Getting more than you paid for again:

"A batch of laptops pre-installed with Windows Vista Home Premium was
found to have been infected with a 13-year-old boot sector virus."

"According to Virus Bulletin, the consignment of infected Medion laptops
– which could number anything up to 100,000 shipments – had been sold in
Danish and German branches of retail giant Aldi."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09...oned_angelina/


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Getting more than you paid for again:

"A batch of laptops pre-installed with Windows Vista Home Premium was
found to have been infected with a 13-year-old boot sector virus."

"According to Virus Bulletin, the consignment of infected Medion laptops -
which could number anything up to 100,000 shipments - had been sold in
Danish and German branches of retail giant Aldi."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09...oned_angelina/

"the infection itself is harmless" Why are you wasting bandwidth/

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Getting more than you paid for again:

"A batch of laptops pre-installed with Windows Vista Home Premium was
found to have been infected with a 13-year-old boot sector virus."

"According to Virus Bulletin, the consignment of infected Medion laptops -
which could number anything up to 100,000 shipments - had been sold in
Danish and German branches of retail giant Aldi."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09...oned_angelina/

"the infection itself is harmless"

Still swallowing any old ******** spouted by company droids, eh Dribble?

Why are you wasting bandwidth/

Oh, the irony.

And most amusing that you don't understand why this event is a bad
thing. Still what do people expect when they run a ****e old system
dependent on a BIOS?

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Why are you wasting bandwidth

A question oft asked of your posts.

--


Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Getting more than you paid for again:

"A batch of laptops pre-installed with Windows Vista Home Premium was
found to have been infected with a 13-year-old boot sector virus."

"According to Virus Bulletin, the consignment of infected Medion
laptops -
which could number anything up to 100,000 shipments - had been sold in
Danish and German branches of retail giant Aldi."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09...oned_angelina/

"the infection itself is harmless"

Still

Please eff off.

On 2007-09-17 23:17:35 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" said:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Getting more than you paid for again:

"A batch of laptops pre-installed with Windows Vista Home Premium was
found to have been infected with a 13-year-old boot sector virus."

"According to Virus Bulletin, the consignment of infected Medion
laptops - which could number anything up to 100,000 shipments - had
been sold in Danish and German branches of retail giant Aldi."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09...oned_angelina/

"the infection itself is harmless" Why are you wasting bandwidth/

The question is which piece of software is the infection. The boot
sector virus may be harmless, but the rest of it.....

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:35:43 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Getting more than you paid for again:

"A batch of laptops pre-installed with Windows Vista Home Premium was
found to have been infected with a 13-year-old boot sector virus."

"According to Virus Bulletin, the consignment of infected Medion laptops -
which could number anything up to 100,000 shipments - had been sold in
Danish and German branches of retail giant Aldi."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09...oned_angelina/

"the infection itself is harmless"

Still swallowing any old ******** spouted by company droids, eh Dribble?

Why are you wasting bandwidth/

Oh, the irony.

And most amusing that you don't understand why this event is a bad
thing. Still what do people expect when they run a ****e old system
dependent on a BIOS?

Juz luv this type of comment - as if the author could, at the drop of
a hat, write a better one. But of course "he never does have the
time". da da-da da da da daaaaaaa.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Why are you wasting bandwidth

A question oft asked of your posts.

Please eff off as you are a total waste of space.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Why are you wasting bandwidth

A question oft asked of your posts.

Please eff off as you are a total waste of space.

QED.

--
*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Why are you wasting bandwidth

A question oft asked of your posts.

Please eff off as you are a total waste of space.

....

Please eff off as you are a total waste of space.

"jake" wrote in message
...


....

Juz luv this type of comment - as if the author could, at the drop of
a hat, write a better one. But of course "he never does have the
time". da da-da da da da daaaaaaa.

Nice one!

Mary

On Sep 17, 11:35 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Getting more than you paid for again:

"A batch of laptops pre-installed with Windows Vista Home Premium was
found to have been infected with a 13-year-old boot sector virus."

"According to Virus Bulletin, the consignment of infected Medion laptops -
which could number anything up to 100,000 shipments - had been sold in
Danish and German branches of retail giant Aldi."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09...oned_angelina/

"the infection itself is harmless"

Still swallowing any old ******** spouted by company droids, eh Dribble?

Be fair. According to Symantec (who have NO interest in down-playing
any virus), "Damage Level : Low", and they don't mention any
destructive payload.


And most amusing that you don't understand why this event is a bad
thing. Still what do people expect when they run a ****e old system
dependent on a BIOS?

What do you use that doesn't? (That's a serious question - I am
interested). I also would have thought that any architecture that
uses an operating system which is stored on disk must be vunerable to
a virus rewriting the well known location from which the initial ROM
reads the operating system.

Martin Bonner wrote:

And most amusing that you don't understand why this event is a bad
thing. Still what do people expect when they run a ****e old system
dependent on a BIOS?

What do you use that doesn't?

The Clue is in the header, but to spell it out, I use OSX, althugh
that's simply one of several operating systems that have no use for the
PC BIOS. The basic input/output system used is Intel's EFI, which
Microsoft should support, but for reasons of the usual Microsoft
****wittery, don't.

(That's a serious question - I am interested). I also would have thought
that any architecture that uses an operating system which is stored on
disk must be vunerable to a virus rewriting the well known location from
which the initial ROM reads the operating system.

Only if the operating system is lame enough to permit software run in
user space to rewrite parts of the OS. Or if like Microsoft products
they are lame enough to require users to run all software as
administrators if they expect to get any work done.

jake wrote:

And most amusing that you don't understand why this event is a bad
thing. Still what do people expect when they run a ****e old system
dependent on a BIOS?

Juz luv this type of comment - as if the author could, at the drop of
a hat, write a better one. But of course "he never does have the
time". da da-da da da da daaaaaaa.

I love your sort of comment that shows that you know ****-all but like
to pretend to knowledge that you don't have.

On Sep 23, 3:27 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Martin Bonner wrote:
And most amusing that you don't understand why this event is a bad
thing. Still what do people expect when they run a ****e old system
dependent on a BIOS?

What do you use that doesn't?

The Clue is in the header, but to spell it out, I use OSX, althugh
that's simply one of several operating systems that have no use for the
PC BIOS. The basic input/output system used is Intel's EFI, which
Microsoft should support, but for reasons of the usual Microsoft
****wittery, don't.

Oh right. You meant "BIOS" as in "IBM-PC Compatible BIOS" rather than
an arbitrary basic input/output system.

(That's a serious question - I am interested). I also would have thought
that any architecture that uses an operating system which is stored on
disk must be vunerable to a virus rewriting the well known location from
which the initial ROM reads the operating system.

Only if the operating system is lame enough to permit software
run in user space to rewrite parts of the OS. Or if like
Microsoft products they are lame enough to require users
to run all software as administrators if they expect to
get any work done.

Yeah I guess I had forgotten LOGIO and PHYSIO privileges.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Martin Bonner wrote:

And most amusing that you don't understand why this event is a bad
thing. Still what do people expect when they run a ****e old system
dependent on a BIOS?

What do you use that doesn't?

The Clue is in the header, but to spell it out, I use OSX, althugh
that's simply one of several operating systems that have no use for the
PC BIOS. The basic input/output system used is Intel's EFI, which
Microsoft should support, but for reasons of the usual Microsoft
****wittery, don't.

The reason they don't use efi is because they load their own BIOS as part of
the OS, just like freebsd and linux do.
Using efi may make it easier for the OS designer but it makes the os
dependent on the ROM contents on the machine.
Its somewhat easier to load the OSes own BIOS into RAM.
Strange as it may seem I think you will find OSX also loads its drivers into
RAM and bypasses EFI after booting too.
This is because the OS then knows it has the latest and also because stuff
runs a lot faster from RAM than from ROM on nearly evey machine.
BTW if you are a hardware supplier and you do use efi do you compile it to
run as 16,32 or 64 bit and which OSes wouldn't work if you used 64 bit?
If you don't compile it for 64bit how does the OS work?


(That's a serious question - I am interested). I also would have thought
that any architecture that uses an operating system which is stored on
disk must be vunerable to a virus rewriting the well known location from
which the initial ROM reads the operating system.

Only if the operating system is lame enough to permit software run in
user space to rewrite parts of the OS. Or if like Microsoft products
they are lame enough to require users to run all software as
administrators if they expect to get any work done.


Which M$ products require that?
Any OS in the last 6 years?
If you needed to run as admin then you didn't know how to use windows.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:17:19 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Martin Bonner wrote:

And most amusing that you don't understand why this event is a bad
thing. Still what do people expect when they run a ****e old system
dependent on a BIOS?

What do you use that doesn't?

The Clue is in the header, but to spell it out, I use OSX, althugh
that's simply one of several operating systems that have no use for the
PC BIOS. The basic input/output system used is Intel's EFI, which
Microsoft should support, but for reasons of the usual Microsoft
****wittery, don't.

The reason they don't use efi is because they load their own BIOS as part of
the OS, just like freebsd and linux do.

Please define the 'BIOS' that is loaded by these systems.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
"dennis@home" writes:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Martin Bonner wrote:

And most amusing that you don't understand why this event is a bad
thing. Still what do people expect when they run a ****e old system
dependent on a BIOS?

What do you use that doesn't?

The Clue is in the header, but to spell it out, I use OSX, althugh
that's simply one of several operating systems that have no use for the
PC BIOS. The basic input/output system used is Intel's EFI, which
Microsoft should support, but for reasons of the usual Microsoft
****wittery, don't.

The reason they don't use efi is because they load their own BIOS as part of
the OS, just like freebsd and linux do.
Using efi may make it easier for the OS designer but it makes the os
dependent on the ROM contents on the machine.
Its somewhat easier to load the OSes own BIOS into RAM.
Strange as it may seem I think you will find OSX also loads its drivers into
RAM and bypasses EFI after booting too.

I think all EFI-bootable OS's do this.
Just the same as all BIOS-bootable OS's (except DOS maybe?)
don't use the BIOS calls after booting. (Due to non-use by any
mainstream OS, the 32 bit BIOS calls were too buggy to be usable,
and AFAIK there never were any 64 bit BIOS calls defined.)

This is because the OS then knows it has the latest and also because stuff
runs a lot faster from RAM than from ROM on nearly evey machine.
BTW if you are a hardware supplier and you do use efi do you compile it to
run as 16,32 or 64 bit and which OSes wouldn't work if you used 64 bit?
If you don't compile it for 64bit how does the OS work?

EFI is dead -- there will be no more new EFI systems introduced
since all the parties agreed on UEFI a year or more ago.
It was looking likely that UEFI would only directly support 64bit
OS's, and provide a leagacy BIOS mode booting for anything else.
That's what Microsoft and a number of the other parties were
suggesting, without any noticable disagreement from anyone else.
I don't think anything in UEFI prevents 16 and 32 bit support,
except it looks like no one will be providing any 16 or 32 bit
drivers for it on the basis that all current hardware and all
mainstream OS's are now 64 bit capable, and anything that isn't
probably also has dependancies on leagacy BIOS booting.
However, I've been out of the loop for a while now and things
may have moved on.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
"Bob Eager" writes:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:17:19 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The reason they don't use efi is because they load their own BIOS as part of
the OS, just like freebsd and linux do.

Please define the 'BIOS' that is loaded by these systems.

The kernel device drivers. They drive the hardware directly,
not via the BIOS calls which are provided for that purpose.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:38:49 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
"Bob Eager" writes:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:17:19 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The reason they don't use efi is because they load their own BIOS as part of
the OS, just like freebsd and linux do.

Please define the 'BIOS' that is loaded by these systems.

The kernel device drivers. They drive the hardware directly,
not via the BIOS calls which are provided for that purpose.

Hardly a BIOS. Hardly Basic. Most (nearly all) BIOSes don't even drive
the device in either interrupt or DMA mode. I think the use of the term
BIOS is very misleading. Proper device drivers do, of course (I've
written enough of them!).

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
"Bob Eager" writes:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:38:49 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
"Bob Eager" writes:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:17:19 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The reason they don't use efi is because they load their own BIOS as part of
the OS, just like freebsd and linux do.

Please define the 'BIOS' that is loaded by these systems.

The kernel device drivers. They drive the hardware directly,
not via the BIOS calls which are provided for that purpose.

Hardly a BIOS. Hardly Basic. Most (nearly all) BIOSes don't even drive
the device in either interrupt or DMA mode. I think the use of the term
BIOS is very misleading. Proper device drivers do, of course (I've
written enough of them!).

Wouldn't have been my choice of words either, but the BIOS was
actually written originally to provide the low level interface
to the hardware.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:24:15 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

Hardly a BIOS. Hardly Basic. Most (nearly all) BIOSes don't even drive
the device in either interrupt or DMA mode. I think the use of the term
BIOS is very misleading. Proper device drivers do, of course (I've
written enough of them!).

Wouldn't have been my choice of words either, but the BIOS was
actually written originally to provide the low level interface
to the hardware.

Yes...circa 1977 as I recall....!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Wouldn't have been my choice of words either, but the BIOS was
actually written originally to provide the low level interface
to the hardware.

And used to be used in DOS days (and even then I used to spend a fair
amount of effort circumventing it then to gain either speed, or a
fighting change that something would work in the first place (i.e.
serial comms))...

Some BIOS calls carried on for a bit in Win95. Can't think of anything
that current windows use it for though.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

dennis@home wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Martin Bonner wrote:

And most amusing that you don't understand why this event is a bad
thing. Still what do people expect when they run a ****e old system
dependent on a BIOS?

What do you use that doesn't?

The Clue is in the header, but to spell it out, I use OSX, althugh
that's simply one of several operating systems that have no use for the
PC BIOS. The basic input/output system used is Intel's EFI, which
Microsoft should support, but for reasons of the usual Microsoft
****wittery, don't.

The reason they don't use efi is because they load their own BIOS as
part of the OS, just like freebsd and linux do.
Using efi may make it easier for the OS designer but it makes the os
dependent on the ROM contents on the machine.
Its somewhat easier to load the OSes own BIOS into RAM.
Strange as it may seem I think you will find OSX also loads its drivers
into RAM and bypasses EFI after booting too.

Of course it does, but the EFI bit makes sure that

- Apple stuff won't boot on generic PC hardware
- the APple marketing people can add another piEce Of BS tO theiR
marketing ****e to tell mac gopis how wonderful life is when sitting at
Guru Jobs' kneees.

This is because the OS then knows it has the latest and also because
stuff runs a lot faster from RAM than from ROM on nearly evey machine.
BTW if you are a hardware supplier and you do use efi do you compile it
to run as 16,32 or 64 bit and which OSes wouldn't work if you used 64 bit?
If you don't compile it for 64bit how does the OS work?


(That's a serious question - I am interested). I also would have
thought
that any architecture that uses an operating system which is stored on
disk must be vunerable to a virus rewriting the well known location from
which the initial ROM reads the operating system.

Only if the operating system is lame enough to permit software run in
user space to rewrite parts of the OS. Or if like Microsoft products
they are lame enough to require users to run all software as
administrators if they expect to get any work done.


Which M$ products require that?
Any OS in the last 6 years?
If you needed to run as admin then you didn't know how to use windows.
I have found that Mac people don't want to hear the truth - that a Mac
is in fact juts a over priced PC running a prettier and slightly more
stable windowing system that runs slower, has less hardware and software
support, but otherwise is just after all another bloody computer..

Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:38:49 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
"Bob Eager" writes:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:17:19 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:
The reason they don't use efi is because they load their own BIOS as part of
the OS, just like freebsd and linux do.
Please define the 'BIOS' that is loaded by these systems.
The kernel device drivers. They drive the hardware directly,
not via the BIOS calls which are provided for that purpose.

Hardly a BIOS. Hardly Basic. Most (nearly all) BIOSes don't even drive
the device in either interrupt or DMA mode. I think the use of the term
BIOS is very misleading. Proper device drivers do, of course (I've
written enough of them!).

Orginally BIOS was the shim code between the OS generic drivers and the
hardware specific stuff.

What we would now call device drivers.

IBM shoved a lt of it in ROM, which was fine for about 6 months, till
peole realised it was dog slow in ROM and started copying it into RAM,
and then bypassing it all together.Since it represented something
hardware specific and took up ram space anyway.


These days its no more than what it takes to boot the kernel.


The REAL BIOS is in the kernel.

Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:24:15 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

Hardly a BIOS. Hardly Basic. Most (nearly all) BIOSes don't even drive
the device in either interrupt or DMA mode. I think the use of the term
BIOS is very misleading. Proper device drivers do, of course (I've
written enough of them!).
Wouldn't have been my choice of words either, but the BIOS was
actually written originally to provide the low level interface
to the hardware.

Yes...circa 1977 as I recall....!

MMM. Think the term may go back a bit earlier than that..that sounds
like the CP/M bios there..

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:46:43 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:24:15 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

Hardly a BIOS. Hardly Basic. Most (nearly all) BIOSes don't even drive
the device in either interrupt or DMA mode. I think the use of the term
BIOS is very misleading. Proper device drivers do, of course (I've
written enough of them!).
Wouldn't have been my choice of words either, but the BIOS was
actually written originally to provide the low level interface
to the hardware.

Yes...circa 1977 as I recall....!

MMM. Think the term may go back a bit earlier than that..that sounds
like the CP/M bios there..

CP/M was the first system to use the term, and that was around 1977
AFAIR.

But the point is...it was a *Basic* Input/Output System. Kernel drivers
in modern systems are hardly basic!
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-24, dennis@home wrote:

If you needed to run as admin then you didn't know how to use windows.

Garbage.


I stand by what I said.. can you show me why you *need* to run as admin?

On Sep 25, 12:42 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Martin Bonner wrote:

And most amusing that you don't understand why this event is a bad
thing. Still what do people expect when they run a ****e old system
dependent on a BIOS?

What do you use that doesn't?

The Clue is in the header, but to spell it out, I use OSX, althugh
that's simply one of several operating systems that have no use for the
PC BIOS. The basic input/output system used is Intel's EFI, which
Microsoft should support, but for reasons of the usual Microsoft
****wittery, don't.

The reason they don't use efi is because they load their own BIOS as
part of the OS, just like freebsd and linux do.
Using efi may make it easier for the OS designer but it makes the os
dependent on the ROM contents on the machine.
Its somewhat easier to load the OSes own BIOS into RAM.
Strange as it may seem I think you will find OSX also loads its drivers
into RAM and bypasses EFI after booting too.

Of course it does, but the EFI bit makes sure that

- Apple stuff won't boot on generic PC hardware
- the APple marketing people can add another piEce Of BS tO theiR
marketing ****e to tell mac gopis how wonderful life is when sitting at
Guru Jobs' kneees.





This is because the OS then knows it has the latest and also because
stuff runs a lot faster from RAM than from ROM on nearly evey machine.
BTW if you are a hardware supplier and you do use efi do you compile it
to run as 16,32 or 64 bit and which OSes wouldn't work if you used 64 bit?
If you don't compile it for 64bit how does the OS work?

(That's a serious question - I am interested). I also would have
thought
that any architecture that uses an operating system which is stored on
disk must be vunerable to a virus rewriting the well known location from
which the initial ROM reads the operating system.

Only if the operating system is lame enough to permit software run in
user space to rewrite parts of the OS. Or if like Microsoft products
they are lame enough to require users to run all software as
administrators if they expect to get any work done.

Which M$ products require that?
Any OS in the last 6 years?
If you needed to run as admin then you didn't know how to use windows.

I have found that Mac people don't want to hear the truth - that a Mac
is in fact juts a over priced PC running a prettier and slightly more
stable windowing system that runs slower, has less hardware and software
support, but otherwise is just after all another bloody computer..- Hide quoted text -

applause

MBQ

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I have found that Mac people don't want to hear the truth

I'm quite happy to hear the truth.

- that a Mac is in fact juts a over priced PC running a prettier and
slightly more stable windowing system that runs slower, has less hardware
and software support, but otherwise is just after all another bloody
computer..

That wasn't the truth, HTH.

wrote:

applause

So how many Macs have you used over what sort of period of time?

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-25, dennis@home wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-24, dennis@home wrote:

If you needed to run as admin then you didn't know how to use windows.

Garbage.


I stand by what I said..

Suit yourself.

can you show me why you *need* to run as admin?

Because far too much Winblows software assumes it has write privileges to
the
whole system and either bitches or simply doesn't work properly when it
doesn't.

As you claim.
However I have none that does and I expect thats true for most users.
I run similar stuff to what most user will run including:- office,
compilers, databases, games, video editting. none at admin level.


Another one of the myriad reasons I won't use Gate's bundle of bugs and
security
vulnerabilities that he laughingly calls an "operating system".

Apparantly you do so for the wrong reasons as you don't actually understand
windows.
I bet you don't actually understand Linux either if you think it is
significantly better than windows.
As a user of both I can assure you that both have problems and niether is
perfect.


--
"Religion poisons everything."
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org dot uk]

On Sep 25, 1:13 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
applause

So how many Macs have you used over what sort of period of time?

Enough to know taht I agree with the assertion.

MBQ

wrote:

On Sep 25, 1:13 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
applause

So how many Macs have you used over what sort of period of time?

Enough to know taht I agree with the assertion.

No, go on, how many and what versions of the OS? Try not avoiding the
question.

dennis@home wrote:

As a user

Says it all. Huge and I aren't just "users".

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I have found that Mac people don't want to hear the truth - that a Mac
is in fact juts a over priced PC running a prettier and slightly more
stable windowing system that runs slower, has less hardware and software
support, but otherwise is just after all another bloody computer..

Over priced - possibly. You might argue you get some nice design and
aesthetics for your money.

Prettier certainly.

More stable inherently, and also by virtue of there being less malware
targeted at the platform.

Slower - not really - it varies with application, but on similar
hardware there is not a noticeable difference in application
performance. Compared to vista it flys!

Less hardware support? Less than XP, but more than Vista. You can
generally find most of the hardware you need though.

Software support - main apps covered well, some specialist stuff not
well catered for. These days with the ability to run virtual platforms
so easily that seems less of an issue.

Ease of use and the ability to get useful stuff done out of the box is
better. Learning times are reduced and clueless users are less likely to
shoot themselves in the foot. The old issue of macs nannying the user
and making it hard for people who do know what they are doing get low
level control, no longer really apply since the transition to OSX.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
dennis@home wrote:

As a user

Says it all. Huge and I aren't just "users".

Says it all really.. treat the users with contempt and wonder why you can't
give it away. ;-)
BTW I am not just a user either having written kernel level code in Unix in
the past.

John Rumm wrote:

Less hardware support? Less than XP, but more than Vista. You can
generally find most of the hardware you need though.

I don't see that as true. What hardware is there that cannot be used
with a Mac or for which there is not a suitable alternative?

I have a mix of devices scanners, printers, keyboards, monitors,
projectors, internal and external hard drives, the list is endless, all
bought for use with a PC, some of them up to fifteen years old, all of
them work with the Mac.

As far as printers go, so far I haven't found one that the OS doesn't
recognise and install the drivers for automatically.

When I bought a new Sony Alpha camera I plugged it into the Mac, the Mac
noticed I had a Sony Alpha and configured itself to accept Sony RAW
files in iPhoto. What more do I need?

On Sep 25, 1:50 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 25, 1:13 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
wrote:
applause

So how many Macs have you used over what sort of period of time?

Enough to know taht I agree with the assertion.

No, go on, how many and what versions of the OS? Try not avoiding the
question.

It's irrelevant, even if I'd never tried any, I could still agree with
TNPs assertion.

MBQ

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-09-25, dennis@home wrote:

"Huge" wrote in message
...

Because far too much Winblows software assumes it has write privileges
to
the
whole system and either bitches or simply doesn't work properly when it
doesn't.

As you claim.
However I have none that does

That makes it OK for me, then, does it?

I just asked what.. you don't appear to have an answer.
I get the impression you made it up.


Another one of the myriad reasons I won't use Gate's bundle of bugs and
security
vulnerabilities that he laughingly calls an "operating system".

Apparantly you do so for the wrong reasons as you don't actually
understand
windows.

I love this kind of argument, given that I've worked in IT for over 3
decades
and managed huge desktop and server installations in the City running O/Ss
you've never heard of

Name one of those OSes, I can think of quite a few and have written code on
quite a few.

, much less know anything about, as well as Gates's junk.
You see, I actually *have* TCO figures for real world installs.

I hate IT guys.
As a system designer I have to take into account how bad you can be.
It makes my life very difficult.. it would be much easier if I could have
some of you sacked and replaced by people who are willing to learn and have
open minds.


I bet you don't actually understand Linux either if you think it is
significantly better than windows.

Who mentioned Linux, moron?

SunOS is a lot like Linux you know.
I bet half the stuff you run is open source ("linux") too.
Have you tried Solaris?
I prefer vanilla SVR5 myself as its easy to write STREAMS modules if you
need near to real-time response like you do in telephone exchanges.


As a user of both I can assure you that both have problems and niether is
perfect.

Given that you can neither spell, nor operate your delete key, and that
you
appear to believe that jumping to conclusions is logically valid, perhaps
you
could explain why I should pay the slightest attention to any of your
droolings?

Being able to type is not a requirement for being correct.
You have no need to pay any attention to me at all.. I stated fact as I see
it and you responded without any facts to backup your claim.
Your argument sounds like the usual "I hate M$" argument that some
irrational people have.
It has nothing to do with how good an OS is or isn't.

If you really want a technical argument feel free.