Want a Penryn processor crack open an apple!

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


HA!

1. Macs don't get viruses because there aren't any virus made for Macs. Not security!
2. No they cant. Lets see you run Crysis on a mac! I mean running Crysis WELL!
3. Yes, right, and Advertisments determine the quality of the product! :lol:
4. Less hardware permutations + less Software Permutations = Higher stability because the range of hardware is narrower...
5. Vista's interface isn't made for noobs like those who like macs.
6. And the one button mouse you guys had forever?
7. I can run microsoft word. :lol:
 
^ Correction. There are viruses for Macs now.
http://www.macrumors.com/2006/02/16/the-first-mac-os-x-virus-a-new-os-x-trojan/
Also since most ppl are running Mac/Windows (via boot Camp) they can no longer ignore the security.
 


Except:

a) that's a trojan, not a virus.
b) you can't infect executables on a Mac unless you're running as root or you install them in your own directory with your own user id; so its attempts to infect other files will be a complete flop.

Unix is designed to be secure, Windows is designed to be convenient. Neither achieves their goal 100%, but the latter is always going to be much less secure than the former.
 
I'm glad my comments seem to have been taken in the correct context. This thread was already descending into silliness so why not add to the party. I'm not out to dis anybody for OC'ing. My present box is a AlthlonXP 2500 OC'd to 3200 speed. I've not upgraded as I don't really need more speed and I don't really have the funds. Ubuntu runs just fine for me as it is.

The trouble is that a lot of people seem to see OC'ing as some form of l33t hacking or god like tech status. Most people just follow the guides (badly) and then bitch about instability. There are very few that actually innovate, but some of them are truly impressive.

It's getting harder and harder for home builds to be done for less than a commercial off the shelf product. Yes, you can build much better but the price performance curve has changed shape over the last few years. A lot of people are cautious of doing an OC as there is always the risk of frying components. Now we may know how to avoid this sort of outcome but unless you do your research you can get into trouble. Hence why most people just buy a solution.

The comparison I would make is Hi-Fi in the 70's. I think the computer market has not reached the stage Hi-Fi did when CD arrived and Midi systems started to take over. Why bother spending a fortune and wasting a weekend finding the perfect tracking weight for your stylus when you can just get on with enjoying music on a system for 20% the price that sounds (to most ears) 80% as good. BTW - I do still own 1970's speakers :)
 

Do you always type such utter crap? :pt1cable:
 
I wonder if all this battering of rotten apples is going to deter macdopes from being ripped off, from what I have seen in the past they will dig thier heels in and remain stubborn as ever, just like donkeys. 1....2.....3.......eeeAaw!!! Like much in life we need bad examples to steer away from and good examples to steer to. Thanks macdopes for showing me how money can be completely wasted, cos I never did. Bwahahahaha.
 
MU, there is really no need to subject this forum as well as a little girl to that sort of filth.

If you read my post you will see that a certain primate has already warned her to stay out of the other, good thing he notriced her age or who knows what we might have done to her by now.( also a good thing was i was on holiday at the time as unlike some i have no problems abusing kids,moohaha)
Click to expand...

Many people do not heed advice unless they are given some sort of reason why it would be in their best interest to do so. The answer of "Because I said so" to the question of "why can't I do <something>" more often than not only makes the person who asked the question want to do said activity to find out what it's like. I thought it would be safer to give her a reason why not to go down there than just to say no. Those links are certainly very disturbing but less so than getting a full shot of the real deal. It's analogous to taking junior high students on a tour of the county jail to see the junkies sitting in there rather than just telling them "Drugs are bad, mmmmkay?" Yes, jail is a nasty place to visit but it's better to see it from that side of the bars than the other.

@MarkG: You do not have to be running as root for a piece of malware to muck with your system. A keylogger can run very well as an unprivileged user, so can a virus that rifles through your files and copies interesting-sounding stuff to the virus owner. Or a virus that participates in a DDoS attack or one that wipes your home directory, or one that sends out tons of spam e-mails, etc. Anything you can do, the virus can do. Sure, it can't mess with system files, but there is a lot that an unprivileged piece of malware can accomplish.

And as far as the Unix part goes, that's partially true. Unix was designed first and foremost as a multi-user OS, so there had to be some security to keep the users from screwing with each others' files and with the system. DOS was designed as a single-user OS and by extension Windows-on-DOS was too. This meant no security initially. However, Windows NT was designed as a multi-user OS and does have the same general kinds of security available in it as Unix does. The problem is with the implementation. Windows NT variants had to run software than ran on Windows/DOS, which meant that the programs expected to run with unlimited privileges. Thus you had everybody on home machines run as administrator, bypassing much of NT's security. Vista tries to bring this under control with the limited user account being default and then prompting for privilege escalation, very similar to how Unix does that. The Macintosh fans go and poke fun at UAC for having the same type of privilege escalation than Unix has but in the next breath say that OS X is great because it is based on Unix. So which is it- is the multiuser Unix system good or bad?
 


Of course you don't. But then it's not a virus, is it?

However, Windows NT was designed as a multi-user OS and does have the same general kinds of security available in it as Unix does. The problem is with the implementation. Windows NT variants had to run software than ran on Windows/DOS, which meant that the programs expected to run with unlimited privileges.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly my point.
 


You could have a user-privilege virus. A virus is defined as a program that can infect a computer, replicate, and disseminate itself without the user's permission or knowledge. A simple virus that is a bit of an autorun script to be run when a user sticks an infected USB stick into a computer that copies itself to a hidden directory on the computer and then copies itself to any new removable disks if possible is one example. The virus can use any tool that the user can, such as cp, ls, grep, mkdir, etc.

It just wouldn't be able to hide very well compared to a virus installed as root as it merely uses the binary programs on your system rather than modifying them to make its activities unseen even to root. You could see a user-level virus easily if you were looking for it, but most people do not constantly watch top or ps to try to look for viral activity or monitor each and every application .conf folder in /home. It would satisfy the qualities of being a virus just dandy- it just wouldn't be a very good virus.
 

As per my above post, do you always post such utter crap? :sarcastic:
 

No it doesn't. If thats the effect you were going for, try again sunshine! :hello:
I meant you typing such pointless anti-Apple stuff, achieve much did it? :non:
It's pathetic....
 
Kaldor wrote :

Mac users need to step down off of their high horses and realize they dont own the best machines. Macs are decent, but PCs run s__t. They can do everything a Mac can do and more. They are no more secure, faster, more stable, than a decently assembled PC. Good way to look at people picking on PCs is the fact that Mac has the same issues Microsoft has now that they are getting market share. People think that if you want totally perfect drivers and software and hardware, go buy a Mac. Steve Jobs has all the hardware and software locked down. Except for his crap still isnt perfect either in spite of the slick marketing.


There is a reason for this: Macs only need to be compatible with a small variety of hardware whereas Windows need to compatible with every single known chipset. Now when this happens Apple focuses making really good drivers and tests them well. Whereas Windows must try and save abit of time and not go as thoroughly ( they could but it would cost alot )
Click to expand...


"People think that if you want totally perfect drivers and software and hardware, go buy a Mac. Steve Jobs has all the hardware and software locked down. Except for his crap still isnt perfect either in spite of the slick marketing." Um thats what I just said. Mac has a limited hard scope. Windows does not. Mac has a limited software scope. Mac does not. PCs run more hardware, more software, and can do a much wider variety of things than the Mac in its current form will ever do. Companies will not write programs for Macs because very few company's want to crawl up Steve Jobs' a__. Until Mac opens up their doors to companies and gets a little more friendly to the world, Macs will use whatever the almighty Mr Jobs thinks they should use. And what Steve wants everyone to uses is a minute portion of the total picture.

Basically Im saying to Mac zealots/idiots get a clue. Your hardware is slower, your software isnt any better than anything else out there, and to top it off, you machine offers far less potential than a PC of similar cost.


 

Oh great, another tirade of useful information... :sarcastic:
Oh and to the bit I made in bold, does that mean a Core 2 in a Mac is slower than one in a PC....??
:sarcastic:
Nice work there!
 


Luke, the point Im making here is that yeah that Core 2 Duo in the Mac is the same one thats in the PCs. However all things are not equal. The Mac system as a whole is slower and cost far more. A $6000 Mac Pro has its hands full trying to keep up to my $2000 PC. Obviously you cant run half the stuff on a Mac that I can run on my PC, but program to program, the PC is just as fast, for half the cost. Thats what I meant by slower hardware.

I meant Pcs support a huge range of hardware by default installation but require 3rd party drivers whereas macs have all the computer drivers already (due to the smaller amount of hardware thus not requiring 3rd party drivers). I don't like Mac OS X more than a drunk fedora so......
Click to expand...

Yup, Macs are locked down. Supposedly makes it easier for development. But I look at it more like this. You home school your kids, they do great. They get out there in the real world, they fall on their face. Their closed development doesn't alow for alot of the variables that a computer will see out there in the real world, not the test bench at the office.

 
Lukebird your so typical and predictable. Your drowing in regret and your trying to make some sort of Rocky Balboa stand for the downtrodden. So tell us Lukebird, are there more compelling reasons to buy a mac over a pc? Please list them individually so I can completely enjoy the humour in each individual sentence.

While your at it, please explain why Adobe isn't releasing photoshop CS4 for macs. So predictable, when macdopes fail in hardware debates they turn to OS's, which is even more crap.

See Lukebird?? This was point about needing a psychologist to figure out why people buy macs. We are 8 pages into this debate and even though so many great pro pc's point have been raised, you still refuse to accept logic. Accept you have bought rotten apples, accept the financial loss, years of always being behind, limited software, the ridicule and humilation of owning a mac and then begin to heal.

For anyone who still wants to buy a mac, follow your dog around with a bucket, it's alot cheaper.
 


A.) A Trogan is a type of virus, so it is indeed a virus. Each kind of virus has a specific purpose.
B.) Your right, but your average person that wants to install programs on their system, regardless if your on a Windows or Apple system, or even Linux, that person is going to at least try to install something that they think they need, which can still be something that they shouldn't.

It maybe harder on some systems, but it isn't impossible. How many windows systems (Home Users) out number Mac's?

My dad is a great example. He'll install any crapware (kinda pisses me off :lol:) on his XP system. In my eyes, he's just doing what he wants since he's a basic average users. You put him on a Mac, he's gonna figure out how to install crapware some how, which could be malware or virus. Although I did give him a Linux system, but he hasn't even touch it. :lol:. o O (I didn't give him the root pw)
 


Hey, lay off us macin-fans! Just because you've got a PC doesn't allow you to harass us and besides macs are better in these ways:
1. No viruses
2. One retail 'ultimate' version
3. Special Mac Forums
4. The ability to use EFI, whatever that means
5. The ability to install and uninstall applications by drag and drop
6. Face it, iwork is mac-only
7. ilife 08
8. simple user interface
9. the ability to run all systems
10. the command key
11.Do I even need a reason?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom