's current memory consumption stands at a staggering 700MB -- recently reduced from a full gigabyte. Still, that's about three times the memory requirement of Microsoft's previously released Windows XP system.
"Put the testing aside, I can't find a valid antivirus software that works with it," said Michael Cherry, an analyst with research firm Directions on Microsoft. "That is a key application and runs at a core level. If the antivirus vendors, who work closely with Microsoft, can't get Vista working, then the core is not stable."
Cherry told TTN that it might be time for the industry to reset expectations because an operating system should no longer be considered groundbreaking technology.
"I am impressed with Apple OS and I like the way over the last couple of releases they have made a series of incremental improvements." the analyst added.
For its part, Microsoft (as a company) has maintained that the first release candidate (RC1) of Vista would ship by the end of next month. However, individual executives have acknowledged that Vista's code will not ship until it is ready.
Microsoft has said Vista will be available for consumers in January.
"I have been testing Microsoft operating systems since Windows 95, and this is the buggiest OS I've seen this late in development," said Joe Wilcox, an analyst with Jupiter Research. "Look at the older operating systems, and by Beta 2 there is a stable foundation on which the [independent software vendors] can build."
In an article published at TopTechNews, Wilcox goes on to assimilate the recent Vista release to "a ship on stormy seas." A survey of 207 companies released by analyst's firm last week showed that nearly 50 percent of those companies plan to wait at least 13 months after Vista's release before deploying the software, while some don't plan to adopt it at all.
But Wilcox and his firm are not alone in their assessment of Vista. It's being reported that the broad range of Vista Beta 2 testers have found the release to be plagued by bugs and blue screens. Although Microsoft has not planned a Beta 3 release, some testers are suggesting that the company reconsider.
According to TTN, Vista's current memory consumption stands at a staggering 700MB -- recently reduced from a full gigabyte. Still, that's about three times the memory requirement of Microsoft's previously released Windows XP system.
"Put the testing aside, I can't find a valid antivirus software that works with it," said Michael Cherry, an analyst with research firm Directions on Microsoft. "That is a key application and runs at a core level. If the antivirus vendors, who work closely with Microsoft, can't get Vista working, then the core is not stable."
Cherry told TTN that it might be time for the industry to reset expectations because an operating system should no longer be considered groundbreaking technology.
"I am impressed with Apple OS and I like the way over the last couple of releases they have made a series of incremental improvements." the analyst added.
For its part, Microsoft (as a company) has maintained that the first release candidate (RC1) of Vista would ship by the end of next month. However, individual executives have acknowledged that Vista's code will not ship until it is ready.
Microsoft has said Vista will be available for consumers in January.
Enjoy... you MASOCHISTS!
Yes, but, are any of their previous operating systems as complex? Adding in new features means bugs, end of story. And so what if a beta has bugs? From what I've used of Vista it works just fine, I never ran into any bugs or blue screens. I mean I didn't try and do every possible thing either, just what I would normally do, and I didn't see any problems.
QUOTE(Kyzene @ Aug 24 2006, 01:53 AM)
Yes, but, are any of their previous operating systems as complex? 
Oh, pooooooor wittle Microsoft ....dis opewating system is soooo compwicated dat dey jus CANT be expected to do it right!
BAH. OSX is as or more complex. And it doesn't crash. Ever. (At least not yet on this intelMac, and on my Macs at home, have had one crash in... oh... 2 years or so.)
And they even copying X... and can't even do that right!
NB: This poster was about a version of OSX that has been out for OVER A YEAR.
<raises hand>
You know - I don't doubt that Vista has bugs ... even plenty of them, it still is in Beta afterall. (I think I know a certain Rodain who understands the meaning of several versions of Beta [read: maps]).
I also think that 700MB for running an OS is ridiculous.
However, you keep shouting "crashes" from the mountaintop of superiority when it comes to the Mac - which I don't understand. I never, ever reboot. I never, ever get viruses. I never BSOD, choke, sputter, lockup, brownout or die. Ever. I also use XPs built-in firewall.
I suppose there are those people who have those issues - though I could probably dig up a few on Macs experiencing that, too, but it's not the norm. Not anymore.
</raises hand>
You know - I don't doubt that Vista has bugs ... even plenty of them, it still is in Beta afterall. (I think I know a certain Rodain who understands the meaning of several versions of Beta [read: maps]).
I also think that 700MB for running an OS is ridiculous.
However, you keep shouting "crashes" from the mountaintop of superiority when it comes to the Mac - which I don't understand. I never, ever reboot. I never, ever get viruses. I never BSOD, choke, sputter, lockup, brownout or die. Ever. I also use XPs built-in firewall.
I suppose there are those people who have those issues - though I could probably dig up a few on Macs experiencing that, too, but it's not the norm. Not anymore.
</raises hand>
I would humbly suggest, Mr. Baen, that a network administrator who has his probing hands all over the naughty bits of every little aspect of his computer MIGHT be able to keep a box from crashing. My guess, though, sir, is that YOU are not the norm!
As for a Beta, hasn't this been in development for YEARS? And to be so plagued by bugs this late in the cycle that developers find it unusable-- and can't even develop for it? I DO have a windows box, if you recall. Not only is it unstable, but it is plagued by IE popups, for Czechlosovakian software sites, etc. And I think I used it on the web maybe 4 times; and NO I didn't go to that kind of site. I am not that kind of Rodian. I think it only went to jk2files, etc.
We can debate this for years--indeed we have! But there is not a single X virus "in the wild" and that vaunted wireless "vulnerability" above was retracted... if you had noticed.
I dare you to use a current Mac for a week or two, as I have the PC. Walk a mile in those sexy Rodian shoes, and you will never go back!
--Rugg
As for a Beta, hasn't this been in development for YEARS? And to be so plagued by bugs this late in the cycle that developers find it unusable-- and can't even develop for it? I DO have a windows box, if you recall. Not only is it unstable, but it is plagued by IE popups, for Czechlosovakian software sites, etc. And I think I used it on the web maybe 4 times; and NO I didn't go to that kind of site. I am not that kind of Rodian. I think it only went to jk2files, etc.
We can debate this for years--indeed we have! But there is not a single X virus "in the wild" and that vaunted wireless "vulnerability" above was retracted... if you had noticed.
I dare you to use a current Mac for a week or two, as I have the PC. Walk a mile in those sexy Rodian shoes, and you will never go back!
--Rugg
No - I can't leave well enough alone ...
You are correct, I AM NOT THE NORM --
BUT, as for my home computer usage - precisely because I'm a network admin - I force myself to use XP like an average user, with the very point of knowing what to expect.
I haven't tweaked a thing. Honest engine. It's a stock XP Pro install - no bells, no whistles, no registry tweaks, no installation of additional pop-up blockers, or other tools to make my internet life any 'safer.' I've installed a few games, surf several sites and go on my merry way.
And, I have used the mighty mac, and I don't belittle it's usage nor stability. I loved my Macs - but, I also love my PC and don't seem to have the horrifying experience you profess the PC to be.
JB
You are correct, I AM NOT THE NORM --
BUT, as for my home computer usage - precisely because I'm a network admin - I force myself to use XP like an average user, with the very point of knowing what to expect.I haven't tweaked a thing. Honest engine. It's a stock XP Pro install - no bells, no whistles, no registry tweaks, no installation of additional pop-up blockers, or other tools to make my internet life any 'safer.' I've installed a few games, surf several sites and go on my merry way.
And, I have used the mighty mac, and I don't belittle it's usage nor stability. I loved my Macs - but, I also love my PC and don't seem to have the horrifying experience you profess the PC to be.
JB
QUOTE(JayBaen @ Aug 24 2006, 10:37 AM)
but, I also love my PC and don't seem to have the horrifying experience you profess the PC to be.
What do you expect from a mac fanboy? They'll over exaggerate anything.
Oh snap! Random shutdowns?!
QUOTE(JayBaen @ Aug 24 2006, 10:37 AM)
And, I have used the mighty mac, and I don't belittle it's usage nor stability. I loved my Macs - but, I also love my PC and don't seem to have the horrifying experience you profess the PC to be.
The SE-30 mouldering in your basement doesn't count!
Try a NEW one.
--Rugg
QUOTE(Ruggiero @ Aug 24 2006, 04:13 PM)
Try a NEW one.
Just make sure that your screws aren't too tight, otherwise you'll run into Sub's random shutdowns
QUOTE(Kyzene @ Aug 24 2006, 07:27 PM)
Just make sure that your screws aren't too tight, otherwise you'll run into Sub's random shutdowns
I thought posting ridiculous things like that was the cool thing to do in this topix.
Oh well
It's like it's just raining this stuff from heaven:
Who's imitating who . . . ?
And, just in from the I guess we're not that different afterall department ...
JB
Who's imitating who . . . ?
And, just in from the I guess we're not that different afterall department ...
JB
Whoamg CAD 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.