Apple admits anti-virus needed

[The_Techie]

How long will it take a Linux noob to do that?

The same amount of time that it took me, you click on the big "Install" button that appears in a pop-up box Even though I've been using Ubuntu for quite some time I've not become more proficient at installing the NVIDIA drivers

Without a doubt... the latest version of Windows (7) does not even support all my hardware(tv tuner and soundcard) Linux supports it.

Indeed, Windows 7 doesn't support my old SBLive! card But it does support my new SupremeFX X-Fi

 

[w1z4rd]

I think he has more than a clue. Wasn't Remote desktop activated on those Macs and the trojan delivered and then ran off them ... eh?

The point is that Macs are still safer than PCs. Heck even say more secure.

PCs get pwned all the time - I remember being pwned in the IRC days when idiots could flood my Win9x box - back in the 90s if I did not run some higher end firewall software (Network Ice/Black Ice).

Yah so?

Wiz, you're abusing the term 'strawman argument'. I am not creating a strawman. Please don't confuse terms.

Yes you are, you misrepresent my position all the time. Im not misusing it, you are saying stuff saying I said it when I didnt. Of course its a strawman.

I am saying that your post does not compute.

Windows is 100% closed source.
Mac OSX has parts which are Open source based.
Linux based OS'es are Open source completely.

So what?

You're saying OSX sucks because it's closed source and you give this hacking competition as an example. This is what you're saying - please don't deny it and don't try to weasel out of it.

They were seperate posts.. I said Vista and Mac suck because of their closed source. WTF IS HARD TO GET ABOUT THIS PETER? I didnt use the hacking competition as an example of this.. the hacking example was a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet your argument fails because OSX came 3rd despite being partially OSS, while Win Vista supposedly came 2nd despite being 100% closed source.

Thats not my argument . My point about closed and open source was CLOSED SOURCE systems are going to be less secure than OPEN SOURCE systems... due to the way bugs and patches are dealt with. I dont know how to make this any more clearer to you without getting crayons and drawings pictures for you.

In real life situations OSX machines NEVER get hacked, Win machines are hacked all the time and Linux machines are usually inconsequential since outside of specific Hollywood applications and servers no-one much uses Linux for productivity - I'm ignoring Open Office here.

Thanks genius .. thats not hard. And everyone uses Linux for productivity. Hence the reason it makes up 85%+ of the worlds fastest computers. I dont think small scale workstations like you. The only reason less Macs get hacked inmho is because so few people are willing to waste money on them. If Mac were the desktop leader Im pretty sure it would be suffering as much as Vista does.

 

[Ou grote]

The same amount of time that it took me, you click on the big "Install" button that appears in a pop-up box Even though I've been using Ubuntu for quite some time I've not become more proficient at installing the NVIDIA drivers



Indeed, Windows 7 doesn't support my old SBLive! card But it does support my new SupremeFX X-Fi

I really should get around to trying out Ubuntu then, they should have all the iMac drivers covered.

 

[icyrus]

If Mac were the desktop leader Im pretty sure it would be suffering as much as Vista does.

Based on what?

 

[DJNgoma]

Based on what?

Telkom for example.

 

[icyrus]

PS.. Small parts of OSX are open source because with DARWIN (Intetional CAPS for Peter) they used some BSD code. However if they have released even.. 10% of their OS open source then they have to publish the source code online.. while I am sure they have open source code... (but so does Microsoft).. I cant seem to find the source code for the rest of the OS that doesnt include Darwin. Im sure there must be as you seem pretty convinced on this.

Huh? It is a bit hard to understand your post.

To be clear, Darwin is open source; Carbon, Cocoa, Quartz and Aqua aren't.

However, darwin is not open source due to a licensing restriction but rather because Apple chose to release it as such.

Apple's contributions to the open source community cannot be compared with Microsoft's.

 

[ponder]

However, darwin is not open source due to a licensing restriction but rather because Apple chose to release it as such.

+1 The BSD license allows you to do whatever you wish with the code, you can can even close it. All you have to do however is acknowledge the bsd license. A lot more free than the GNU GPL license used by linux.

 

[DJNgoma]

Just to chuck some dirt into Apple's eyes.
http://www.crn.com/retail/219300116;jsessionid=BLQ5GN20NGPGFQE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN

 

[icyrus]

Just to chuck some dirt into Apple's eyes.
http://www.crn.com/retail/219300116;jsessionid=BLQ5GN20NGPGFQE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN

Yeah, like the original zune...

 

[d0b33]

Just to chuck some dirt into Apple's eyes.
http://www.crn.com/retail/219300116;jsessionid=BLQ5GN20NGPGFQE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN

Zune?... you want to bring a spoon to a gunfight?

 

[DJNgoma]

Zune?... you want to bring a spoon to a gunfight?

The spoon being the iPod, hell no rather stay with the Zune then.

 

[PeterCH]

The spoon being the iPod, hell no rather stay with the Zune then.

While I admit that the iPod (touch or classic) is a hyped up device it does work well. However, like the ZUNE the iPod is provided by a content provider and as such is enhanced for their own content primarily - ie ITMS and iTunes integration. That's all nice but that also means that the codec support on the iPod and Zune is limited.

In terms of functionality a H/W maker who is also not a content provider is ideal - ie not MS, not Apple and not SONY. Someone like COWON.

Cowon players - 800 by 480 screen at 16.7 mil colours
Video Codec support for H264 in various sub-forms, xvid, divx, MPEG2, MPEG4 etc.
Wrapper support for AVI, MKV, MPG, ASF, MP4
Subtitle support
Music codec support - FLAC, MP3, AAC, WAV, WMA etc

Of course people who want ITMS integration and don't mind a lower resolution screen and fewer options for 'homebrew' files can choose the iPod which really
is a great device. The Zune I would personally not touch.

The same goes for EBOOK READERS - Amazon Kindle 2 or DX is great but its primary function is to read content bought at Amazon.

 

[Ou grote]

Just to chuck some dirt into Apple's eyes.
http://www.crn.com/retail/219300116;jsessionid=BLQ5GN20NGPGFQE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN

I don't see any of those 5 reasons being a good one.
Although, it looks like the new Zune is only about 2 years behind the iPod now.

 

[PeterCH]

Based on what?

It wouldn't. Mac OSX doesn't have a buggy registry which, if brought down, requires an OS reinstall. It does not give you Admin rights by default and Apple apps aren't as buggy or as virus prone as Office.

 

[PeterCH]

Some people can't afford a Mac or just have a Bill-Gates-is-God complex or some other issues. Others just have this "OSS is the only way to go" mentality and
see logic fallacies in everything people counter them with.

They bash Apple and to be honest I bashed Apple too until I used a Mac Pro.
Mac OSX and Apple H/W are not perfect but they are better than Windows and similarly priced Dell or Sony.

 

[d0b33]

Others just have this "OSS is the only way to go" mentality and
see logic fallacies in everything people counter them with.

I am a Linux supporter and prefer it to OSX, but still won't trade in my macbook, I think apple products are great but the price should still come down IMO.

 

[Ou grote]

I am a Linux supporter and prefer it to OSX, but still won't trade in my macbook, I think apple products are great but the price should still come down IMO.

Prices have come down quite a bit since the intel macs started.

Not here though.
But they're not going up either.