dethmaShine
May 2, 02:16 PM
Bravo, this is the funniest post ever.
I bet there's a lot of fan bois with soiled underwear.
Could it be true? Their perfect computers now quite vulnerable.
Ya gotta love it...the slap of reality :) :) :)
We were just waiting for you? Where have you been?
On another note, mods its getting hideous to see such comments being allowed on this website.
I bet there's a lot of fan bois with soiled underwear.
Could it be true? Their perfect computers now quite vulnerable.
Ya gotta love it...the slap of reality :) :) :)
We were just waiting for you? Where have you been?
On another note, mods its getting hideous to see such comments being allowed on this website.
Lennholm
May 2, 10:30 AM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
jegbook
Apr 12, 03:30 PM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
If this already got covered, I apologize.
Sounds like a job for the Dock. The default mode of the Windows 7 Taskbar is very Dock-like. They both generally seem like a handy place to keep your most commonly used applications.
(I Win 7, you Pin to the Taskbar with the default behavior, which turns the whole Taskbar into a Quicklaunch area. Though it is possible to revert to XP-like behavior with a Quicklaunch and worded application references to the right of the Quicklaunch.)
I don't use the right side of the Dock in anything but "Folder" and "List" view. I still miss how Tiger (OS 10.4.x) treated Aliases (shortcuts) of folders: you could see the actual contents of the folder you aliased. Since Leopard, it just allows you to open the folder in a new Finder window. Poo. I created folders with aliases to all of my applications as I've categorized them for years.
(For the record, aliases and shortcuts are similar, but not the same. Worth googling to confirm the subtle differences.)
Strict keyboard navigation is tougher. If you like it, be sure to turn on Full Keyboard access for All Controls in the Keyboard Shortcuts section of the Keyboard Preference Pane.
I miss the split window of Windows Explorer: Folder List on the left, contents on the right. I use Column View most of the time for Finder Windows (Command-3) and sometimes List View (Command-2) if I'm specifically interested in file/folder details. I don't think there are any third party navigation tools that replicate that, either.
If your're getting a laptop, the trackpad is awesome. Nothing like it in Windows that I'm aware of.
I think Control Panels are easier and more straightforward in OS X, called System Preferences with Preference Panes. I think Control Panels got even more convoluted with Vista/Win7 from XP. That said, the Windows gives much more granularity of control than OS X, but many things can be modified with some third party help (you HAVE to check out Tinker Tool).
Is it worth it? Hard to say. If you spend most of your computing in an office with Windows computers in a Windows domain? I say not worth switching. You *can* do everything, but I find it often a little more time consuming than I find it in Windows.
If most of your computing is for personal use and/or you're not integrating into a Windows domain environment? Then I'd say whatever software you need to run and personal preference can drive the decision.
Good luck!
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
If this already got covered, I apologize.
Sounds like a job for the Dock. The default mode of the Windows 7 Taskbar is very Dock-like. They both generally seem like a handy place to keep your most commonly used applications.
(I Win 7, you Pin to the Taskbar with the default behavior, which turns the whole Taskbar into a Quicklaunch area. Though it is possible to revert to XP-like behavior with a Quicklaunch and worded application references to the right of the Quicklaunch.)
I don't use the right side of the Dock in anything but "Folder" and "List" view. I still miss how Tiger (OS 10.4.x) treated Aliases (shortcuts) of folders: you could see the actual contents of the folder you aliased. Since Leopard, it just allows you to open the folder in a new Finder window. Poo. I created folders with aliases to all of my applications as I've categorized them for years.
(For the record, aliases and shortcuts are similar, but not the same. Worth googling to confirm the subtle differences.)
Strict keyboard navigation is tougher. If you like it, be sure to turn on Full Keyboard access for All Controls in the Keyboard Shortcuts section of the Keyboard Preference Pane.
I miss the split window of Windows Explorer: Folder List on the left, contents on the right. I use Column View most of the time for Finder Windows (Command-3) and sometimes List View (Command-2) if I'm specifically interested in file/folder details. I don't think there are any third party navigation tools that replicate that, either.
If your're getting a laptop, the trackpad is awesome. Nothing like it in Windows that I'm aware of.
I think Control Panels are easier and more straightforward in OS X, called System Preferences with Preference Panes. I think Control Panels got even more convoluted with Vista/Win7 from XP. That said, the Windows gives much more granularity of control than OS X, but many things can be modified with some third party help (you HAVE to check out Tinker Tool).
Is it worth it? Hard to say. If you spend most of your computing in an office with Windows computers in a Windows domain? I say not worth switching. You *can* do everything, but I find it often a little more time consuming than I find it in Windows.
If most of your computing is for personal use and/or you're not integrating into a Windows domain environment? Then I'd say whatever software you need to run and personal preference can drive the decision.
Good luck!
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:21 PM
All things being equal, they prevent HIV versus not using them. But the promotion of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle increases the risk overall. That's what that argument is about, not that hard to get, really.
That's NOT what the argument is about. Your church LIED to people about the efficacy of condoms - people for whom the only source of that information was the Catholic church.
And they lied about it to married couples, too.
Oh, and just in case we're not clear on this: abstinence-only education doesn't work.
That's NOT what the argument is about. Your church LIED to people about the efficacy of condoms - people for whom the only source of that information was the Catholic church.
And they lied about it to married couples, too.
Oh, and just in case we're not clear on this: abstinence-only education doesn't work.
joepunk
Mar 13, 01:09 AM
A before-and-after photo gallery on Australia's ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/beforeafter.htm) shows just how badly areas of the north-eastern coast were affected by the tsunami.
Jacqueline Kennedy-Onassis
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
This is Jacqueline Bouvier
AKA Jackie Kennedy Onassis
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Bouvier Kennedy Onassis…
Jack and Jackie Kennedy sit
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
gopher
Oct 9, 11:38 AM
Spec fp is extremely biased because it assumes the case of zero error code. It doesn't measure raw performance like floating point calculations per second does. When errors occur in code, the Pentium grinds to a halt, sometimes even making the Pentium IV slower than the Pentium III that is a whole Ghz slower!
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software. That's why people who do video prefer Final Cut Pro over Adobe Premier in many cases.
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything. What really matters is how well written the software is. Mozilla for Mac OS X, and Chimera for Mac OS X, as well as iCab for Mac OS X are much faster than Explorer for any platform.
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans. 64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
When RC5 and Genentech tests prove that raw performance the G4 is much faster than the Pentium IV or AMD, which it does, then it basically throws out the whole idea that Mhz matters. The G4 is 4 to 5 times faster.
As for hand optimizing code, you don't have to do it. What you do have to do is write developers of your software if you are displeased with how poorly they optimize code, or go seek better written software. That's why people who do video prefer Final Cut Pro over Adobe Premier in many cases.
As for other factors which influence speed, let's look at the internet browsing which people constantly harp about being slower on a Mac than a PC. My 768/128 DSL on my G4/800 Flat Panel iMac is easily 5 times faster browsing webpages than my T-3 based Windows 2000 Pentium III 1 Ghz machine. I wait and wait on this Pentium III. Goes to show you processor isn't everything. What really matters is how well written the software is. Mozilla for Mac OS X, and Chimera for Mac OS X, as well as iCab for Mac OS X are much faster than Explorer for any platform.
It is in software, and until people realize it is in the software, complaining about hardware is not going to matter a hill of beans. 64 bit processors are so slow to be developed because so few people have made their software optimized for 64 bit operations. If people need it, they'll get it. For 99% of computer use processor speed of machines nowadays is more than adequate both on PC and the Mac. Adding peripherals though is much easier on the Mac, and installing and removing software still is much easier on the Mac without causing a crash. And ease also means less time spent. So what does speed of the machine have to do with productivity when machines like PCs are so hard to manage? Nothing! Because when it is easier, it takes less time. That's the Mac advantage.
PCUser
Oct 8, 09:54 AM
What? No Dynamic Link Libraries in the MacOS X? You've got to be kidding me. That's a very bad choice on Apple's part. Especially since UNIX has their own type of DLL's. The whole point of a DLL is to make it so that programs don't need to load the same exact libraries into memory and waste space... the standard C library alone is about 2 megs. And the speed benefit from static libraries versus dynamic in *nix is nill. I know, I've compiled the same library both ways just to test that fact. (For those that don't know, static libraries are compiled into an app, and dynamic libraries are stored only once in memory.)
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
Abulia
Sep 26, 06:41 PM
I think beyond a certain level all these Cores are only going to be good for building up your ePeen, speaking of which where can I get one? :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
Nevermind they are only 1.66Ghz each, there are 8 of them!
It's not the speed of your cores that makes you a man, it's how many you have! :D
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 07:44 PM
But this doesn't answer the question at all.
Apple users question. Atheists/Agnostics question.
You see a trend yet?
Apple users question. Atheists/Agnostics question.
You see a trend yet?
Clive At Five
Aug 29, 12:40 PM
no no no no no.
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
javajedi
Oct 8, 05:51 PM
Mac are the fastest in things like MP3 encoding, MPEG4/DIVX encoding ...[/B][/QUOTE]
1) DiVX performance on the mac absolutely blows.
2) After I read your little post I ran a simple benchmark comparing my $3500 top of the line PowerBook:
The P4 ripped and encoded a 6:20 song @ 128kbit/s in a total of 12 seconds. The same process (same song) @ 128kbit/s in iTunes took 47 seconds.
What does that say?
1) DiVX performance on the mac absolutely blows.
2) After I read your little post I ran a simple benchmark comparing my $3500 top of the line PowerBook:
The P4 ripped and encoded a 6:20 song @ 128kbit/s in a total of 12 seconds. The same process (same song) @ 128kbit/s in iTunes took 47 seconds.
What does that say?
wtfk
Aug 29, 02:32 PM
Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
There's little reason to. Penn & Teller blasted them real good on their TV show "Bulls hit! (http://tinyurl.com/s4gfc)" on Showtime.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:03 PM
ddtlm:
Ah, thanks for clarifying.
Ah, thanks for clarifying.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:27 PM
I have seen this stated a few time - but not stated anywhere by apple.
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
DOV0006 Jacqueline Kennedy
My favourite wedding dress of
Jackie Kennedy Onassis was a
Jackie Onassis and Caroline
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Reacent Post
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
Thunderhawks
Apr 28, 09:11 AM
You got one bright office there mate. And thank you for replying so I don't get the slightest idea in my head that I won...
hahaha
Duh, winner, winner Sheen dinner:-)
hahaha
Duh, winner, winner Sheen dinner:-)
Multimedia
Oct 26, 09:11 PM
No one has mentioned the FSB concerns yet, which is weird.
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.
The earliest discussions about the new 8-cores (2x 4-core chipsets) suggested that 1333MHz was way too little to supply 8 cores with constant data flow, and that it would prevent the CPUs from reaching their full potential, making the FSB the bottleneck.
Newer reports, including quotes by Intel employees, suggest that each 4-core chip is not going to reach more than a maximum of 1600MHz FSB, and that 1333MHz FSB will be the practical operating rate. However, since as far as I can tell, that rate is for just for ONE 4-core chipset, and Apple is going to cram TWO into the Mac Pro, this could spell disaster.
So Apple really need to figure out the right FSB rate. I wonder what will unfold. I'd hate to see them use an underpowered FSB. :eek:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=30968
Happy Halloween!I'm not going to worry about it. I know I need more cores period. I am going to be a customer so that money can go toward further progress in the development of multi-core processors and Macs. I am not going to wait and see how it goes for someone else. When you know you need more cores and more cores finally hit the street, you don't go "wait! this is uncharted territory with an inadequate FSB!"
No. You go "Intel knows what it is doing and so does
Apple. I will follow their lead and buy NOW.
javajedi
Oct 11, 12:26 PM
What you are saying makes a lot of sense. Now that I think about, I too recall reading this somewhere.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Now that we know the real truth about the "better standard FPU", I thought it was time to shed some light on non vectorized G4 integer processing.
It still does 200,000,000 calculations, but this time I'm multiplying ints.
Motorola 7455 G4@800Mhz: 9 seconds (Native)
IBM 750FX G3@700Mhz: 7 seconds (Native)
Intel P4@2600Mhz 2 seconds (Java)
PowerPC 7455 integer processing is consierabley better than floating point (obviously less work doing ints), but still less per cycle than the Pentium 4.
Very intresting the G4 looses both floating point and integer to the IBM chip, at a 100MHz clock disadvantage.
I'm still waiting to see that "better standard FPU" in the G4. It seems the G4 is absolutely useless unless you are fortunate to have vectorized (AltiVec) code.
Hastings101
Apr 6, 02:24 PM
Imagine Joe, who is strongly considering buying a Mac for the first time. He goes to the popular Mac sites to get excited about the purchase by being involved in the community. What does Joe find when he visits MacRumors? Big capital letters on the side bar, "SWITCHERS ONLY," discussing all possible reasons that switching could lead to, albeit minor, bad experiences. Joe wants to be informed. Joe reads the three pages of differences that other people found annoying.
These posts are from people that are similar to himself, he identifies with them. One minor annoyance that he reads about won't shift his attitude away from buying a Mac, nor will that one poster look like a troll. If he reads many slightly negative messages all at once, they will change Joe's attitude toward "switching." If Joe is tentative and apprehensive enough to read all these posts, then it is a good chance he isn't yet committed to buying a Mac. This is exactly the kind of attitude that is most influenced by these types of messages.
After reading the thread, Joe is left with Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) about buying a Mac. His attitude has changed and in a couple of days he won't remember why it changed–just a vague, uneasy feeling of uncertainty.
Being informed is good. Free speech is good. Persuasion is a tool that is used for good and evil. Don't help evil screw Joe.
Well Joe is a moron if he lets four or five people on a forum change his opinion by much. He should know that no one should ever take anything written on a forum very seriously.
These posts are from people that are similar to himself, he identifies with them. One minor annoyance that he reads about won't shift his attitude away from buying a Mac, nor will that one poster look like a troll. If he reads many slightly negative messages all at once, they will change Joe's attitude toward "switching." If Joe is tentative and apprehensive enough to read all these posts, then it is a good chance he isn't yet committed to buying a Mac. This is exactly the kind of attitude that is most influenced by these types of messages.
After reading the thread, Joe is left with Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) about buying a Mac. His attitude has changed and in a couple of days he won't remember why it changed–just a vague, uneasy feeling of uncertainty.
Being informed is good. Free speech is good. Persuasion is a tool that is used for good and evil. Don't help evil screw Joe.
Well Joe is a moron if he lets four or five people on a forum change his opinion by much. He should know that no one should ever take anything written on a forum very seriously.
spicyapple
Oct 25, 10:22 PM
If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.
ATD
Sep 26, 12:51 PM
I bet I could peg all 8 cores doing a 3D render...easily.
Bring them I say. This may make me hold off on my render farm idea.
-mark
I'm already doing 6 cpu renders. Why stop at 8, I'll take 16 :D
Bring them I say. This may make me hold off on my render farm idea.
-mark
I'm already doing 6 cpu renders. Why stop at 8, I'll take 16 :D
CuttyShark
Apr 13, 12:40 AM
But it seems to me the man who uses tools is just a fool!:D Great song BTW! Songs of Yesterday
;) I soooooo wish I could fart an edit right outta my head. Life would be so much easier. Unfortunately, it somehow has to go through my hands, a mouse, keyboard, FCP, AVID, etc. before it's done.
Ahhh...such is life... ;)
Cheers!!
;) I soooooo wish I could fart an edit right outta my head. Life would be so much easier. Unfortunately, it somehow has to go through my hands, a mouse, keyboard, FCP, AVID, etc. before it's done.
Ahhh...such is life... ;)
Cheers!!
archipellago
May 2, 05:12 PM
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
sorry, last post...
great post....
all sentiments apply equally to OSX and Windows users..
Sydde
Mar 14, 02:39 PM
We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that.
We may have lots and lots of coal, but actually getting at it economically without human catastrophe or long-term environmental destruction kind outweighs most of its value. Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
We may have lots and lots of coal, but actually getting at it economically without human catastrophe or long-term environmental destruction kind outweighs most of its value. Then, "burn cleanly" is a dubious concept. Even if you can clean it up, how much does that cost, how much energy dies it take to clean it up, and how much do you lose from the coal's potential energy? Industry touts clean coal, others claim the very concept is a myth, I am not sure who is closer to the practical reality of the situation.
munkery
May 2, 06:16 PM
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Provide an example of malware that only includes user level access being used in the wild as per your description that can not be prevented with user knowledge?
0 comments:
Post a Comment