Its amazeing thats all i have to say. Collect lose change, break open the piggy bank and go get it you won't regret it. Or you can do it the way i did, but we are not going to talk about that here:))

heres a few of my desktop screenshots
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6056/80338386id4.jpg
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2747/88118261oi7.jpg
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/258/untitledsn4.jpg

that last photo is crazy.

And you can already crack it? Geez they don't waste time.

Too DRM freindly for me to have any interest in it.

Vista is the primary reason I am putting Linux on all my machines.

forgive me for being noobish, but what's DRM?

I was wondering the same thing.

DRM usually means Digital Rights Management, but I don't know if that's what Slackmaster is referring to.

I am also wondering if NYTiansfan has stocks in Google and Yahoo.

I am also wondering if NYTiansfan has stocks in Google and Yahoo.
I understand Google, but what does Yahoo have besides Answers and pool?

Vista looks good, but it is the plague. Avoid it, IMO

I notice NYTitansFan 's' button doesn't work.

Gamez
Programz

tut tut

:brow:

Are those widgets I see?

I can't wait to see the next Apple/PC commercial where the PC guy is dressed up like the Mac guy and tries to talk like him.

Yes, MS coppied Dashboard. But in fairness, Apple "stole" it from a program called Konfabulator.

And where did Konfabulator get the idea originally? Apple... :yes:

MS took a number of other things from OS X, which is basically the history of Windows. They have always copied Apple, ever since the first Mac with the 1st graphical user interface. Not that Apple hasn't occasionally taken things from Windows in the past, mainly back in the pre-OS X era, but Microsoft cares more about making money than innovating.

I doubt Vista will be much of an upgrade over XP. It's basically XP SP3. They did throw on a nice (Mac-like) user interface, but that may be like putting makeup on a pig...

If you are fine with your current computer, don't rush out and buy Vista. It's not really any huge leap forward. And any new OS needs time to get the kinks out, especially one from MS...

Also, if you do buy it, never buy the retail version. You can get the full OEM version (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070130-8730.html) online for half the price.

DRM usually means Digital Rights Management, but I don't know if that's what Slackmaster is referring to.
He's talking about how MS put a ton more DRM control in Vista. They are doing whatever they can to make it hard for pirates (and thus all regular users) to deal with multimedia files. It's all in an effort to get in good with the music labels and movie studios.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/28/vista_drm_analysis/

Its amazeing thats all i have to say. Collect lose change, break open the piggy bank and go get it you won't regret it. Or you can do it the way i did, but we are not going to talk about that here:))

I noticed your running an old xp2500 chip & a gig of ram.

Are you able to run Vista at full capability or is it down-tweaked a little? I'm running an xp3200 & a gig of ram.

Got a copy of it bundled with a new notebook but I don't fancy running it until they bring out a SP1.

You can also go out and download a surely-not legal copy of OS X Tiger (if you have a DVD burner) that runs on non-Apple hardware. Sadly, I can't tell you where to get it (http://macgeek.freeflux.net/blog/archive/2007/01/06/jas-10-4-8-dvd-amd-intel-sse2-sse3.html) (for legal reasons, of course).

Im not to impressed, ill keep my XP and stay content

What I don't get is that nobody is talking about Vista being the first mainstream OS with 64bit support if you discount the *******ized Windows XP 64bit (there seems to be confusion as to whether OS X Tiger is actually 64bit or not, so I'm assuming it isn't until it's verified).
Of course this isn't really a big thing to the casual users who only use the computer to surf the web, but people (like me) working with graphics, video, etc. it's a huge bonus.

With Vista, I just think it is expected. After all, they already came out with a 64-bit version of XP.

Tiger is not fully 64-bit. I'd call it 64-bit capable, since it can take advantage of 64-bit processors and software, just not completely. You can expect Leopard to be fully 64-bit.

Hell, I was a Mac user with their 1st generation of PowerPC processors and it took forever for them to make their OS completely PPC-native. It was pathetic. But those were the dark days at Apple, and now things are different.

I noticed your running an old xp2500 chip & a gig of ram.

Are you able to run Vista at full capability or is it down-tweaked a little? I'm running an xp3200 & a gig of ram.

Got a copy of it bundled with a new notebook but I don't fancy running it until they bring out a SP1.


i do have fairly old parts in my current computer but vista still runs extremely well i can multi task with out a problem. i will be makeing a new computer with a 64 bit processer in it. aslo i should get two of those video cards so ill have SLI enabled. im also getting a samsung spinpoint 180gb sata hdd but its out of stock so its no shown

heres the specs.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/327/untitledah3.jpg

SK. Why the 64-bit? I understand the reasoning but I guess what I am asking since there are little to no programs that actually utilize it why so excited?

Future stuff?

I would think the majority of people do not have a 64-bit processor and would not have a need for 64-bit software. I would imagine the market would be slow.

Well, new hardware is primarily 64-bit now, so it makes sense to have software that can fully support the new hardware. The OS itself will run faster if it can use the full power of the hardware. And while most common programs won't see huge gains by going 64-bit (as Vigsted said), anything that uses serious processing power will see some noticeable boosts.

On the downside, the 64-bit version of Vista has a number of incompatibilities and that's why I won't be using it. So whether Vista is noteworthy because it has a fully 64-bit version is debatable. If you can use it, it's great. If not, then it doesn't make any difference for now...

i do have fairly old parts in my current computer but vista still runs extremely well i can multi task with out a problem. i will be makeing a new computer with a 64 bit processer in it. aslo i should get two of those video cards so ill have SLI enabled. im also getting a samsung spinpoint 180gb sata hdd but its out of stock so its no shown

heres the specs.

Thanks NYTitansFan.

My xp3200 has been solid as a rock through heavy use 24/7 365 days a yr but it slows a lot when multi tasking.

New pc spec looks good for the money dude

My xp3200 has been solid as a rock through heavy use 24/7 365 days a yr

That's a lot of porn to be downloading.

but it slows a lot when multi tasking.


Too easy. :ha:

Too easy. :ha:

Isn't that a chick's joke? :moon2:

Another way to save 50% buying Vista: buy the upgrade CD. If you know what to do, you don't even need to upgrade from a previous version of Windows (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932).

Just install a clean version of Vista from the upgrade CD without a product key, which will give you a 30-day free trial. Then just reinstall the upgrade and it will upgrade the trial version you just installed to the full version. You have to install it twice, but you get it at half the retail price.

Wouldn't the upgrade CD be a full version anyway?

In theory, it requires that you have a copy of XP already installed. In previous versions, MS allowed you to do a install simply by inserting a previous install disk. Now you can't do that anymore...

:hmm: Vista is a XP SP3 with a perty UI basically.

Many of the perty features and such I got for free even sounds log in and Media center UI and thumbnails and even the 3d thing I have found in freeware programs..minus the 3d thing I am running a Vista transformation thing where XP has a the same UI sounds and s few features...I just see no real need to change to Vista

Exactly. And welcome aboard...

Sk has a new best friend.

looks like I have been dropped. :brow:

Exactly. And welcome aboard...

Thanks.

Not new in a sense that I was a tomb member for 4 years but new to this place but still see some older faces.:)

:hmm: Vista is a XP SP3 with a perty UI basically.

Many of the perty features and such I got for free even sounds log in and Media center UI and thumbnails and even the 3d thing I have found in freeware programs..minus the 3d thing I am running a Vista transformation thing where XP has a the same UI sounds and s few features...I just see no real need to change to Vista
What is the name of the 3d freeware program?

What is the name of the 3d freeware program?

I can't remember sorry..I had it 2-3 years ago..thing is the novelty got old quick and you never use it again so I dumped it.


Now Linux has a much BETTER version and it looks awesome..not very useful but sweet to look at.
http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/3043

Sk has a new best friend.

looks like I have been dropped. :brow:
Sorry Gunny, I decided to stop outsourcing for friends... :ha:

ohh I was looking to being penpals.

:hmm: Vista is a XP SP3 with a perty UI basically.


Umm, no.

See, this is what irks me. People look at Vista and immediately think it's just XP with a visual upgrade, but in reality it's a brand new OS written from scratch (unlike previous Windows that all trace back to 95 and NT).
Now unless they're complete imbeciles at the MS labs, that should mean a much cleaner and leaner code, and thus much better execution of the OS and 3rd party software.

Now whether you like the new "gadgets" is another matter (and I don't like "gadgets" at all, which is why I hate Mac OS, because without it's "gadgets" it's nothing special), but the core operating system should perform significantly better than XP.

True, it isn't exactly XP with a new UI. And it is the best OS to come out of Redmond. But frankly, it isn't any huge leap forward. Most of it is just like XP. They have some new security features, though some have said they are overly intrusive. They have a few features they cribbed from Apple. And it has been better optimized for multi-core processors.

But really, to most users, it's not much different than XP. It's nowhere near the jump forward to Win95, Win98, or XP. The biggest selling point was supposed to be the new WinFS file system and they couldn't even make that happen. There is really no reason to bother upgrading for most people unless you need a new computer.

it isn't any huge leap forward.

oh it is tho im running it with a 32 bit processor and i havnt seen a blue screen of death, haven't crashed, it hasn't freezed up, and i can multi task like never before(xp):))

nVidia GeForce FX 5200
1 gig of memory
Amd Athlon XP 2500+
and a biostar m7ncd mobo

as you can see not too impressive but vista makes this old computer feel like a champ

But frankly, it isn't any huge leap forward.

What huge leap do you need in an OS? None as far as I'm concerned. 75% of the stuff you find in XP, Visat and Mac OS shouldn't even be integrated parts of the OS, but rather 3rd party software.

oh it is tho im running it with a 32 bit processor and i havnt seen a blue screen of death, haven't crashed, it hasn't freezed up, and i can multi task like never before(xp):))

nVidia GeForce FX 5200
1 gig of memory
Amd Athlon XP 2500+
and a biostar m7ncd mobo

as you can see not too impressive but vista makes this old computer feel like a champ

I have had XP for 4 years and NEVER had BSOD ..BSOD has not been a common problem for windows since the win 95-98 days...and watch as that PC gets slower and slower since over time any windows OS will be hogging that system more and more.

watch as that PC gets slower and slower since over time any windows OS will be hogging that system more and more.

Make a 30-40gb partition on a clean hard drive.Your windows OS will sit on the faster outer edge of the drive & being partitioned it will never slow the PC down.

A daily reboot is always advisable with windows if it isn't partitioned off on the HD.

Make a 30-40gb partition on a clean hard drive.Your windows OS will sit on the faster outer edge of the drive & being partitioned it will never slow the PC down.

A daily reboot is always advisable with windows if it isn't partitioned off on the HD.
Why waste all that space? just re format every once in a while.

Why waste all that space? just re format every once in a while.

Because spending the best part of a day formatting & re-installing everything is a real PIA.

Been running XP for... what? going on 5 years now and I've never had a BSOD and the only times I have had to reinstall was when I switched motherboards.

Rebooting Windows once every couple of days is advisable, unless you have a good memory defragger/cleaner. But I seriously suspect that is the case for any OS running alot of applications.

See I run cCleaner daily and defrag every once in a while so I pretty much keep it clean.

I had XP for a while, and I never got BSOD. However, it did tell me that everything I did was illegal and shut itself down. Apparently, I committed a federal offense by clicking the "quick reply" button.

BSODs still happen, but they are pretty rare in XP. Much better than Win95/98/ME where a program crash was far more likely to bring down the entire system. Same comparison between OS X and OS 9 (and earlier) on a mac.

As for keeping XP up and running, the best suggestion I can give is to get a good imaging tool (I like Acronis TrueImage) for backups so you can just reinstall the entire C: drive without having to reinstall all your programs. Just partition your drive (or get a 2nd drive) so your documents are on a different partition from Windows and your programs. Then create a backup image of the partition with just Windows and your apps (not that you shouldn't backup your documents, too). And between backups, just use CCleaner to keep the barnacles from building up.

As for keeping XP up and running, the best suggestion I can give is to get a good imaging tool (I like Acronis TrueImage) for backups so you can just reinstall the entire C: drive without having to reinstall all your programs. Just partition your drive (or get a 2nd drive) so your documents are on a different partition from Windows and your programs. Then create a backup image of the partition with just Windows and your apps (not that you shouldn't backup your documents, too). And between backups, just use CCleaner to keep the barnacles from building up.

:ha:
Windows users have all the fun

^ Except no one I know has ever done that.

must be a PAL thing

They have some new security features, though some have said they are overly intrusive.
http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-security_480x376.mov

Vista may be an OS written from scratch, but (and please correct me if I am wrong) it is an operating system written primarily in Visual Basic.

On top of that, the .NET framework takes the worst feature of Java (interpreted "bytecode") and leaves the sole advantage (cross-platform source code).

This hearkens back to Microsoft's version of BASIC for the old C64.
It seems Redmond is relying on advances in processor speed and cheap memory to cover a multitude of programming sins.


BTW, SK, the notes about that allegedly bootable x86 OSX DVD claim that many cannot get it to work.
I would love to download a working LiveDVD of OSX, so PM me if you can steer me in the right direction.

If you don't get a BSOD, then you are just not stressing your system. I can get a BSOD by simply playing a game of Civ4 with the largest possible map.

OS X borrows liberally from the Unix and Open Source world. The future will end up with most of the best software being distributed as source code for Linux and OS X machines to compile locally. Apple will probably stop making "computers" in the future and focus on hand-held devices. Those Mac Minis looks very cool though. A cluster of them can do some amazing things.

The Gutmann manuscript on Vista's DRM cost spells out why I will avoid M$ in the future.

The main reason I am not a "Mac person" is I insist on the ability to crawl around inside the case, and add peripherals without buying a grounded case and a power supply for every little thing. The fusion of Mac/Linux OS to the component based open PC will result in better machines for everyone.
Those who just need an eAppliance to surf, read email, and play solitaire can get one for cheap.
Real world apps that have been dominated on the artistic side by Mac will benefit from hardware flexibility that Mac does not yet allow.

BTW, SK, the notes about that allegedly bootable x86 OSX DVD claim that many cannot get it to work.
I would love to download a working LiveDVD of OSX, so PM me if you can steer me in the right direction.No liveDVD for OSX exists as far as I know...

OS X borrows liberally from the Unix and Open Source world. The future will end up with most of the best software being distributed as source code for Linux and OS X machines to compile locally. Apple will probably stop making "computers" in the future and focus on hand-held devices. Those Mac Minis looks very cool though. A cluster of them can do some amazing things.OS X was always UNIX. Specifically, it is built on top of BSD UNIX.

As for Apple's future, I don't see them giving up on Macs anytime soon. That's where they make their much of their money. And even at their marketshare, they can make a lot of money.

Vista may be an OS written from scratch, but (and please correct me if I am wrong) it is an operating system written primarily in Visual Basic.


You're wrong. All Windows versions (since 95 and onwards at least) are programmet in C/C++.
Visual Basic is only an "interface" for programming newbies to create applications without having to make advanced API calls to the OS.


On top of that, the .NET framework takes the worst feature of Java (interpreted "bytecode") and leaves the sole advantage (cross-platform source code).


Ehh? Yes it's not cross-platform (by design), however C# (developed as a part of .NET) significantly enhances the OOP design of Java, imo.


This hearkens back to Microsoft's version of BASIC for the old C64.
It seems Redmond is relying on advances in processor speed and cheap memory to cover a multitude of programming sins.


errr... what sins are you talking about?


If you don't get a BSOD, then you are just not stressing your system. I can get a BSOD by simply playing a game of Civ4 with the largest possible map.


Sounds more like a hardware issue. No matter which games I play I never get BSOD. I've only had a freeze twice and that was from Madden, and that **** just isn't made properly, so I wouldn't be quick to fault Microsoft.
The problem with making an OS is you can only do so much. If an application is horribly written and decides to trash around the memory pretty good, you won't be able to prevent it. I could easily write a program for Mac or Linux that just kept leaking memory until eventually the machine crashes, however that's not the fault of the OS.


OS X borrows liberally from the Unix and Open Source world.
Everybody borrows from everybody. Just wait, one day the Mac will support a mouse with more than 1 button :))

Everybody borrows from everybody. Just wait, one day the Mac will support a mouse with more than 1 button :))Uhhh... it has for many years now.

The difference is that Apple designed their original OS to not need 2 buttons. Everything could be done with just 1 button, unlike Windows. Having 2 buttons confuses many non-techies. And if you don't think that's true, you should poll my clients who are generally comprised of regular people...

As for the BSODs in XP, it's generally caused by driver issues. But I've seen problems in the Windows kernel itself often enough...

Uhhh... it has for many years now.


I know, it was a joke.


The difference is that Apple designed their original OS to not need 2 buttons.Everything could be done with just 1 button, unlike Windows.


What changed then?


Having 2 buttons confuses many non-techies. And if you don't think that's true, you should poll my clients who are generally comprised of regular people...

Well I'm one of those people who feel we shouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator.

:scared: If you can't figure out how to right click you don't belong on a computer.....damn I would hate to see these people drive!

I know, it was a joke.I figured it was, but you never can tell...

What changed then?Nothing has changed as far as the OS itself. You still don't need the 2nd button. But they set it up so that people who wanted to use the 2nd mouse button (myself included) could do so. They even stared selling their own 2-button (sort of) mouse for the first time last year...

Well I'm one of those people who feel we shouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator.And that's why so many people still use a command-line interface, right? Simplicity is a selling point...

:scared: If you can't figure out how to right click you don't belong on a computer.....damn I would hate to see these people drive!The problem is that no one taught people what to do with the right mouse button. I'll tell someone to click on some something and they ask which button.

That's the reason behind Apple's 1 button. Simple is good. Not for everyone, but for the average user...

So today I found out Halo 2 will be for Vista ONLY (not a halo fan but for those who wanted it for PC..better get Vista) found out in our corp e-mail at work today.

That is an incredibly stupid move.

It's Halo 3. And it's Microsoft's way of pushing gamers to upgrade to Vista...

It's Halo 3. And it's Microsoft's way of pushing gamers to upgrade to Vista...

nope Halo 2 not 3 for Vista.

I thought Halo 2 had been out for a while...

not on PC, only x-box.

So the game has been out for like 2 years yet it is going to be Vista only? That is stupid...

So the game has been out for like 2 years yet it is going to be Vista only? That is stupid...
Indeed it is..gotta love Microsoft even further attempts to get people to buy Vista.:grrr:

Sounds weird. And no doubt it will be hacked. It's not like they can prevent it from executing on XP, unless they make it for DX10 only and restrict that to Vista.

Apart from that it sound fishy, why would they eliminate a large portion of their market? Halo 2 isn't something the large majority is going to shell out for a new OS to be able to play, so not only would it be a bad publicy decision but also a bad financial decision.

Apart from that it sound fishy, why would they eliminate a large portion of their market? Halo 2 isn't something the large majority is going to shell out for a new OS to be able to play, so not only would it be a bad publicy decision but also a bad financial decision.

IT would be cheaper to by a x-box and Halo 2 then to get Vista and potential upgrades.

Sounds weird. And no doubt it will be hacked. It's not like they can prevent it from executing on XP, unless they make it for DX10 only and restrict that to Vista.

Apart from that it sound fishy, why would they eliminate a large portion of their market? Halo 2 isn't something the large majority is going to shell out for a new OS to be able to play, so not only would it be a bad publicy decision but also a bad financial decision.

I dunno ..people are preordering this Crackdown game from MS like crazy just because it has a Halo 3 beta..they don't care about crackdown but willing to pay 60$ for a Beta :eek:

I think some Halo fans out there are insane enough to buy an OS for a game haha

LMFAO !!!
:biglaugh:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VuqZ8AqmLPY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VuqZ8AqmLPY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

LMFAO !!!
:biglaugh:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_n4mdcXa8B0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_n4mdcXa8B0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

might wanna give the link. The embeds don't work in some forum areas.

must be a PC thing

here's the link

Cancel or allow ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuqZ8AqmLPY

I like those ads.

I like those ads.

Really? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but they set the bar really low for their customers computer knowledge, which irks me.

Of course, those commercials probably cater more to the already established Mac crowd, considering they don't say anything about the Mac at all (well except that it has a "neat"(??) powercord....). Or maybe it's just the way of American Advertisement*: It's easier to to point out others flaws, than highlight your own strongpoints .

*over here it's not legal to reference other companies or products in your ads

Now this is actually quite humorous:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQq2MjX3Y_0

Really? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but they set the bar really low for their customers computer knowledge, which irks me.

Oh they don't persuade me to buy a Mac or anything. I just find them amusing.

Really? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but they set the bar really low for their customers computer knowledge, which irks me.You realize that you're talking about the majority of consumers out there, right?

Really? I dunno, maybe it's just me, but they set the bar really low for their customers computer knowledge, which irks me.

Of course, those commercials probably cater more to the already established Mac crowd, considering they don't say anything about the Mac at all (well except that it has a "neat"(??) powercord....). Or maybe it's just the way of American Advertisement*: It's easier to to point out others flaws, than highlight your own strongpoints .

*over here it's not legal to reference other companies or products in your ads
By pointing out the weak points in Vista/Windows, Mac points out its strengths.

Mac Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FLiGU_0cF0

You realize that you're talking about the majority of consumers out there, right?


Yes, and I expect anyone who uses a computer for more than 15 minutes to know how it works, just like I expect anyone who drives a car for more than 15 minutes to know how it works.

By pointing out the weak points in Vista/Windows, Mac points out its strengths.

Not really. Pretty much every weak point in Windows has a negative flipside for the Mac.

Example:
Mac touts better security because they suffer less attacks. Flipside is that the Mac suffers less attacks because they comprise a tiny share of the worldmarket, therefore very few are programming for them, including hackers.

Not really. Pretty much every weak point in Windows has a negative flipside for the Mac.

Example:
Mac touts better security because they suffer less attacks. Flipside is that the Mac suffers less attacks because they comprise a tiny share of the worldmarket, therefore very few are programming for them, including hackers.

thats ridiculous

the fact is that the UNIX base is harder to hack


regardless of the quorum of users, it's either being attacked or its not
I've put myself in harms way for years ... ever since the first versions of OSX were released ....... and I cannot confirm that I have EVER contracted a virus

consider also that alot of advertising / technical production facilities use Apple Macintosh environments. you can't tell me someone hasn't attempted to hack into some of these studios to get pre-released clips of the next big movie, etc....

there's plenty of hackers trying ... they're just not cracking in

Yes, and I expect anyone who uses a computer for more than 15 minutes to know how it works, just like I expect anyone who drives a car for more than 15 minutes to know how it works.You are overly optimistic. Believe me, I see it every day...

Not really. Pretty much every weak point in Windows has a negative flipside for the Mac.

Example:
Mac touts better security because they suffer less attacks. Flipside is that the Mac suffers less attacks because they comprise a tiny share of the worldmarket, therefore very few are programming for them, including hackers.Wrong. There are millions of Macs and virtually no viruses or spyware in the wild. The Mac is more secure primarily because OS X is more secure, not because it's not a target...

regardless of the quorum of users, it's either being attacked or its not
I've put myself in harms way for years ... ever since the first versions of OSX were released ....... and I cannot confirm that I have EVER contracted a virus
I got a Mac virus in 1995 (long before OS X), which was easily cleaned. I haven't had one since. And this despite not having any sort of anti-virus or anti-spyware software since the turn of the century...

regardless of the quorum of users, it's either being attacked or its not


If that's the case, then Mac shouldn't tout security, because it IS being attacked, just to a much lesser extent.


consider also that alot of advertising / technical production facilities use Apple Macintosh environments. you can't tell me someone hasn't attempted to hack into some of these studios to get pre-released clips of the next big movie, etc....
there's plenty of hackers trying ... they're just not cracking in

Umm, yeah and 99% of all game are developed on Windows machines, I wonder why nobody's hacked any them to get pre-release versions......

I haven't had one since. And this despite not having any sort of anti-virus or anti-spyware software since the turn of the century...

Really? How would you know if you have nothing that can detect it....

And for the record I can state that I haven't had a virus or other malware for about 10 years. I do have an anti-malware program (required by my work if I'm allowed to work from home), but I've never seen it do anything and the regular scans show nothing.

Wrong. There are millions of Macs and virtually no viruses or spyware in the wild. The Mac is more secure primarily because OS X is more secure, not because it's not a target...

Mac's are a 10th or less of the computers today and they don't run anything that hackers are interested in (servers, router relays, etc.) so YES, there are more attacks on Windows (and Unix for that matter) than on Mac simply because of the domination.

And Puck, we can easily agree that Unix based OS's are the most secure, but they are also the most restrictive and would definetly not be suited for most everyday personal use.

First off, if Macs make up 5% of all computers, then it logically makes no sense that they are the target of just 0.1% of all viruses (as of December 2005) if your suggestion is that they are just as insecure as Windows PCs are. Even Symantec, has admitted that there is no significant Mac virus threat in the wild.

Secondly, OS X is Unix. It is BSD Unix with Apple's GUI on top. And Macs are clearly suited for everyday use...

Secondly, OS X is Unix. It is BSD Unix with Apple's GUI on top. And Macs are clearly suited for everyday use...

It may be based on a Unix system, but so is Windows. The fact that you have an extensive shell on top is what creates the loopholes. Remove the Explorer shell from Windows and the system is near impervious to any attack.

And your logic regarding marketshare is flawed. Because 5% of the worlds computers are Macs doesn't mean there should be 5% of the attacks on Macs, just like there aren't 5% of all the worlds programs for Mac.

Edit:
Let me just clarify that I'm not saying Windows has Unix kernel underneath, but rather that the concepts, designs and implementations are almost the same.

Umm, yeah and 99% of all game are developed on Windows machines, I wonder why nobody's hacked any them to get pre-release versions......

you're just not looking hard enough
and I see beta's of games quite often

the thing is that alot of games aren't playable in their current code without a "key" which is needed to boot it

I had full blown versions of XP months before it was released

you're just not looking hard enough
and I see beta's of games quite often


But they're not hacked (as in electronically stolen from the developers, actually the only game that was ever "stolen" to my knowledge was Halflife 2), rather somebody either a tester, somebody working for the publisher or similar hands it off to the scene.


the thing is that alot of games aren't playable in their current code without a "key" which is needed to boot it


Yeah, and if you can hack the systems at the developers, what is going to stop you from circumventing a simple keycheck??

And Puck, we can easily agree that Unix based OS's are the most secure, but they are also the most restrictive and would definetly not be suited for most everyday personal use.

I disagree
OSX is extremely suited for everyday personal use

if you don't believe this, then go to CompUsa
buy a Mac (i suggest a Mac Mini or an iMac)
and return it within the 21 day return policy
I bet it never makes it back to the store

I disagree
OSX is extremely suited for everyday personal use


OSX is not a Unix system, it has a BSD foundation, but that's not the same as being a Unix system.
Just like if somebody ported the Explorer shell to BSD it wouldn't be a Unix system.


if you don't believe this, then go to CompUsa
buy a Mac (i suggest a Mac Mini or an iMac)
and return it within the 21 day return policy
I bet it never makes it back to the store

No need, I used to work at an advertisement company and had (more than) plenty of interaction with OSX. And yes the Mac is good for everyday personal use, but no more or less so than the PC.

I just hate the fact that Mac opt to cater to the lowest denominator, rather than try to educate their users in how computers work. I also hate that Microsoft is going down the same road.
It's kind of like math. Just because we have calculators that can calculate infinitely faster and better than us, doesn't mean we shouldn't know how it's actually done.

OS X is not based on Unix, it IS a version of Unix with a well-developed GUI. Period.

You can run X11, you can recompile and run standard Unix apps, you can access everything through the unix command line. Why? Because it is Unix under the hood...

OS X is not based on Unix, it IS a version of Unix with a well-developed GUI. Period.

So I can reprogram the kernel if I want to? Write my own drivers directly to the OS?
Otherwise I stand by my statement, unless you want to call Windows a version of Unix with a well-developed GUI as well..... considering that 90% of the differences between Windows, Mac and Unix based systems lie in the shell interface (if you've ever worked with Sun's Solaris in the past you know how big a difference a crappy shell makes).

Unless of course you know of any specific kernel-differences? Aside from the fact that Windows and I believe Mac as well don't provide the src and the ability to modify it yourself.

You can run X11, you can recompile and run standard Unix apps, you can access everything through the unix command line. Why? Because it is Unix under the hood...

So if I give you a Windows PC with a Cygwin interface, would you believe it was a real Unix system?

And your logic regarding marketshare is flawed. Because 5% of the worlds computers are Macs doesn't mean there should be 5% of the attacks on Macs, just like there aren't 5% of all the worlds programs for Mac.
Show me where you can prove that 5% of the software out there isn't mac-compatible...

So if I give you a Windows PC with a Cygwin interface, would you believe it was a real Unix system?Cygwin is an emulator, so keep trying...

Windows does not natively run Unix apps and environments, OS X can...

Show me where you can prove that 5% of the software out there isn't mac-compatible...

I can't because nobody can keep track of all the crap that's out there, but common sense will tell you it's not. And that fact that a) Mac now switched to x86 architecture to facilitate Windows and Windows apps and b) there have been a number of Windows emulators for Mac (never heard anyone use a Mac emulator for Windows) tells me there's been a need to run Windows only application on the Mac.

OSX is not a Unix system, it has a BSD foundation, but that's not the same as being a Unix system.
Just like if somebody ported the Explorer shell to BSD it wouldn't be a Unix system.Your argument is like saying that if I take Linux and use Beryl for the GUI then it isn't Linux anymore... :wack:

I just hate the fact that Mac opt to cater to the lowest denominator, rather than try to educate their users in how computers work. I also hate that Microsoft is going down the same road.They would be stupid not to and your complaint is foolish. You really think the computer industry would be as successful today if no one ever released a GUI. We'd be better off stuck with command line interfaces?

Real power users (the ones who actually know what the hell they are doing) can still do whatever they want. But if the average person can't use a computer they won't buy it.

Cygwin is an emulator, so keep trying...

Windows does not natively run Unix apps and environments, OS X can...

I'm trying to point out to you that just because it looks like it's native, doesn't mean it is. But next time I get near a Mac OSX I will test your claim, that I can use any Unix command. Unfortunately that might be a while since I left the advertisement company, but I will write it down on my todo list.

I can't because nobody can keep track of all the crap that's out there, but common sense will tell you it's not.It's not common sense. It just means you are making things up to defend your argument.

And that fact that a) Mac now switched to x86 architecture to facilitate Windows and Windows apps and b) there have been a number of Windows emulators for Mac (never heard anyone use a Mac emulator for Windows) tells me there's been a need to run Windows only application on the Mac.
Lots of people want to run Windows apps on a mac. I have no reason to pretend otherwise. There are a number of specific programs that only run on a PC that people need to use despite the fact that they don't want to use Windows primarily. But to suggest that less than 5% of all software runs on a Mac is ludicrous...

As for Intel chips, Apple switched because IBM and Motorola couldn't deliver. The PPC chips were always coming out late. And the biggest issue was that Intel had beaten them in power consumption and Apple couldn't build a laptop with the G5 because it ran so hot. It wasn't because of Windows, even though Apple has taken advantage of that too...

Your argument is like saying that if I take Linux and use Beryl for the GUI then it isn't Linux anymore... :wack:


Exactly. If the GUI is your only way of communicating with the kernel (even if it's through a command line) I don't qualify it as proper Unix/Linux.


They would be stupid not to and your complaint is foolish. You really think the computer industry would be as successful today if no one ever released a GUI. We'd be better off stuck with command line interfaces?


No, I like GUI's. What I don't like are GUI's that alienate the user from what is actually going on. We're not quite there yet, but if the trend continues soon we will be.


Real power users (the ones who actually know what the hell they are doing) can still do whatever they want. But if the average person can't use a computer they won't buy it.

I agree that PowerUsers can still to an extent (in both Vista and OSX) do whatever they want. However I don't believe we should gravitate towards the people who don't know, rather they should be educated so that they will know.

I'm trying to point out to you that just because it looks like it's native, doesn't mean it is. But next time I get near a Mac OSX I will test your claim, that I can use any Unix command. Unfortunately that might be a while since I left the advertisement company, but I will write it down on my todo list.Again, it is native on a Mac. It has been ever since OS X was released.

Go under the Applications folder, under Utilities, and open the Terminal app. You can run anything directly through BSD.

It's not common sense. It just means you are making things up to defend your argument.
...
But to suggest that less than 5% of all software runs on a Mac is ludicrous...


Well I'll await your hard scientific evidence that conclusively proves that there are more than 5% of 3rd party programs for the Mac, but we both know nobody can ever with any degree of certainty calculate the number of applications in the world.
And you can call it "making things up" if you will, I call it a postulation.

Exactly. If the GUI is your only way of communicating with the kernel (even if it's through a command line) I don't qualify it as proper Unix/Linux.

No, I like GUI's. What I don't like are GUI's that alienate the user from what is actually going on. We're not quite there yet, but if the trend continues soon we will be.A GUI only runs on top of an OS. It's still the same OS. And anyone who chooses to bypass the GUI can do so. You can do it on a Mac easily because... it's Unix...

I agree that PowerUsers can still to an extent (in both Vista and OSX) do whatever they want. However I don't believe we should gravitate towards the people who don't know, rather they should be educated so that they will know.You can never educate the majority of people enough for that. It's far better to build a device that is extremely powerful that can be customized to fit the user. And I guarantee you that if the choice was between a power but complicated system versus a good and very simple system, the simple one to use would win out in the marketplace. That's why Windows is so much more popular than Linux despite the fact that Linux is free.

Well I'll await your hard scientific evidence that conclusively proves that there are more than 5% of 3rd party programs for the Mac, but we both know nobody can ever with any degree of certainty calculate the number of applications in the world.
And you can call it "making things up" if you will, I call it a postulation.
I can't prove it one way or another because no such calculation exists as far as I know. But it's not true, and I know that it isn't because if that little software existed for the Mac it wouldn't have even 5% of the market.

And realistically, even it it were true (I'm speaking theoretically, since it isn't), you're talking about minutiae like having 25 different word processors available for the PC versus just 4 for the Mac (not real numbers) or 17 bittorrent clients for the PC versus 3 on a Mac. There are more than enough apps to go around for Mac users even though more individual apps are developed for Windows than for OS X (which is true, just not near the ratio you suggest).

So I can reprogram the kernel if I want to? Write my own drivers directly to the OS?


whats a driver ?

:makefun2:

(if you've ever worked with Sun's Solaris in the past you know how big a difference a crappy shell makes).

Windows2000 ?

Unless of course you know of any specific kernel-differences? Aside from the fact that Windows and I believe Mac as well don't provide the src and the ability to modify it yourself.

why would you want to do such a thing ?

I can't because nobody can keep track of all the crap that's out there, but common sense will tell you it's not. And that fact that a) Mac now switched to x86 architecture to facilitate Windows and Windows apps and b) there have been a number of Windows emulators for Mac (never heard anyone use a Mac emulator for Windows) tells me there's been a need to run Windows only application on the Mac.
I had a Mac GUI installed on my windows,

I'm trying to point out to you that just because it looks like it's native, doesn't mean it is. But next time I get near a Mac OSX I will test your claim, that I can use any Unix command. Unfortunately that might be a while since I left the advertisement company, but I will write it down on my todo list.

you do that
the path is

APPLICATIONS
UTILITIES
TERMINAL

"Beneath Mac OS X's easy-to-use Aqua graphics interface is a robust and complete UNIX operating system called Darwin. Darwin is based on open technologies such as FreeBSD, Mach, Apache, and GCC. Mac OS X comes with hundreds of powerful UNIX applications already installed, and Terminal is your access to them."

"All the standard UNIX commands, tools, and scripting languages are included in Mac OS X. If you are an experienced UNIX user you will feel right at home. To learn more about UNIX on Mac OS X, go to the Apple UNIX website." http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

Changing to a different shell
The Terminal application lets you use a command-line interface to control the underlying BSD UNIX operating system. In each Terminal window, a "shell" program takes your keyboard input and executes the commands.

Mac OS X includes these shells: /bin/bash (the default shell), /bin/csh (tcsh), /bin/zsh, and /bin/ksh. You can install and use different shells if you wish. A system administrator can change your shell default or you can specify a different shell to use in Terminal Preferences.

:type:

I had a Mac GUI installed on my windows,

Must look pretty neat with curtains...

you do that

and like I said, go to a CompUsa
or if you live in Nashville, go to the Apple Store in Green Hills Mall
or MacAuthority near I-65 & Wedgewood


He lives in Denmark...

He lives in Denmark...
:doh:

Maybe they have a CompDane Store :brow:

He lives in Denmark...
macauthority.com or apple.com

Must look pretty neat with curtains...
Actually, its the wallpaper that adds the finishing touch

In the meantime, while you argue these points, Microsoft is busy satirizing themselves:

http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=37721

just want to throw in that ive got a mac. after 10 years of destroyed PCs... i had to get one... i've had it for a year now and it runs as cleanly and smoothly as the day i bought it. never a problem.

people put windows on their macs for one reason only. To use unavailable programs. Games mostly... but some other programs as well. in my case it was AutoCadd.

within 3 minutes of installing windows and norton and autocadd.... i had 3 viruses. 3minutes. 1 year... no viruses... 3 minutes... 3 viruses. i hadnt even directly connected to the internet either. they went straight in through the network.
now everytime i want to use windows i have to unplug the DSL before i startup.

people use macs because they dont freak out on you. they are simple, and years ahead of the competition. they are fully plug and play... nearly every program i have was just drag and droped to my applications folder and it was installed.... their screens are higher resolution than standard pc screens - including most of the flat panels. they are basically built for creative people... get past all the confusing stuff and on to the task at hand in the least amount of time as possible so that the creative process won't be broken.

the only problem i've ever had was watching videos on the internet. then, i found a wonderful site with free plug-ins and now i can see anything online that i want... you can also drag and drop any image you find online directly to the desktop.

but heres my favorite part.... rainstorm outside... lights go out. unsaved 15 page term paper lost right? nope. as soon as the electricity came back i turn it back on... asks if i want to restore my Word session. I do, of course. and i think i lost the sentence i was typing... thats it. Ive had saved papers on my old pc disappear for no reason.

What the hell do you people do on your computers? I haven't had a virus in years.

Office has auto-recovery as well.

btw What is AutoCad used for?

What the hell do you people do on your computers? I haven't had a virus in years.


you might not realize that you have dormant trojans and such

run a good Virus checker and see the list

back when I had a Compaq running XP, I decided to run a virus scan on my HD out of curiosity ....... there were over 100. I found it weird that I seemed to not be experiencing any adverse effects .... until I Tried to remove them
-then everything went to hell . several Trojans activated - it was bad

after a week and several re-formats and reinstalls of the OS, I bought a Mac

What the hell do you people do on your computers? I haven't had a virus in years.

Office has auto-recovery as well.

btw What is AutoCad used for?
alot of that time was speant in college on the schools networks. i still live in a college area saving money and paying loans and am on the local dsl system with about 6000 kids under 23.

AutoCadd is a computer drafting software. can be used for anything that needs to be built. I hate it personally because i can build the same thing in another 3-d program in about a 10th of the time (and it will look 1000 times better) but many companies and engineers still use AutoCadd for layouts and blueprints.

you might not realize that you have dormant trojans and such

run a good Virus checker and see the list

I don't use Norton. I changed not long ago to Avast (Makes the computer run so much smoother too)

I said use a good Virus checker
I said nothing of Norton
and I didn't ask how smooth your pooter runs
show me the list


:evil:

:ha:

:ha:

why do you laugh at yourself?

whats a driver ?

:makefun2:

Umm, it's the program that enables your computer to talk to your 3rd party software, such as a printer, scanner, joystick, etc. Don't kid yourself, just because you might not see them in Mac, they are there.

within 3 minutes of installing windows and norton and autocadd.... i had 3 viruses. 3minutes. 1 year... no viruses... 3 minutes... 3 viruses. i hadnt even directly connected to the internet either. they went straight in through the network.
now everytime i want to use windows i have to unplug the DSL before i startup.


There was 1 virus (BLaster) that could do that to Windows, but that was back before Service Pack 1 or 2, which is what 3 or 4 years ago?


they are fully plug and play... nearly every program i have was just drag and droped to my applications folder and it was installed....


Plug and play have nothing to do with applications. It's about hardware compliance. I've never had problems installing a program on Windows either, and only if I need to use a hardwares specific features do I need to go look for a driver.


their screens are higher resolution than standard pc screens - including most of the flat panels. they are basically built for creative people...


And this has what to do with the OS? Nobody is arguing that Mac isn't visually better, both in physical design, layouts and probably graphical performance as well.

In the meantime, while you argue these points, Microsoft is busy satirizing themselves:

http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=37721

And Mac-lovers again make fools of themselves. Of course piracy hurts Windows sales, it also hurts music, movie and videogame sales. However nobody can really prove to what extent, but if you're in either of those industries, you obviously want to limit piracy as much as possible.

There was 1 virus (BLaster) that could do that to Windows, but that was back before Service Pack 1 or 2, which is what 3 or 4 years ago?
MSBlast isn't the only worm that has spread via just an internet connection. It is just the most famous of them. Sasser and Zotob followed, though they weren't as destructive. And before Blaster was Code Red. And there are many others that aren't nearly so widespread that could still have the same impact.

But since XP SP2, none of them have been a threat against updated computers.

Of course piracy hurts Windows sales, it also hurts music, movie and videogame sales.
Sure it does. But this guy was also thinking that everyone would actually want Vista, and so far, out of all the PC users I know, nobody does. Most of them are just waiting for the pioneers to finish taking all the arrows. To that extent, his opinion is insulting to his clientele.

out of all the PC users I know, nobody does.

Well I can't speak for your friends, but I know a lot of people here woud like Vista, but they don't like the price tag.

Well I can't speak for your friends, but I know a lot of people here woud like Vista, but they don't like the price tag.
Some think Vista looks good, that doesn't mean they want it.

I've got to get it, personally, but I wouldn't bother with it otherwise...

I just have to decide if I should just go get a Dell or build it myself...

I'd like to be able to run Vista but it won't run any of my business applications yet, which makes it about as valuable to me as an Apple.

Except that you could then run XP on your Mac...

Here's a look at the security upgrades in Vista:
http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/20/vista_security_oversold/print.html

The conclusion is that security is better in Vista, but not by all that much...

There was 1 virus (BLaster) that could do that to Windows, but that was back before Service Pack 1 or 2, which is what 3 or 4 years ago?



Plug and play have nothing to do with applications. It's about hardware compliance. I've never had problems installing a program on Windows either, and only if I need to use a hardwares specific features do I need to go look for a driver.



And this has what to do with the OS? Nobody is arguing that Mac isn't visually better, both in physical design, layouts and probably graphical performance as well.

actually, no other version of windows will install on an intel imac other than windows SP2... so i installed sp2 media center edition.

and the plug and play and screen resolution thing were just things i love about the computer. i realize its not the software. but thats why i love the macs. the OS is built for the machine and visa versa.
when i mean plug and play... i literally meant plug in my scanner/printer/camera/wacom... and they work without installing software. of course i still do at a later time but they worked instantly for me which i thought was pretty cool.

Here's a look at the security upgrades in Vista:
http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/20/vista_security_oversold/print.html

The conclusion is that security is better in Vista, but not by all that much...

Wow, that's most slanted and almost downright incompetent article I've ever read. Of course, theregister.com holds about zero credibility in the first place.

Firstly, IE and Outlook are not part of the OS. So It makes no sense to critize Vista for bad UI and usability design of these applications. (and if it was an objective article, it would probably also have mentioned that Thunderbird's spamfilter works like crap).

I also like how he dismisses the Anti-Phishing filter, without any reason.
It's very showy and it says, "Message: We Care", but I found it more irritating than actually helpful.
I've never even noticed the Anti-phishing filter, so it would have been nice to know, HOW it was annoying.

However, DEP, when full on, may cause a number of applications to crash, or interfere with their installation. I'm betting that a majority of users will opt for the more conservative setting, and this of course means less defense for everyone.

And maybe it won't. Again speculation and his personal prejudice against Microsoft. It might actually turn out that DEP works perfectly and that the majority of the users will use it and be better protected by it.

So you see that, here again, MS's security strategy involves shifting responsibility to the user.

Well, he's obviously a Mac user, you know the ones that don't want be responsible for what their own computer does :))
But seriously, how can you argue that putting final responsibility on the user is bad? I will bet you a minor fortune that he would have been equally critical had MS decided to chose automatically on the users behalf (I certainly would).

As usual, Windows enables far too many services by default.

Such as? Again another unsubstantiated criticism.

While I agree with him on the issue of children on the internet, I don't understand what it has to do with a Vista review.

There's nothing much in Security Centre that XP SP2 doesn't have, except a warning that you've turned off UAC. It's something that one might wish to run or consult after installation, and maybe once a month thereafter. But it's on all the time, ready to harangue you, and it's rather difficult to make it go away.

Wow, what an utter moron. The point of the Security Centre is to monitor and alert you if something isn't up and running. If somebody had turned off the firewall or deleted the antivirus program or whatever and forgot about, I'd certainly like to be notified, rather than just think everything is good.

The only issues I could agree with were the "Recently Changed" and "File extensions hidden by default"

Again, you are looking at it from your own perspective rather than that of the average computer user.

I heard ipod is having trouble working on Vista, and that is a real downer, because even microsoft has to realize that ipod is too big for them to screw over like that. ipod is part of life now.

I think it's iTunes rather than the iPod itself, but still...

And honestly, I blame Apple for this one more than I do MS. They should have gotten an updated version of iTunes out that would work well on Vista by Jan30.

I think it's iTunes rather than the iPod itself, but still...

And honestly, I blame Apple for this one more than I do MS. They should have gotten an updated version of iTunes out that would work well on Vista by Jan30.


I still dont see why ppl buy iTunes when theres Limewire, and dont say bc of viruses, bc i keep my firewall up when i run limewire, and i scan everything the dl that comes through limewire, if youre responsible enough to take care of your computer, theyre shouldnt be any problems

limewires crap good luck with the feds. i use torrents

I still dont see why ppl buy iTunes when theres Limewire, and dont say bc of viruses, bc i keep my firewall up when i run limewire, and i scan everything the dl that comes through limewire, if youre responsible enough to take care of your computer, theyre shouldnt be any problems
First off, you still have to (sort of) use iTunes to sync with the iPod whether you buy songs or not.

As for buying songs, some people actually want to pay for music rather than stealing it illegally. And others just don't know how to steal them...

others just don't know how to steal them...
or how to get away with it :duckrun:

upgraded to Vista a few days ago. it was a free upgrade through Dell with the purchase of my laptop.

i do have fairly old parts in my current computer but vista still runs extremely well i can multi task with out a problem. i will be makeing a new computer with a 64 bit processer in it. aslo i should get two of those video cards so ill have SLI enabled. im also getting a samsung spinpoint 180gb sata hdd but its out of stock so its no shown

heres the specs.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/327/untitledah3.jpg



Dude get more Ram and try not to buy 512MB sticks, winds up being a waste of money. If you only want 1GB now at least pop the extra $10 or so and get it on one stick.

I built my new Vista machine, and it's generally an improvement over XP (though the hardware jump I took is also night and day).

I don't want to say that Microsoft took liberties with OS X's user interface. Instead, I'll say they flat out ripped off significant parts of it...

I built my new Vista machine, and it's generally an improvement over XP (though the hardware jump I took is also night and day).

I don't want to say that Microsoft took liberties with OS X's user interface. Instead, I'll say they flat out ripped off significant parts of it...

Isn't that how business is these days?

Rip off the good parts and put it on your own.

It has been Microsoft's business since day 1 when they stole CP/M and turned it into DOS. Then they copied the 1st Mac and turned it into Windows.