The Swiss cheese OS

Tom Elam wrote:
http://news.com.com/Apple+patches+a+batch+of+Mac+OS+X+flaws/2100-1002_3-5694907.html?tag=nefd.top

Post by Tom Elam
One has to wonder if the virus and Trojan authors are ever going to
figure out where the low hanging fruit is?

They already know. Guess why they attack Windows.

Lars T.

Snit

2005-05-04 17:38:55 UTC

Post by Tom Elam
http://news.com.com/Apple+patches+a+batch+of+Mac+OS+X+flaws/2100-1002_3-569490
7.html?tag=nefd.top

Post by Tom Elam
One has to wonder if the virus and Trojan authors are ever going to
figure out where the low hanging fruit is?

They already know. Guess why they attack Windows.

Let's see... what to believe:

Folks in CSMA tell us that Macs are more expensive than PC's, but the
comparisons disagree:

http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices

Folks in CSMA tell us XP is as advanced as OS X, but the facts show them to
be wrong:

http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_win

And folks in CSMA tell us that OS X is as prone to malware as XP... and yet
there are no known significant threats against OS X... and many against XP.

Geee.. who to believe... ?

:)

--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 17:51:43 UTC

Post by Snit
Folks in CSMA tell us that Macs are more expensive than PC's, but the
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices

You have to be pretty silly to actually insist that Apple's prices,
for equivalent hardware specs to a PC are competitive. I just bought
an Apple, but not because it was a good deal dollar-wise. I bought
it *in spite of* it being overpriced, to experiment on, and perhaps
port software to it. If you are strapped for cash and need a
computer (bizarre circumstances that would imply notwithstanding),
it's pretty clear than an Apple is probably out of reach for most,
unless they are willing to buy the Mac Mini, which is a by-design
hamstrung system used as a "bid box" to get people looking at
the rest of the product line, which seems to be working somewhat.

Nothing about the Mac Mini, apart from the small factor is in
any way innovative or leading edge. It's very slow, has almost
zero expansion capability, and a very slow processor relative
to the current market. It's almost as if they are cleaning
out an old warehouse full of surplus hardware from a 3-4 years
ago by wrapping new plastic around the components and selling
it at fire sale (by Apple standards) prices.

Post by Snit
Folks in CSMA tell us XP is as advanced as OS X, but the facts
show them to be wrong

This I agree with, as OS X is based upon a UNIX OS model, so
it is by definition more advanced than Windows, as is Linux.
There are dozens of OS choices more advanced than Windows,
so that's no big feat.

Unfortunately for Apple and other OS vendors, market share
is not driven in general by technological superiority.

Post by Snit
And folks in CSMA tell us that OS X is as prone to malware as
XP... and yet there are no known significant threats against
OS X... and many against XP.

I keep wondering why the Mac crowd keeps repeating this, it is
almost as if they are daring someone to implement such software
on their chosen OS. If it is truly free of it, the last thing
you should be doing is crowing about it publicly. You should
treat it like a deep dark secret in the hopes that nobody
ever learns of it and feels the need to rise to the challenge.

Post by Snit
Geee.. who to believe... ?

Neither, as both polarized camps are wrong. The truth, as
usual, is in between the extremes.

BTW, it would be nice if you used a proper .sig delimiter,
namely "-- " on a line by itself (the space is significant).

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

Chad Irby

2005-05-04 18:30:26 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
You have to be pretty silly to actually insist that Apple's prices,
for equivalent hardware specs to a PC are competitive.

...and you have to be very, very silly to think that "equivalent
hardware specs" translates to "equivalent real world performance."

For a PC to be equal in performance, you're looking at a much higher
clock rate, much more RAM, more disk space, and the like.

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 18:34:50 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
You have to be pretty silly to actually insist that Apple's prices,
for equivalent hardware specs to a PC are competitive.

...and you have to be very, very silly to think that "equivalent
hardware specs" translates to "equivalent real world performance."

When I said equivalent, I meant in terms of performance, not in
terms of clock rate or other "on paper" comparisons.

Post by Chad Irby
For a PC to be equal in performance, you're looking at a much higher
clock rate, much more RAM, more disk space, and the like.

All of which are EASILY available on most current PC hardware
designs, and unobtainable with the Mac Mini. I suspect you'd
be very hard-pressed to find current production PC systems
that can't slay the Mini in terms of straightline CPU performance,
memory speed, capacity, disk space, disk performance, video
capabilities, etc.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

TheLetterK

2005-05-04 18:56:21 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
You have to be pretty silly to actually insist that Apple's prices,
for equivalent hardware specs to a PC are competitive.

...and you have to be very, very silly to think that "equivalent
hardware specs" translates to "equivalent real world performance."

When I said equivalent, I meant in terms of performance, not in
terms of clock rate or other "on paper" comparisons.

Post by Chad Irby
For a PC to be equal in performance, you're looking at a much higher
clock rate, much more RAM, more disk space, and the like.

Via's EPIA line would meet your criteria.

Chad Irby

2005-05-04 19:07:53 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
You have to be pretty silly to actually insist that Apple's prices,
for equivalent hardware specs to a PC are competitive.

...and you have to be very, very silly to think that "equivalent
hardware specs" translates to "equivalent real world performance."

When I said equivalent, I meant in terms of performance, not in
terms of clock rate or other "on paper" comparisons.

Then you're only going to compare much higher "specced" PCs in the
future? Okay.

Post by Chad Irby
For a PC to be equal in performance, you're looking at a much higher
clock rate, much more RAM, more disk space, and the like.

All of which are EASILY available on most current PC hardware
designs, and unobtainable with the Mac Mini.

Not on the cheap ones people insist on using. Sure, you can spec out a
mondo-cool killer PC, but you end up with a machine that's twice the
price, and should really be compared to a real desktop like the G5, not
a small machine that's 1/10 the volume and half the footprint of those
cheap PCs.

Post by Randy Howard
I suspect you'd be very hard-pressed to find current production PC
systems that can't slay the Mini in terms of straightline CPU
performance, memory speed, capacity, disk space, disk performance,
video capabilities, etc.

Funny, most of the comparisons we get from PC folks are with cheap PCs
(evidence Edwin's "Mac Mini Killer" foolishness). Low memory, not-fast
processor speeds in the 2 GHz range (which puts them about even in Mac
Mini speed comparisons), shared-memory video cards (which makes them a
fraction of the speed of the Mini in graphics), and cheap drive systems
(which puts them about even for access speeds). The comparison machines
also have XP Home edition, which means they're *less* capable then even
standard XP machines. Then, of course, you have to *build* them in many
situations.

I work with these computers all of the time. They're *slow*.
Noticeably slower than a Mac Portable or iBook, which are in the same
speed range as the Mini.

Once you get into the high end, the only two things PCs have any real
numerical advantages in are raw clock speed (with no real performance
advantage) and video card speed (which only seems to work with some
versions of Quake or Doom). Prices and component availability tend to
be about the same for PCs and MACs in the high end market.

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

zara

2005-05-04 19:57:28 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
You have to be pretty silly to actually insist that Apple's prices,
for equivalent hardware specs to a PC are competitive.

...and you have to be very, very silly to think that "equivalent
hardware specs" translates to "equivalent real world performance."

When I said equivalent, I meant in terms of performance, not in
terms of clock rate or other "on paper" comparisons.

Then you're only going to compare much higher "specced" PCs in the
future? Okay.

Post by Chad Irby
For a PC to be equal in performance, you're looking at a much higher
clock rate, much more RAM, more disk space, and the like.

All of which are EASILY available on most current PC hardware
designs, and unobtainable with the Mac Mini.

Funny, most of the comparisons we get from PC folks are with cheap PCs
(evidence Edwin's "Mac Mini Killer" foolishness). Low memory, not-fast
processor speeds in the 2 GHz range (which puts them about even in Mac
Mini speed comparisons), shared-memory video cards (which makes them a
fraction of the speed of the Mini in graphics), and cheap drive systems
(which puts them about even for access speeds). The comparison machines
also have XP Home edition, which means they're *less* capable then even
standard XP machines. Then, of course, you have to *build* them in many
situations.
I work with these computers all of the time. They're *slow*.
Noticeably slower than a Mac Portable or iBook, which are in the same
speed range as the Mini.
Once you get into the high end, the only two things PCs have any real
numerical advantages in are raw clock speed (with no real performance
advantage) and video card speed (which only seems to work with some
versions of Quake or Doom). Prices and component availability tend to
be about the same for PCs and MACs in the high end market.

Actually,
a "balls out" PC will blow a ""balls out Mac, out of the water all day, any
day. All for less money.

Chad Irby

2005-05-04 21:11:07 UTC

Post by zara
Actually,
a "balls out" PC will blow a ""balls out Mac, out of the water all day, any
day. All for less money.

...a contention we've heard, year in and year out, with no actual proof
except for a "d00D, I can build a totally hot Windows machine in my
basement for almost nothing, and you don't even have to *buy* the OS"
attitude...

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

ELVIS2000

2005-05-07 16:09:38 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
...a contention we've heard, year in and year out, with no actual proof
except for a "d00D, I can build a totally hot Windows machine in my
basement for almost nothing, and you don't even have to *buy* the OS"
attitude...

Well?

George Graves

2005-05-04 21:41:15 UTC

Post by zara

Post by Randy Howard
You have to be pretty silly to actually insist that Apple's prices,
for equivalent hardware specs to a PC are competitive.

...and you have to be very, very silly to think that "equivalent
hardware specs" translates to "equivalent real world performance."

When I said equivalent, I meant in terms of performance, not in
terms of clock rate or other "on paper" comparisons.

Then you're only going to compare much higher "specced" PCs in the
future? Okay.

Post by Chad Irby
For a PC to be equal in performance, you're looking at a much higher
clock rate, much more RAM, more disk space, and the like.

All of which are EASILY available on most current PC hardware
designs, and unobtainable with the Mac Mini.

Funny, most of the comparisons we get from PC folks are with cheap PCs
(evidence Edwin's "Mac Mini Killer" foolishness). Low memory, not-fast
processor speeds in the 2 GHz range (which puts them about even in Mac
Mini speed comparisons), shared-memory video cards (which makes them a
fraction of the speed of the Mini in graphics), and cheap drive systems
(which puts them about even for access speeds). The comparison machines
also have XP Home edition, which means they're *less* capable then even
standard XP machines. Then, of course, you have to *build* them in many
situations.
I work with these computers all of the time. They're *slow*.
Noticeably slower than a Mac Portable or iBook, which are in the same
speed range as the Mini.
Once you get into the high end, the only two things PCs have any real
numerical advantages in are raw clock speed (with no real performance
advantage) and video card speed (which only seems to work with some
versions of Quake or Doom). Prices and component availability tend to
be about the same for PCs and MACs in the high end market.

Actually,
a "balls out" PC will blow a ""balls out Mac, out of the water all day, any
day. All for less money.

Actually, you're wrong.

--
George Graves
------------------
A sports car makes the journey more fun than the destination.

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 21:17:40 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
For a PC to be equal in performance, you're looking at a much higher
clock rate, much more RAM, more disk space, and the like.

All of which are EASILY available on most current PC hardware
designs, and unobtainable with the Mac Mini.

Not on the cheap ones people insist on using. Sure, you can spec out a
mondo-cool killer PC, but you end up with a machine that's twice the
price,

If you buy a workstation from Dell or HP, yeah. If you build one with
high-end components from Fry's or Newegg, you can build one for the
half the price of a Dell, that will literally run circles around it.
This is especially true today thanks to Dell's insistence upon shipping
only inferior Intel CPUs.

Post by Chad Irby
and should really be compared to a real desktop like the G5, not
a small machine that's 1/10 the volume and half the footprint of those
cheap PCs.

Dual-capable systems have never been called "desktops" very commonly,
as they are typically known as workstations or servers. The G5 is
at worst a "workstation class" computer.

So what? You're not buying a Mac Mini to beat the price of a PC. You're
buying it because you like OS X and want something cheap to run it on,
or you are very cramped for space. It doesn't matter what the relative
performance is between PCs and Macs, unless you intend to run Linux on
them (or you think that Linux + your favorite WM is the same as OS X).

Post by Chad Irby
The comparison machines also have XP Home edition, which means they're
*less* capable then even standard XP machines.

Less secure, for sure. Less capable? Mostly with SMP, dual core or
hyperthreaded CPUs and a few networking features. I think XP Home
should be banned in the USA as a national security hazard. :-)

Post by Chad Irby
Then, of course, you have to *build* them in many situations.

Yeah, that's a tough one. Takes about 30 minutes. Less time than
my Mac G5 has been sitting in a Fedex shipping depot in Sacramento,
currently 34 hours and counting. It took Apple less than that much
time to package it up and call them to ship it to me. I could
have built about 50 PCs in the time since I ordered the Mac, and
still had plenty of time for sleeping, eating, hanging out with
the family, etc.

Post by Chad Irby
I work with these computers all of the time. They're *slow*.

I've been working with computers 12 hours a day, 6 days a week
minimum, probably since before you were born. You have no idea
what a slow computer is if you think any currently available PC
is slow.

Post by Chad Irby
Once you get into the high end, the only two things PCs have any real
numerical advantages in are raw clock speed (with no real performance
advantage)

Depends upon the processor, and especially the cache size, and to
a very large degree the specific working data set employed. As
soon as you start making blanket statements like that, any
credibility you might have had starts fading away. A dual opteron
system, with hypertransport memory will lay waste to most other
PCs on the market, regardless of clock speed, especially for compute
intensive tasks that have working sets larger than cache size.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

TravelinMan

2005-05-04 21:33:16 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
For a PC to be equal in performance, you're looking at a much higher
clock rate, much more RAM, more disk space, and the like.

All of which are EASILY available on most current PC hardware
designs, and unobtainable with the Mac Mini.

Not on the cheap ones people insist on using. Sure, you can spec out a
mondo-cool killer PC, but you end up with a machine that's twice the
price,

Let's see. Dell's average gross margin is around 20%. That means that
the cost of components is 80% of the selling price (labor and overhead
charges are very low).

That means that even if you paid the same price as Dell for the
components, there's no way in the world you could build it for half
their price. When you factor in that they get quantity prices that
destroy anything you can buy components for, there's even less chance
you can build the same system for half.

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 22:54:14 UTC

Post by TravelinMan
That means that even if you paid the same price as Dell for the
components, there's no way in the world you could build it for half
their price.

I wouldn't be buying the same components. I'd be buying better
ones. Especially, Intel != AMD in terms of performance, or price.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

Chad Irby

2005-05-05 00:00:46 UTC

Post by TravelinMan
That means that even if you paid the same price as Dell for the
components, there's no way in the world you could build it for half
their price.

I wouldn't be buying the same components. I'd be buying better
ones.

...and more expensive ones. You don't get "better" for free.

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Randy Howard

2005-05-05 00:13:45 UTC

Post by TravelinMan
That means that even if you paid the same price as Dell for the
components, there's no way in the world you could build it for half
their price.

I wouldn't be buying the same components. I'd be buying better
ones.

...and more expensive ones. You don't get "better" for free.

Ironically, AMD components cost less, yet are more capable and
faster. Intel of course sells their stuff to Dell at incredibly
deflated prices, to bribe them into staying away from AMD, but
the pressure to go to Opteron is growing quickly. Intel w/EM64t
doesn't hold a candle to Opteron, especially when you start talking
SMP and/or dual core systems.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

Chad Irby

2005-05-05 01:15:44 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
Ironically, AMD components cost less, yet are more capable and
faster.

Considering that you're going to have to supply a lot more than just the
processor (drives and RAM, for example), you just told us that while
part of your system might be a little cheaper, you're still shelling out
money for the rest of it.

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Randy Howard

2005-05-05 01:48:35 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
Ironically, AMD components cost less, yet are more capable and
faster.

I explicitly started out by talking about building workstation class
systems instead of buying from Dell or some similar vendor. They
charge a huge premium for systems they label as "workstations", yet
you can purchase dual-processor capable motherboards, some of them
far better than what Dell sells, for very low prices. Then, they
charge you Intel marked up prices (yet pay much, much less for them)
twice, instead of once for a single. They also decide that you
will always want a CAD-type high-end video card, even though some
more common Nvidia or ATI gaming card might actually perform better
for you, depending upon your intended use and cost less.

The other components, chassis, drive, memory, power supply, etc.
are probably lower quality from Dell than what you can buy for
yourself from NewEgg (if you know what you're doing), and get
exactly what you want, instead of your choice from a list of a
few items, which may or may not contain what you want. In some
cases, you have no choice at all.

If you need a chassis that can hold 8 drives, too bad. If you
need a chassis that is smaller than a Dell, too bad. If you
want a chassis with glow-in-the-dark fans and liquid cooling
from Dell, too bad. If you want something other than Intel
networking on the mainboard, too bad.

A dual-proc AMD 64 system can be built and perform better
than a Dell dual-proc workstation, for much less money,
nevermind the incredible performance boost of hypertransport
over Intel FSB in SMP configs that isn't even an option
from Dell.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

NashtOn

2005-05-05 11:37:19 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
Ironically, AMD components cost less, yet are more capable and
faster.

I explicitly started out by talking about building workstation class
systems instead of buying from Dell or some similar vendor. They
charge a huge premium for systems they label as "workstations", yet
you can purchase dual-processor capable motherboards, some of them
far better than what Dell sells, for very low prices. Then, they
charge you Intel marked up prices (yet pay much, much less for them)
twice, instead of once for a single. They also decide that you
will always want a CAD-type high-end video card, even though some
more common Nvidia or ATI gaming card might actually perform better
for you, depending upon your intended use and cost less.
The other components, chassis, drive, memory, power supply, etc.
are probably lower quality from Dell than what you can buy for
yourself from NewEgg (if you know what you're doing), and get
exactly what you want, instead of your choice from a list of a
few items, which may or may not contain what you want. In some
cases, you have no choice at all.
If you need a chassis that can hold 8 drives, too bad. If you
need a chassis that is smaller than a Dell, too bad. If you
want a chassis with glow-in-the-dark fans and liquid cooling
from Dell, too bad. If you want something other than Intel
networking on the mainboard, too bad.
A dual-proc AMD 64 system can be built and perform better
than a Dell dual-proc workstation, for much less money,
nevermind the incredible performance boost of hypertransport
over Intel FSB in SMP configs that isn't even an option
from Dell.

Randy, do you buy most of your components from NewEgg or could you
recommend other vendors aswell?

Nicolas

Randy Howard

2005-05-05 17:43:18 UTC

In article <Pznee.8261$***@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, ***@na.ca
says...

Post by NashtOn
Randy, do you buy most of your components from NewEgg or could you
recommend other vendors aswell?

It depends upon what the item is, and how quickly I need it.

If it's a peripheral or networking gear, it often turns out that
PCConnection.com has a wider selection, more detailed information
on them, and better prices.

If I need something right away and don't mind paying a bit more and
standing in line, Fry's will do, although it's a bit of a drive
from where I live.

For something like CPUs, NewEgg seems to beat most reputable
outlets. For memory, you may find that Crucial is a better
choice, depends upon the specific memory in question.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

NashtOn

2005-05-05 22:41:56 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
says...

Post by NashtOn
Randy, do you buy most of your components from NewEgg or could you
recommend other vendors aswell?

It depends upon what the item is, and how quickly I need it.
If it's a peripheral or networking gear, it often turns out that
PCConnection.com has a wider selection, more detailed information
on them, and better prices.
If I need something right away and don't mind paying a bit more and
standing in line, Fry's will do, although it's a bit of a drive
from where I live.
For something like CPUs, NewEgg seems to beat most reputable
outlets. For memory, you may find that Crucial is a better
choice, depends upon the specific memory in question.

Thanks for the info:)

Nicolas

ELVIS2000

2005-05-07 16:12:49 UTC

Post by NashtOn
Randy, do you buy most of your components from NewEgg or could you
recommend other vendors aswell?

Newegg is the only way to go.

Tim Smith

2005-05-08 07:39:28 UTC

Post by NashtOn
Randy, do you buy most of your components from NewEgg or could you
recommend other vendors aswell?

Newegg is the only way to go.

Right. There are other good places, but check out Newegg at
resellerratings.com. Their rating is very high, and it is based on a
*huge* amount of feedback, so unless there is a fantastic deal somewhere
else, Newegg is the safe choice. (If you do see a fantastic deal
somewhere else, check them out at resellerratings.com first).

Another place to check out is cyberguys.com, for the little things
(cables, for example). I've only dealt with them once, to buy some of
these wonderful things:

<http://www.cyberguys.com/templates/searchdetail.asp?T1=121+2510&dept=&se
arch=&child=>

and they were prompt, and they have a good score at resellerratings.
It's worth buying something from them just to get on the mailing list.
Their catalog is nearly 200 pages, crammed full of a wide assortment of
interesting gadgets and accessories.

--
--Tim Smith

NashtOn

2005-05-05 11:35:27 UTC

Post by TravelinMan
That means that even if you paid the same price as Dell for the
components, there's no way in the world you could build it for half
their price.

I wouldn't be buying the same components. I'd be buying better
ones.

...and more expensive ones. You don't get "better" for free.

No, but you can get better for cheaper in many instances.

Nicolas

Chad Irby

2005-05-05 12:26:35 UTC

Post by NashtOn

Post by TravelinMan
That means that even if you paid the same price as Dell for the
components, there's no way in the world you could build it for half
their price.

I wouldn't be buying the same components. I'd be buying better
ones.

...and more expensive ones. You don't get "better" for free.

No, but you can get better for cheaper in many instances.

Slightly cheaper. So far, every time someone has claimed such drastic
savings, it always came down to "I got a refurbished drive," or "my
cousin found me a motherboard that 'fell off a truck,'" or "I built the
machine but didn't pay for the full version of Windows 2000 I installed
from the CD-ROMs I 'borrowed' from work."

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

NashtOn

2005-05-05 11:32:45 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
You have to be pretty silly to actually insist that Apple's prices,
for equivalent hardware specs to a PC are competitive.

...and you have to be very, very silly to think that "equivalent
hardware specs" translates to "equivalent real world performance."

When I said equivalent, I meant in terms of performance, not in
terms of clock rate or other "on paper" comparisons.

Then you're only going to compare much higher "specced" PCs in the
future? Okay.

Post by Chad Irby
For a PC to be equal in performance, you're looking at a much higher
clock rate, much more RAM, more disk space, and the like.

All of which are EASILY available on most current PC hardware
designs, and unobtainable with the Mac Mini.

Not on the cheap ones people insist on using.

You're mistaken. For 400 $ I built a PC a year and a half ago that will
blow the Mac mini and the lower range of Apple's offerings out of the water.

Sure, you can spec out a

Post by Chad Irby
mondo-cool killer PC, but you end up with a machine that's twice the
price, and should really be compared to a real desktop like the G5, not
a small machine that's 1/10 the volume and half the footprint of those
cheap PCs.

You're confusing cheap and less expensive.
That's alright, it's common for the Mac crowd.

No it doesn't, not with a notebook hd.

shared-memory video cards (which makes them a

Post by Chad Irby
fraction of the speed of the Mini in graphics), and cheap drive systems
(which puts them about even for access speeds). The comparison machines
also have XP Home edition, which means they're *less* capable then even
standard XP machines.

There is no major difference between Home and Pro for the consumer. Get
your facts straight.

Then, of course, you have to *build* them in many

Post by Chad Irby
situations.
I work with these computers all of the time. They're *slow*.
Noticeably slower than a Mac Portable or iBook, which are in the same
speed range as the Mini.

Is this a fact or your bias? My 700 MHz Athlon feels very fast, in fact
just as fast as Tiger on a dualie G5.
If you're talking benchmarks, supply some numbers instead of going
around making foolish claims.

Post by Chad Irby
Once you get into the high end, the only two things PCs have any real
numerical advantages in are raw clock speed (with no real performance
advantage) and video card speed (which only seems to work with some
versions of Quake or Doom). Prices and component availability tend to
be about the same for PCs and MACs in the high end market.

I imagine high end 3d is an unknown to you.
Fact is, in terms of availability of video board, Wintel has Apple for
breakfast, lunch and diner.
Oh, and did I mention that you can future proof a PC a lot more than a
Mac, for much less and more easily?

Nicolas

Chad Irby

2005-05-05 12:23:54 UTC

Post by NashtOn
You're mistaken. For 400 $ I built a PC a year and a half ago that will
blow the Mac mini and the lower range of Apple's offerings out of the water.

Specs, brands of pieces, and prices, then. Don't forget to include the
cost of the operating system and all parts in the list (no "I had a used
hard drive that didn't count" silliness).

We've had people make this sort of claim a few hundred times here, and
it always comes down to "I don't really know how much I spent on my
crappy clone machine."

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

TravelinMan

2005-05-05 15:01:49 UTC

Post by NashtOn
You're mistaken. For 400 $ I built a PC a year and a half ago that will
blow the Mac mini and the lower range of Apple's offerings out of the water.

Specs, brands of pieces, and prices, then. Don't forget to include the
cost of the operating system and all parts in the list (no "I had a used
hard drive that didn't count" silliness).
We've had people make this sort of claim a few hundred times here, and
it always comes down to "I don't really know how much I spent on my
crappy clone machine."

More importantly, I would like some evidence that it's real - not
completely made up like his other claims (such as his running 10.3 on a
IIvx or his magical MP3 that crashes iTunes but which he somehow can't
produce).

ELVIS2000

2005-05-07 16:09:07 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
Funny, most of the comparisons we get from PC folks are with cheap PCs
(evidence Edwin's "Mac Mini Killer" foolishness). Low memory, not-fast
processor speeds in the 2 GHz range (which puts them about even in Mac
Mini speed comparisons), shared-memory video cards (which makes them a
fraction of the speed of the Mini in graphics), and cheap drive systems
(which puts them about even for access speeds). The comparison machines
also have XP Home edition, which means they're *less* capable then even
standard XP machines. Then, of course, you have to *build* them in many
situations.

Jeez -- everytime I'm thinking about buying a Mac all I have to do is
come here and listen to these types of arguments to convince me
otherwise.

Is Apple now lacing the Kool-Aid with crack cocaine? A quick romp
over to Newegg.Com reveals that I can build a system that would do
everything a Mini does better (other than it being in a small case)...
all for about $500.

$50 -- ASUS Black ATX Mini Tower Case With 300W PSU
$50 -- BenQ Black 16X DVD+/-R DVD Burner (beyond compare of the mini)
$65 -- AMD Sempron 2300+ 1.583GHz Socket A Processor Retail Boxes
(equivlent to the G4)
$52 -- ASUS "A7V400-MX" Mainboard (333mhz FSB with the Sempron... much
faster than Mini)
$55 -- SAMSUNG 80GB 7200RPM IDE Hard Drive (twice the capacity and
faster than the Mini)
$41 -- Kingston 184 Pin 512MB DDR PC-2700 (twice the RAM of a Mini)
$38 -- Sapphire ATI RADEON 9250 Video Card, 128MB DDR (quite a bit
better than the Mini's 32MB 9200)
Free -- Kubuntu Linux (all the stability, safety and ease of use of
OSX but free)

$351 for a system that blows the $499 and $599 Mini away. And
notice... no shared video, and no "cheap drive system".

In fact, a mini spec'd even close to this would cost (quick check of
Apple's web site) more than double... $749! And still with a slower
DVD burner, a slower hard drive, and a weaker video system to boot!

More than double the price for a less equipped system! Isn't this
what Apple has been doing for years now?

Seriously.. the Mini is equivalent in value?

And with Ubuntu/Kubuntu Linux I avoid Windows while having a safe
secure OS that "just works" built on the power of Unix. I even
avoided Intel.

Questions?

Lloyd Parsons

2005-05-07 16:54:47 UTC

Jeez -- everytime I'm thinking about buying a Mac all I have to do is
come here and listen to these types of arguments to convince me
otherwise.
Is Apple now lacing the Kool-Aid with crack cocaine? A quick romp
over to Newegg.Com reveals that I can build a system that would do
everything a Mini does better (other than it being in a small case)...
all for about $500.
$50 -- ASUS Black ATX Mini Tower Case With 300W PSU
$50 -- BenQ Black 16X DVD+/-R DVD Burner (beyond compare of the mini)
$65 -- AMD Sempron 2300+ 1.583GHz Socket A Processor Retail Boxes
(equivlent to the G4)
$52 -- ASUS "A7V400-MX" Mainboard (333mhz FSB with the Sempron... much
faster than Mini)
$55 -- SAMSUNG 80GB 7200RPM IDE Hard Drive (twice the capacity and
faster than the Mini)
$41 -- Kingston 184 Pin 512MB DDR PC-2700 (twice the RAM of a Mini)
$38 -- Sapphire ATI RADEON 9250 Video Card, 128MB DDR (quite a bit
better than the Mini's 32MB 9200)
Free -- Kubuntu Linux (all the stability, safety and ease of use of
OSX but free)
$351 for a system that blows the $499 and $599 Mini away. And
notice... no shared video, and no "cheap drive system".
In fact, a mini spec'd even close to this would cost (quick check of
Apple's web site) more than double... $749! And still with a slower
DVD burner, a slower hard drive, and a weaker video system to boot!
More than double the price for a less equipped system! Isn't this
what Apple has been doing for years now?
Seriously.. the Mini is equivalent in value?
And with Ubuntu/Kubuntu Linux I avoid Windows while having a safe
secure OS that "just works" built on the power of Unix. I even
avoided Intel.
Questions?

And you forgot to add the other things that a byo doesn't include:
Shipping
Cost of time (I know all you byo types figger your time is worth zilch)

And that case size of this compared to the mini cannot be ignored. None
of you have pointed to a mini sized wintel/amd box at any price to this
day. All are bigger, noisier and not enough less to make them all that
attractive.

Lloyd Parsons

2005-05-07 16:58:47 UTC

Post by Lloyd Parsons

Jeez -- everytime I'm thinking about buying a Mac all I have to do is
come here and listen to these types of arguments to convince me
otherwise.
Is Apple now lacing the Kool-Aid with crack cocaine? A quick romp
over to Newegg.Com reveals that I can build a system that would do
everything a Mini does better (other than it being in a small case)...
all for about $500.
$50 -- ASUS Black ATX Mini Tower Case With 300W PSU
$50 -- BenQ Black 16X DVD+/-R DVD Burner (beyond compare of the mini)
$65 -- AMD Sempron 2300+ 1.583GHz Socket A Processor Retail Boxes
(equivlent to the G4)
$52 -- ASUS "A7V400-MX" Mainboard (333mhz FSB with the Sempron... much
faster than Mini)
$55 -- SAMSUNG 80GB 7200RPM IDE Hard Drive (twice the capacity and
faster than the Mini)
$41 -- Kingston 184 Pin 512MB DDR PC-2700 (twice the RAM of a Mini)
$38 -- Sapphire ATI RADEON 9250 Video Card, 128MB DDR (quite a bit
better than the Mini's 32MB 9200)
Free -- Kubuntu Linux (all the stability, safety and ease of use of
OSX but free)
$351 for a system that blows the $499 and $599 Mini away. And
notice... no shared video, and no "cheap drive system".
In fact, a mini spec'd even close to this would cost (quick check of
Apple's web site) more than double... $749! And still with a slower
DVD burner, a slower hard drive, and a weaker video system to boot!
More than double the price for a less equipped system! Isn't this
what Apple has been doing for years now?
Seriously.. the Mini is equivalent in value?
And with Ubuntu/Kubuntu Linux I avoid Windows while having a safe
secure OS that "just works" built on the power of Unix. I even
avoided Intel.
Questions?

Shipping
Cost of time (I know all you byo types figger your time is worth zilch)
And that case size of this compared to the mini cannot be ignored. None
of you have pointed to a mini sized wintel/amd box at any price to this
day. All are bigger, noisier and not enough less to make them all that
attractive.

Oh yeah, I forgot another thing you don't include -- warranty!

I don't mean the 'you do the work' warranty that buying odds and ends of
parts gets you, I mean the warranty where 'they' fix it!

That's what you get with Apple and all the brand names. That is not to
say that they won't all try to get you to do the work for them, but you
always have the option of having a trained tech do the work.

ELVIS2000

2005-05-08 01:48:46 UTC

On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:58:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons

Post by Lloyd Parsons
Oh yeah, I forgot another thing you don't include -- warranty!
I don't mean the 'you do the work' warranty that buying odds and ends of
parts gets you, I mean the warranty where 'they' fix it!
That's what you get with Apple and all the brand names. That is not to
say that they won't all try to get you to do the work for them, but you
always have the option of having a trained tech do the work.

I thought Macs didn't break?

TravelinMan

2005-05-08 02:27:13 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:58:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons

I thought Macs didn't break?

Yet another idiot strawman argument.

No one ever claimed that Macs never break - except idiot Mac-bashers.

Lloyd Parsons

2005-05-08 04:02:18 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:58:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons

I thought Macs didn't break?

Then of course, you would be thinking wrong. ;-)

Macs break less, imo

ELVIS2000

2005-05-08 01:47:52 UTC

On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:54:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons

Post by Lloyd Parsons
Shipping

OK, $30. Gotta pay shipping on that Mac, also.

Post by Lloyd Parsons
Cost of time (I know all you byo types figger your time is worth zilch)

Takes 30 minutes. Less time than it takes to drive to the mall to buy
a Mac.

TravelinMan

2005-05-08 02:29:52 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:54:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons

Post by Lloyd Parsons
Shipping

OK, $30. Gotta pay shipping on that Mac, also.

Wrong on both counts.

If you buy a Mac from Apple, shipping is free. And considering that you
gave a bunch of different components, probably from different suppliers,
the cost is much higher than $30. Heck, it often costs that much just to
ship a PC case.

Post by Lloyd Parsons
Cost of time (I know all you byo types figger your time is worth zilch)

Takes 30 minutes. Less time than it takes to drive to the mall to buy
a Mac.

There's your typical hypocrisy at work. You have to drive to the mall to
buy the Mac, but you order your PC parts online.

As for '30 minutes', that's bullshit. You have to research the parts to
see what you need. You need to order all the parts online or drive to
the store. You have to unpack them and throw out the packing material
(15 times for all the different components). You have to assemble
everything. You have to test it. You have to install the OS.

There's no way in the world that's a 30 minute job.

ELVIS2000

2005-05-08 15:18:35 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:54:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons

Post by Lloyd Parsons
Shipping

OK, $30. Gotta pay shipping on that Mac, also.

Wrong on both counts.
If you buy a Mac from Apple, shipping is free. And considering that you
gave a bunch of different components, probably from different suppliers,
the cost is much higher than $30. Heck, it often costs that much just to
ship a PC case.

Apple charges tax. Newegg doesn't (to PA). Why are you focusing on
shipping when the price difference is more than double?

Post by Lloyd Parsons
Cost of time (I know all you byo types figger your time is worth zilch)

Takes 30 minutes. Less time than it takes to drive to the mall to buy
a Mac.

There's your typical hypocrisy at work. You have to drive to the mall to
buy the Mac, but you order your PC parts online.

But driving to the mall takes time. I can do other stuff while the
UPS man brings to me my parts. Again -- this is a minor issue when I
clearly pointed out that the Mini, at twice the price, is still
inferior.

Post by TravelinMan
As for '30 minutes', that's bullshit. You have to research the parts to
see what you need. You need to order all the parts online or drive to
the store. You have to unpack them and throw out the packing material
(15 times for all the different components). You have to assemble
everything. You have to test it. You have to install the OS.
There's no way in the world that's a 30 minute job.

Have you ever done it? Its like legos, and it is actually fun.

TravelinMan

2005-05-09 01:50:47 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:54:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons

Post by Lloyd Parsons
Shipping

OK, $30. Gotta pay shipping on that Mac, also.

Wrong on both counts.
If you buy a Mac from Apple, shipping is free. And considering that you
gave a bunch of different components, probably from different suppliers,
the cost is much higher than $30. Heck, it often costs that much just to
ship a PC case.

Apple charges tax. Newegg doesn't (to PA). Why are you focusing on
shipping when the price difference is more than double?

As for the tax, you're liable to pay it, anyway.

The shipping is just one example of how these 'I can build a PC for
$19.95' arguments are usually wrong.

Post by Lloyd Parsons
Cost of time (I know all you byo types figger your time is worth zilch)

Takes 30 minutes. Less time than it takes to drive to the mall to buy
a Mac.

There's your typical hypocrisy at work. You have to drive to the mall to
buy the Mac, but you order your PC parts online.

I see you missed the point. If you want to buy a Mac by mail, you can do
it - just like the PC. If you want to buy a Mac at the Mall, you can do
it (at many malls) - just like the PC.

You're being a hypocrite when you say that you HAVE to drive to the mall
to get a Mac but you'd rather buy your stuff on line.

Have you ever done it? Its like legos, and it is actually fun.

I have done it. It takes more than 30 minutes to install the OS. That
doesn't include any of the rest.

Anyone saying that they can select components for a PC, order them,
unpack them, build the PC, test the PC, install the OS, install the
apps, and clean up the mess in 30 minutes is flat out lying.

Chad Irby

2005-05-08 04:17:01 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:54:47 -0500, Lloyd Parsons

Post by Lloyd Parsons
Shipping

OK, $30. Gotta pay shipping on that Mac, also.

Actually, no.

Post by Lloyd Parsons
Cost of time (I know all you byo types figger your time is worth zilch)

Takes 30 minutes. Less time than it takes to drive to the mall to buy
a Mac.

Funny, last time I heard of a "fast" linux install, with apps and all,
it took a couple of hours...

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

ELVIS2000

2005-05-08 15:19:06 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
Funny, last time I heard of a "fast" linux install, with apps and all,
it took a couple of hours...

You have never heard of Ubuntu. You are waaay out of touch.

Chad Irby

2005-05-08 17:17:05 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
Funny, last time I heard of a "fast" linux install, with apps and all,
it took a couple of hours...

You have never heard of Ubuntu. You are waaay out of touch.

Once again, I have heard of it. It's hard to miss, with all of the
linux nuts telling everyone how great it is (just like they loved all of
the previous versions, with all of their warts that "weren't there" for
them, either).

You could take most of the comments from fives years ago, put "Ubuntu"
in place of whatever distro was popular that week, and save yourself all
of that typing...

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Walter Bushell

2005-05-08 16:25:01 UTC

Post by Lloyd Parsons

Jeez -- everytime I'm thinking about buying a Mac all I have to do is
come here and listen to these types of arguments to convince me
otherwise.
Is Apple now lacing the Kool-Aid with crack cocaine? A quick romp
over to Newegg.Com reveals that I can build a system that would do
everything a Mini does better (other than it being in a small case)...
all for about $500.
$50 -- ASUS Black ATX Mini Tower Case With 300W PSU
$50 -- BenQ Black 16X DVD+/-R DVD Burner (beyond compare of the mini)
$65 -- AMD Sempron 2300+ 1.583GHz Socket A Processor Retail Boxes
(equivlent to the G4)
$52 -- ASUS "A7V400-MX" Mainboard (333mhz FSB with the Sempron... much
faster than Mini)
$55 -- SAMSUNG 80GB 7200RPM IDE Hard Drive (twice the capacity and
faster than the Mini)
$41 -- Kingston 184 Pin 512MB DDR PC-2700 (twice the RAM of a Mini)
$38 -- Sapphire ATI RADEON 9250 Video Card, 128MB DDR (quite a bit
better than the Mini's 32MB 9200)
Free -- Kubuntu Linux (all the stability, safety and ease of use of
OSX but free)
$351 for a system that blows the $499 and $599 Mini away. And
notice... no shared video, and no "cheap drive system".
In fact, a mini spec'd even close to this would cost (quick check of
Apple's web site) more than double... $749! And still with a slower
DVD burner, a slower hard drive, and a weaker video system to boot!
More than double the price for a less equipped system! Isn't this
what Apple has been doing for years now?
Seriously.. the Mini is equivalent in value?
And with Ubuntu/Kubuntu Linux I avoid Windows while having a safe
secure OS that "just works" built on the power of Unix. I even
avoided Intel.
Questions?

Shipping
Cost of time (I know all you byo types figger your time is worth zilch)

BYO is a hobby most people just don't want to get involved with.

Post by Lloyd Parsons
And that case size of this compared to the mini cannot be ignored. None
of you have pointed to a mini sized wintel/amd box at any price to this
day. All are bigger, noisier and not enough less to make them all that
attractive.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

Chad Irby

2005-05-07 17:20:49 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
Jeez -- everytime I'm thinking about buying a Mac all I have to do is
come here and listen to these types of arguments to convince me
otherwise.
Free -- Kubuntu Linux (all the stability, safety and ease of use of
OSX but free)

You know, even the most insane Linux zealots don't contend that linux of
any flavor is characterized by "ease of use."

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

TravelinMan

2005-05-08 00:20:27 UTC

You know, even the most insane Linux zealots don't contend that linux of
any flavor is characterized by "ease of use."

Oh, but you're wrong. Lots of Linux loonies have been claiming in this
group that Linux is as easy to use as Mac OS X (some claim that it's
even easier).

ELVIS2000

2005-05-08 01:50:28 UTC

You know, even the most insane Linux zealots don't contend that linux of
any flavor is characterized by "ease of use."

Oh, but you're wrong. Lots of Linux loonies have been claiming in this
group that Linux is as easy to use as Mac OS X (some claim that it's
even easier).

So add another $100 to my $350 for Windows. Now we are at $450.
Still $300 cheaper than the "comp" Mini.

Chad Irby

2005-05-08 04:28:09 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
So add another $100 to my $350 for Windows.

...so you can buy *half* a copy of Windows XP Home edition, which sells
(retail) for $199? You don't get the preinstalled discount, you're
buying retail.

For a fair comparison, you need the full XP Professional, with SP2,
which goes for $299.99.

Post by ELVIS2000
Now we are at $450.

Now you are at $650, for a big, bulky, noisy machine that has an
operating system and zero real apps on it.

Okay, so you have Minesweeper and Solitaire.

And then you get to put all of the parts together, and go through the
joy of installing Windows...

Post by ELVIS2000
Still $300 cheaper than the "comp" Mini.

You misspelled "almost breaking even."

Don't worry, we're used to guys like yourself, who don't really know how
much money they're spending when they buy those 'one piece at a time"
Frankenboxes.

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

i***@mac.com

2005-05-08 04:33:08 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
So add another $100 to my $350 for Windows.

...so you can buy *half* a copy of Windows XP Home edition, which sells
(retail) for $199? You don't get the preinstalled discount, you're
buying retail.
For a fair comparison, you need the full XP Professional, with SP2,
which goes for $299.99.

Actually newegg has OEM home for $90 and pro for $140.

ELVIS2000

2005-05-08 15:31:35 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
So add another $100 to my $350 for Windows.

...so you can buy *half* a copy of Windows XP Home edition, which sells
(retail) for $199? You don't get the preinstalled discount, you're
buying retail.

Wrong again!! You are uninformed like no Mac user I've ever seen!
Newegg.Com sez...

$91.95 -- Win XP Home
$131.95 -- Win XP Media Center
$139.95 -- Win XP Pro

I guess, as a Mac user, you are used to paying full retail fixed
pricing?

Post by Chad Irby
For a fair comparison, you need the full XP Professional, with SP2,
which goes for $299.99.

*cough* $139.95. You are only $160 off. But what's that to a Mac
sucker?

And PRO is unneccesary for any Home user. We are talking about a $350
computer here. Do you even know what Pro brings to the table? Very
likely you don't.

Post by ELVIS2000
Still $300 cheaper than the "comp" Mini.

You misspelled "almost breaking even."
Don't worry, we're used to guys like yourself, who don't really know how
much money they're spending when they buy those 'one piece at a time"
Frankenboxes.

Nice -- I proved you wrong *on every single point*. LOL. Even
assuming PRO is required (it isn't), we are still $250 cheaper than
the mini... and that's with faster hard drive, better video, better
bus speed, etc etc. And if you knew anything about Ubuntu youd
realize you don't even need XP at all!

ELVIS2000

2005-05-08 15:34:57 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
$91.95 -- Win XP Home
$131.95 -- Win XP Media Center
$139.95 -- Win XP Pro

and...
$151.95 -- Win XP 64-bit

Chad Irby

2005-05-08 16:49:19 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
So add another $100 to my $350 for Windows.

...so you can buy *half* a copy of Windows XP Home edition, which sells
(retail) for $199? You don't get the preinstalled discount, you're
buying retail.

Wrong again!! You are uninformed like no Mac user I've ever seen!
Newegg.Com sez...
$91.95 -- Win XP Home
$131.95 -- Win XP Media Center
$139.95 -- Win XP Pro
I guess, as a Mac user, you are used to paying full retail fixed
pricing?

Naah, I just went with the first half-dozen examples I could get.

That's a decent deal for Windows OEM.

Post by Chad Irby
For a fair comparison, you need the full XP Professional, with SP2,
which goes for $299.99.

*cough* $139.95. You are only $160 off. But what's that to a Mac
sucker?

Hey, you never got around to mentioning that your example BYO machine is
hardly a simple proposition for anyone but a dedicated hobbyist, so
we're even.

On the other hand, fifteen minutes after the Mac is home, it's up and
running, while fifteen minutes after you get your parts, you're still
opening packages to find out if you got the right thing.

Post by ELVIS2000
And PRO is unneccesary for any Home user. We are talking about a $350
computer here. Do you even know what Pro brings to the table? Very
likely you don't.

A more even match to what you get with OS X. I mean, you're talking
about *building* a machine in order to get the most out of it for a low
price, and you're settling for the crippled version?

Kind of a disconnect there...

Post by ELVIS2000
Still $300 cheaper than the "comp" Mini.

You misspelled "almost breaking even."
Don't worry, we're used to guys like yourself, who don't really know how
much money they're spending when they buy those 'one piece at a time"
Frankenboxes.

Nice -- I proved you wrong *on every single point*. LOL.

Actually, all you proved was that you could build a slightly higher
specced machine (which will end up with performance slightly better than
the Mac Mini), for somewhat less money, and then have to install the
crippled version of the OS from scratch. Then, hope all of the
individual pieces would work together well, and that they all work right
the first time.

Post by ELVIS2000
Even assuming PRO is required (it isn't),

You've been complaining about a comparison, but will happily settle for
the low-rent version of the software that runs the machine.

Post by ELVIS2000
we are still $250 cheaper than
the mini... and that's with faster hard drive, better video, better
bus speed, etc etc. And if you knew anything about Ubuntu youd
realize you don't even need XP at all!

Once again, I mentioned that Ubuntu is Yet Another Linux. one of many,
and the biggest thing it has going for it is a better installer (that
even the distributor's page admits might force you into some contortions
to make work).

So, from one side of your mouth, you spec out a machine that's aimed at
a pro user, with faster CPU, larger and faster drive, all the bells ands
whistles, yet you don't want to get the full version OS to go with it,
like the one included on all Macs?

Look, just buy yourself an X Box and get on with your life...

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Walter Bushell

2005-05-09 02:22:24 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
Hey, you never got around to mentioning that your example BYO machine is
hardly a simple proposition for anyone but a dedicated hobbyist, so
we're even.
On the other hand, fifteen minutes after the Mac is home, it's up and
running, while fifteen minutes after you get your parts, you're still
opening packages to find out if you got the right thing.

In general you don't know that until you boot and even then you can be
wrong. Most people don't want to order $500+ worth of parts and then
wonder if it's going to work. And then if it doesn't who to blame or
seek redress from.

<snip>

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

ELVIS2000

2005-05-09 05:08:57 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
Naah, I just went with the first half-dozen examples I could get.
That's a decent deal for Windows OEM.

It is pretty standard. While I can't explain Microsoft's wierd
pricing... I just don't understand how anyone could pay full retail
for a MS OS.

Post by ELVIS2000
And PRO is unneccesary for any Home user. We are talking about a $350
computer here. Do you even know what Pro brings to the table? Very
likely you don't.

A more even match to what you get with OS X. I mean, you're talking
about *building* a machine in order to get the most out of it for a low
price, and you're settling for the crippled version?

So pay $30 more for Pro. And by "crippled" I think the only
difference is remote connection and a few other things no home user
needs. While I do think it is silly selling Pro and Home editions of
an OS.... at least you can save $30 if you need to.

Post by Chad Irby
Actually, all you proved was that you could build a slightly higher
specced machine (which will end up with performance slightly better than
the Mac Mini), for somewhat less money, and then have to install the
crippled version of the OS from scratch.

Well, not at all. The savings was some $300. You could build it...
or you could order from Dell if you wanted to. The point is: the
Mini is, even at $500/$600/$750 *not* a good value for what you are
getting. Simple.

Snit

2005-05-09 05:38:24 UTC

You left out the part about the above being merely your opinion - perhaps
that is implied, but some may take it as fact... then again, if you take
what you read in CSMA or any news group as absolute fact then you are likely
a very gullible person!
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

ELVIS2000

2005-05-08 01:49:19 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
Free -- Kubuntu Linux (all the stability, safety and ease of use of
OSX but free)

You know, even the most insane Linux zealots don't contend that linux of
any flavor is characterized by "ease of use."

Never heard of Ubuntu, eh? You are out of touch.

Chad Irby

2005-05-08 04:20:48 UTC

Post by ELVIS2000
Free -- Kubuntu Linux (all the stability, safety and ease of use of
OSX but free)

You know, even the most insane Linux zealots don't contend that linux of
any flavor is characterized by "ease of use."

Never heard of Ubuntu, eh? You are out of touch.

Heard of it all over, and aside from a very few folks like you who are
trying to convince people that it's so wonderful, it's just another
linux distribution.

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

ELVIS2000

2005-05-08 15:22:35 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
Heard of it all over, and aside from a very few folks like you who are
trying to convince people that it's so wonderful, it's just another
linux distribution.

Tell me about your experiences with Ubuntu that lead you to come to
that conclusion. Specifics please on your most recent install. And
then I'll tell you how Ubuntu repatitioned my HD, installed the OS,
discovered all of my hardware, and came preloaded with a host of
excellent free software. It all "just worked" and any application I
want is a click away with the Synaptics package manager.

Even detected my Microsoft Wireless keyboard/mouse, USB headset, etc
etc. You obviously have not bothered... give it a whirl, it works on
Macs also.

JW

Chad Irby

2005-05-08 17:13:22 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
Heard of it all over, and aside from a very few folks like you who are
trying to convince people that it's so wonderful, it's just another
linux distribution.

Tell me about your experiences with Ubuntu that lead you to come to
that conclusion.

I'm just going off the reports I've seen on it from places like Slashdot
and the other linux boards. Ubuntu is just the newest "trendy" linux,
that you're going to push like hell for a month or so, until the next
one comes out from one of the other distros. Hell, it's just a
cleaned-up and polished version of Debian, after all. The big
difference seems to be that a higher percentage of folks seem to be
getting clean installs on the first try.

Post by ELVIS2000
Tell me about your experiences with Ubuntu that lead you to come to
that conclusion. Specifics please on your most recent install. And
then I'll tell you how Ubuntu repatitioned my HD, installed the OS,
discovered all of my hardware, and came preloaded with a host of
excellent free software. It all "just worked" and any application I
want is a click away with the Synaptics package manager.

From the reviews I've seen, that's about the full list of what many
linux users like about Ubuntu.

You neglect to mention things like the user interface (the windowing
system has fallen back to Windows 3.1-era usability, apparently).
Clutters screens, multiple menubars, et cetera. Keyboard short cuts are
not coherent across all apps (even for the "standard" commands like
"cancel" and "OK"). Audio CD handling is pretty lame, and not all
devices are as supported as the ones you happen to have (NetGear
wireless cards had some issues, and a lot of digital cameras just don't
show up yet).

While I can see why you like it when compared to a standard linux
install, when it's compared to the Mac (or even current versions of
Windows), it falls way short.

Post by ELVIS2000
Even detected my Microsoft Wireless keyboard/mouse, USB headset, etc
etc.

Wow, it detected the most popular hardware in those categories. I can
see why you're impressed, most linux machines don't do that very well.
Meanwhile, they also detect and run fine on Macs.

Post by ELVIS2000
You obviously have not bothered... give it a whirl, it works on
Macs also.

All of the things you mention have been standard issue on Macs for a
long, long time now. Why should someone change for those reasons if
they're already standard on a Mac?

I've been fiddling about with linux for a number of years now, and each
time I put it on a new machine, it gets somewhat better, and each time
it disappoints. Every one of those times, there was someone like you
crowing about how that new version (Yellow Dog, et cetera) was the "real
thing."

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

ELVIS2000

2005-05-09 05:11:38 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
I've been fiddling about with linux for a number of years now, and each
time I put it on a new machine, it gets somewhat better, and each time
it disappoints. Every one of those times, there was someone like you
crowing about how that new version (Yellow Dog, et cetera) was the "real
thing."

Maybe I'm biased towards Unix. My computer lab in engineering school
had Decstation 1000's running XWindows on top of god knows what. But
compared to my crappy DOS machine back in the dorm it was bliss.

JW

Snit

2005-05-04 20:30:50 UTC

Post by Snit
Folks in CSMA tell us that Macs are more expensive than PC's, but the
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices

You have to be pretty silly to actually insist that Apple's prices,
for equivalent hardware specs to a PC are competitive.

Who is talking about *just* hardware? I am talking full systems... or even
partial systems (the Mini is not a full system).

Post by Randy Howard
I just bought an Apple, but not because it was a good deal dollar-wise. I
bought it *in spite of* it being overpriced, to experiment on, and perhaps
port software to it. If you are strapped for cash and need a computer
(bizarre circumstances that would imply notwithstanding), it's pretty clear
than an Apple is probably out of reach for most, unless they are willing to
buy the Mac Mini, which is a by-design hamstrung system used as a "bid box" to
get people looking at the rest of the product line, which seems to be working
somewhat.
Nothing about the Mac Mini, apart from the small factor is in any way
innovative or leading edge. It's very slow, has almost zero expansion
capability, and a very slow processor relative to the current market. It's
almost as if they are cleaning out an old warehouse full of surplus hardware
from a 3-4 years ago by wrapping new plastic around the components and selling
it at fire sale (by Apple standards) prices.

I look forward to you posting links to comparisons that disagree with my
claim that Macs are comparably priced... I will be happy to post them to my
site.

Post by Snit
Folks in CSMA tell us XP is as advanced as OS X, but the facts
show them to be wrong

This I agree with, as OS X is based upon a UNIX OS model, so
it is by definition more advanced than Windows, as is Linux.
There are dozens of OS choices more advanced than Windows,
so that's no big feat.
Unfortunately for Apple and other OS vendors, market share
is not driven in general by technological superiority.

Agreed.

Post by Snit
And folks in CSMA tell us that OS X is as prone to malware as
XP... and yet there are no known significant threats against
OS X... and many against XP.

Even with people "crowing" about it, it is still true. Some day, though, it
will change. Someone will manage to get an OS X virus to spread. At least
probably.

Post by Snit
Geee.. who to believe... ?

Neither, as both polarized camps are wrong. The truth, as
usual, is in between the extremes.
BTW, it would be nice if you used a proper .sig delimiter,
namely "-- " on a line by itself (the space is significant).

My mistake... sorry. Most of my .sigs have it... some do not. I will try
to correct that.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 21:07:07 UTC

Post by Snit
Folks in CSMA tell us that Macs are more expensive than PC's, but the
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices

You have to be pretty silly to actually insist that Apple's prices,
for equivalent hardware specs to a PC are competitive.

Who is talking about *just* hardware?

You are.

Post by Snit
I am talking full systems...

If you were, you would have said "Windows machines" instead of PCs.
As is, you open the door for dozens of operating systems on the PC
hardware.

Post by Snit
or even partial systems (the Mini is not a full system).

Agreed. It would make a nice electronic, intelligent doorstop
or bookend though.

Post by Snit
I look forward to you posting links to comparisons that disagree with my
claim that Macs are comparably priced... I will be happy to post them to my
site.

As soon as my get my G5 tower, I intend to compare it directly to a
dual Xeon workstation of the exact same clock speed. Once I see
how they stack up against each other in computing horsepower
running the exact same software, using the same compiler (with
a different target back-end of course), I'll get back to you.

Post by Randy Howard
I keep wondering why the Mac crowd keeps repeating this, it is
almost as if they are daring someone to implement such software
on their chosen OS. If it is truly free of it, the last thing
you should be doing is crowing about it publicly. You should
treat it like a deep dark secret in the hopes that nobody
ever learns of it and feels the need to rise to the challenge.

Even with people "crowing" about it, it is still true.

I think you missed my point.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

Snit

2005-05-04 21:44:16 UTC

Post by Snit
Folks in CSMA tell us that Macs are more expensive than PC's, but the
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/prices

You have to be pretty silly to actually insist that Apple's prices,
for equivalent hardware specs to a PC are competitive.

Who is talking about *just* hardware?

You are.

You are mistaken. Where can you even buy new Mac hardware without software?
I can see if you think Apple not serving this market well is a weakness, but
that is another topic.

Post by Snit
I am talking full systems...

If you were, you would have said "Windows machines" instead of PCs.
As is, you open the door for dozens of operating systems on the PC
hardware.

I stand corrected - I meant Windows machines. Fair enough.

Of course, not long ago when I talked about an "XP machine" in CSMA I was
told there was no such thing by at least one person, because the machine had
the *potential* to run other systems... still, that person was clearly
trolling and your comment is correct.

Post by Snit
or even partial systems (the Mini is not a full system).

Agreed. It would make a nice electronic, intelligent doorstop
or bookend though.

I have seen better looking bookends... though I guess a pair of them would
not be too bad. How much do they weigh? :)

Post by Snit
I look forward to you posting links to comparisons that disagree with my
claim that Macs are comparably priced... I will be happy to post them to my
site.

Ok... and I welcome it... but that is not what I asked for.

Even with people "crowing" about it, it is still true.

I think you missed my point.

You believe that by commenting on the lack of malware on OS X that people
increase the chance of it being made... but I have seen no evidence to
support that claim.

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 22:52:24 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
Agreed. It would make a nice electronic, intelligent doorstop
or bookend though.

I have seen better looking bookends... though I guess a pair of them would
not be too bad. How much do they weigh? :)

Not much, but I don't know if I ever saw an exact figure put on it.
Enough to hold up a few paperback books though.

Post by Snit
I look forward to you posting links to comparisons that disagree with my
claim that Macs are comparably priced... I will be happy to post them to my
site.

Ok... and I welcome it... but that is not what I asked for.

The idea behind that was that once I get a better idea for myself
of exactly what "equivalent hardware" really means, then I'll be able
to look for PC hardware configurations that are "comparably priced".

Post by Snit
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server

I thought you were going to fix that?

:-)

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/E/L/MU/S d- s++: a+ C+++ UBLVS*U+++ P+ L+++ E--- W+++ N+++
o+ K++ w++(w---) O M-- V-- !PS PE Y+ PGP t 5 X- R- tv+ b++
DI++ D--- G e++:e* h---- r+++ y++++*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Snit

2005-05-05 00:01:39 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
Agreed. It would make a nice electronic, intelligent doorstop
or bookend though.

I have seen better looking bookends... though I guess a pair of them would
not be too bad. How much do they weigh? :)

Not much, but I don't know if I ever saw an exact figure put on it.
Enough to hold up a few paperback books though.

Yeah, a PC tower would hold more... no doubt.

Post by Snit
I look forward to you posting links to comparisons that disagree with my
claim that Macs are comparably priced... I will be happy to post them to my
site.

Ok... and I welcome it... but that is not what I asked for.

While I would like to know what you find, it would not answer the question
of comparable systems...

Post by Snit
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server

I thought you were going to fix that?

Oh, I have no control over that BS. I suppose I could make sure I always
have, at least, a blank .sig.

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

-hh

2005-05-05 01:22:00 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
As soon as my get my G5 tower, I intend to compare it directly to a
dual Xeon workstation of the exact same clock speed. Once I see
how they stack up against each other in computing horsepower
running the exact same software, using the same compiler (with
a different target back-end of course), I'll get back to you.

Please do try to find the time to run my "DIY homebrew" Photoshop
benchmarks. Let me know if you need the URL that has the file sizes &
task details.

FWIW, the actual image files can be duplicated on your own...I'm really
mostly interested in the proverbial "in the ballpark" performance
numbers, for a quarter or half second difference for a Photoshop task
isn't going to amount to a hill of beans for a home system...

Thanks,

-hh

Randy Howard

2005-05-05 01:33:47 UTC

Post by -hh
Please do try to find the time to run my "DIY homebrew" Photoshop
benchmarks. Let me know if you need the URL that has the file sizes &
task details.

I'm not particularly interested in Photoshop performance, and I will
not be going out and buying two copies of photoshop just to run
them. I'll be looking at more low-level items such as CPU, memory,
network and hard disk I/O.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

TheLetterK

2005-05-04 17:33:01 UTC

Post by Tom Elam
http://news.com.com/Apple+patches+a+batch+of+Mac+OS+X+flaws/2100-1002_3-5694907.html?tag=nefd.top
One has to wonder if the virus and Trojan authors are ever going to
figure out where the low hanging fruit is?

How is this indicitive of an insecure OS? People seem to view active
security concerns to mean 'the product is insecure'. You WANT lots of
security patches. The problems come from security vulnerabilities that
AREN'T patched.

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 17:40:12 UTC

How is this indicitive of an insecure OS? People seem to view active
security concerns to mean 'the product is insecure'. You WANT lots of
security patches.

Incorrect.

Post by TheLetterK
The problems come from security vulnerabilities that AREN'T patched.

Given a choice, obviously you prefer to get the patches than not.

However, the true goal is to not need them in the first place.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"A liberal is a man too broadminded to take
his own side in a quarrel." --Robert Frost

TheLetterK

2005-05-04 17:53:16 UTC

How is this indicitive of an insecure OS? People seem to view active
security concerns to mean 'the product is insecure'. You WANT lots of
security patches.

Incorrect.

Your'd rather leave the vulnerabilities (which are GOING to be found,
and going to exist in the first place) unpatched?

Post by TheLetterK
The problems come from security vulnerabilities that AREN'T patched.

Given a choice, obviously you prefer to get the patches than not.

Patching tends to be pretty trivial for me, so yes I don't really care.

Post by Randy Howard
However, the true goal is to not need them in the first place.

That's not going to happen in any system in the real world. So, you'll
take the next best thing.

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 17:59:26 UTC

How is this indicitive of an insecure OS? People seem to view active
security concerns to mean 'the product is insecure'. You WANT lots of
security patches.

Incorrect.

Your'd rather leave the vulnerabilities (which are GOING to be found,
and going to exist in the first place) unpatched?

That's not what I said. You said, "You WANT lots of security patches".
Dead wrong. "Lots" of security patches implies a lack of security
concern in the original design of the product(s).

Post by Randy Howard
However, the true goal is to not need them in the first place.

That's not going to happen in any system in the real world. So, you'll
take the next best thing.

"Lots" of patches is not the next best thing. A few patches, over wide
expanses of time, for a product that was carefully designed to have
minimal security concerns is the "next best thing". BTW, there are
secure computing platforms, it's just that they are a major PITA to
use and would not be popular in the "real world" market.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

TheLetterK

2005-05-04 18:04:16 UTC

How is this indicitive of an insecure OS? People seem to view active
security concerns to mean 'the product is insecure'. You WANT lots of
security patches.

Incorrect.

Your'd rather leave the vulnerabilities (which are GOING to be found,
and going to exist in the first place) unpatched?

That's not what I said. You said, "You WANT lots of security patches".
Dead wrong. "Lots" of security patches implies a lack of security
concern in the original design of the product(s).

Or the product is very large, as is the case with most modern operating
systems.

Post by Randy Howard
However, the true goal is to not need them in the first place.

That's not going to happen in any system in the real world. So, you'll
take the next best thing.

And most of them have pretty aggressive patch release cycles.

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 18:08:31 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
"Lots" of patches is not the next best thing. A few patches, over wide
expanses of time, for a product that was carefully designed to have
minimal security concerns is the "next best thing". BTW, there are
secure computing platforms, it's just that they are a major PITA to
use and would not be popular in the "real world" market.

And most of them have pretty aggressive patch release cycles.

Wrong. True secure systems don't have security patch cycles at all.
They don't have network or modem connections either typically though,
so you probably aren't familiar with them.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

TheLetterK

2005-05-04 18:54:44 UTC

And most of them have pretty aggressive patch release cycles.

Wrong. True secure systems don't have security patch cycles at all.
They don't have network or modem connections either typically though,
so you probably aren't familiar with them.

Are you implying that it is possible to guarantee 100% security on an
isolated machine?

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 20:57:13 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
Wrong. True secure systems don't have security patch cycles at all.
They don't have network or modem connections either typically though,
so you probably aren't familiar with them.

Are you implying that it is possible to guarantee 100% security on an
isolated machine?

No, I'm saying the security for such systems is driven by physical
access to the machine, not software.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

TheLetterK

2005-05-05 15:54:03 UTC

Are you implying that it is possible to guarantee 100% security on an
isolated machine?

No, I'm saying the security for such systems is driven by physical
access to the machine, not software.

That is beyond the scope of this thread, and you know it. All your doing
here is nit-picking.

Randy Howard

2005-05-05 17:18:59 UTC

Post by TheLetterK
Are you implying that it is possible to guarantee 100% security on an
isolated machine?

No, I'm saying the security for such systems is driven by physical
access to the machine, not software.

That is beyond the scope of this thread, and you know it. All your doing
here is nit-picking.

You make blanket statements, which are obviously incorrect, so I give
a counter-example. If you'd stop doing that, it wouldn't be an issue.

Further, I still stand by my statement that your goal is *NOT* to get
large amounts of security patches, namely the opposite of what you
said. I do concede that if your platform has a lot of security flaws,
then you want patches for each and every one of them.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

Chad Irby

2005-05-04 17:54:40 UTC

Post by Tom Elam
http://news.com.com/Apple+patches+a+batch+of+Mac+OS+X+flaws/2100-1002_3-569490
7.html?tag=nefd.top
One has to wonder if the virus and Trojan authors are ever going to
figure out where the low hanging fruit is?

They have. That's why I get all of those Windows-specific viruses and
worms in my inbox.

On the other hand, if it was so easy to make a Mac virus, there are more
than enough assholes out there who would love to write the first one and
get famous for it.

Since there isn't one, it must be a lot harder than you imagine.

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Bob S

2005-05-04 20:25:13 UTC

Post by Tom Elam
http://news.com.com/Apple+patches+a+batch+of+Mac+OS+X+flaws/2100-1002_3-569490
7.html?tag=nefd.top
One has to wonder if the virus and Trojan authors are ever going to
figure out where the low hanging fruit is?

The virus writers will have to master UNiX first. They all seem to be
on Windows side of things now.

--
Cheers,

Bob S

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 21:18:31 UTC

Post by Bob S
The virus writers will have to master UNiX first. They all seem to be
on Windows side of things now.

How soon they forget. Guess which operating systems were impacted by
the first really famous worm that spread over the internet.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

Chad Irby

2005-05-04 21:58:50 UTC

Post by Bob S
The virus writers will have to master UNiX first. They all seem to be
on Windows side of things now.

How soon they forget. Guess which operating systems were impacted by
the first really famous worm that spread over the internet.

The Morris Worm hit a total of about 6,000 unix machines: Vaxen and Suns.

This, of course, was years and years after the first DOS viruses...

...and a moderately powerful Windows virus hits about that many
computers in a *minute*...

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 22:56:45 UTC

Post by Bob S
The virus writers will have to master UNiX first. They all seem to be
on Windows side of things now.

How soon they forget. Guess which operating systems were impacted by
the first really famous worm that spread over the internet.

The Morris Worm hit a total of about 6,000 unix machines: Vaxen and Suns.

The point wasn't about volume, it was about the comment that virus
writers would have to learn UNIX first. In fact, they did. To be
factual about it though, most of the UNIX security problems back then
(and to some extent even today) were caused be Eric Allman's sendmail
software. There are *much* better mail systems in use on most UNIX
flavored boxes today though.

Post by Chad Irby
This, of course, was years and years after the first DOS viruses...

Which spread by floppy primarily.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

Chad Irby

2005-05-05 00:07:07 UTC

Post by Bob S
The virus writers will have to master UNiX first. They all seem to be
on Windows side of things now.

How soon they forget. Guess which operating systems were impacted by
the first really famous worm that spread over the internet.

The Morris Worm hit a total of about 6,000 unix machines: Vaxen and Suns.

The big lesson about the Morris Worm isn't "unix systems get viruses
too," the lesson is "it's way, way harder to write ones for unix, and
virus writers have to work much harder, to the point where nobody really
does it nowadays."

It took a guy working on his doctorate in Comp Sci at Cornell to write
the Morris Worm, yet we have junior-high script kiddies writing them for
Windows nowadays, after 17 years of hard lessons on computer security.

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Randy Howard

2005-05-05 00:17:58 UTC

Post by Chad Irby
The big lesson about the Morris Worm isn't "unix systems get viruses
too," the lesson is "it's way, way harder to write ones for unix, and
virus writers have to work much harder, to the point where nobody really
does it nowadays."

It's not hard. What makes it difficult is getting it to propagate
rapidly, as there are so many different hardware architectures all
running UNIX and/or Linux. The "advantage" for the Windows virus
people is that they have 100% binary compatibility onto millions
of systems.

Post by Chad Irby
It took a guy working on his doctorate in Comp Sci at Cornell to write
the Morris Worm,

Historically accurate perhaps, but hardly cause and effect.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

Chad Irby

2005-05-05 01:13:30 UTC

...and a real OS X virus or worm would have a couple of million Macs to
hit, yet you somehow can't manage to find one for us...

"100% binary compatibility" is a laugh, too, by the way.

Post by Chad Irby
It took a guy working on his doctorate in Comp Sci at Cornell to write
the Morris Worm,

Historically accurate perhaps, but hardly cause and effect.

Then you can come up with a list of other major unix worms or viruses,
written by the same low-rent folks who write Windows viruses?

Didn't think so.

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Randy Howard

2005-05-05 01:31:57 UTC

Post by Randy Howard
It's not hard. What makes it difficult is getting it to propagate
rapidly, as there are so many different hardware architectures all
running UNIX and/or Linux. The "advantage" for the Windows virus
people is that they have 100% binary compatibility onto millions
of systems.

...and a real OS X virus or worm would have a couple of million Macs to
hit, yet you somehow can't manage to find one for us...

I didn't try to find one for you.

Post by Chad Irby
"100% binary compatibility" is a laugh, too, by the way.

And your opinion on what is or is not funny is meaningless to me as
well as your focusing on nitpicking.

Post by Chad Irby
Then you can come up with a list of other major unix worms or viruses,
written by the same low-rent folks who write Windows viruses?

I didn't realize they were identifying themselves by the rent
prices.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

Chad Irby

2005-05-05 12:21:08 UTC

...and a real OS X virus or worm would have a couple of million Macs to
hit, yet you somehow can't manage to find one for us...

I didn't try to find one for you.

Because you know there isn't one.

Post by Chad Irby
"100% binary compatibility" is a laugh, too, by the way.

And your opinion on what is or is not funny is meaningless to me as
well as your focusing on nitpicking.

Not so much "my opinion" as "your rather hilarious idea that all Windows
machines are 100% binary compatible."

Post by Chad Irby
Then you can come up with a list of other major unix worms or viruses,
written by the same low-rent folks who write Windows viruses?

I didn't realize they were identifying themselves by the rent
prices.

You need to learn some colloquial English. That phrase has been around
(and common) for longer than I've been alive.

--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Randy Howard

2005-05-05 17:16:26 UTC

...and a real OS X virus or worm would have a couple of million Macs to
hit, yet you somehow can't manage to find one for us...

I didn't try to find one for you.

Because you know there isn't one.

I don't know if there is or isn't. I never claimed there was, so I feel
no need to try and locate one for you.

Post by Chad Irby
"100% binary compatibility" is a laugh, too, by the way.

And your opinion on what is or is not funny is meaningless to me as
well as your focusing on nitpicking.

Not so much "my opinion" as "your rather hilarious idea that all Windows
machines are 100% binary compatible."

I can write a program in < five minutes that will run on every single
Win32 platform on the planet. The point was not that all programs
in the universe are well-written, but that there is a sufficient subset
of 386 binary instructions that is the same on all of them. Sure, you
can generate code that will only run on a 486, or a P2, or P4, but you
are not required to do so. In terms of a writing a virus, you simply
generate code for a 386 with no floating point, and you're done. It
will run on them all. OTOH, if you attempt to tailor it to expose
a particular operating system release, that's different. You can
carve up this turkey a lot of different ways.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

Jim Polaski

2005-05-04 22:22:38 UTC

Post by Bob S
The virus writers will have to master UNiX first. They all seem to be
on Windows side of things now.

How soon they forget. Guess which operating systems were impacted by
the first really famous worm that spread over the internet.

And OS X is not the same UNIX of that time. It's more inherently secure
for all the obvious reasons. Windows is more like the old Unix.

--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

Randy Howard

2005-05-04 22:58:38 UTC

Post by Jim Polaski

Post by Randy Howard
How soon they forget. Guess which operating systems were impacted by
the first really famous worm that spread over the internet.

And OS X is not the same UNIX of that time.

It could be. Simply locate the source to an older version of sendmail,
port it over to OS X and install and run it. :-)

Post by Jim Polaski
It's more inherently secure for all the obvious reasons.

Mostly because users don't run as root for the most part and they are
benefitting from the knowledge gained by those that went before them.

Post by Jim Polaski
Windows is more like the old Unix.

Don't be insulting. UNIX was never as bad as Windows is right now.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"If the evidence doesn't seem to fit a particular conspiracy theory,
just create a bigger conspiracy theory." --Robert D. Hicks

TravelinMan

2005-05-04 21:30:35 UTC

Post by Tom Elam
http://news.com.com/Apple+patches+a+batch+of+Mac+OS+X+flaws/2100-1002_3-569490
7.html?tag=nefd.top
One has to wonder if the virus and Trojan authors are ever going to
figure out where the low hanging fruit is?

Funny that you should call an OS with zero known viruses in the wild
'swiss cheese' while ignoring the millions of known exploits of your
favorite version of Windows.

Can you say 'hypocrite'?

i***@mac.com

2005-05-04 22:18:29 UTC