Apple Computer RULES: OS X Has embedded a POEM for a warning to hackers

[berni_mccoy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060217/ap_on_hi_te/apple_hacker_warning;_ylt=ApZwv9GQcIoNqcw4VForrn.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

Here's the poem:

Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool./(C) Apple Computer, Inc.

BTW, I'm using a PowerBook RIGHT NOW.

[GoneOffShore]

1. Power book G4 here as well.

Best piece of hardware I've bought in the past 20 years.

[linazelle]

3. Do you have to buy mac software or can you use windows?

[benburch]

6. You can run almost all Windows software using an emulator.

I have an older copy of Virtual PC that works fine, except there is seldom any Windows software I need to run. For almost any task I do, there is better software for the Mac than its Windows equivalent.

[keopeli]

9. I'll offer some free advice, as an IT guy.

Reality: Windows and Mac don't mix well at all. (Of course not. They hate each other.) Software like Virtual PC are a major pain that you will use briefly before beginning to deplore it's existence.

The reason hackers don't often hack OS/X is because it only gets them in to 4% of the market. If Mac ever garnered a significant chunk of the market, they would become threatened as well.

In my opinion, the biggest differences between owning a Mac or a PC are:

1. Most software is written for PCs. If you want a lot of software capabilities, Macs are inadequate. Think games. Think of a program to make your birthday cards from your email address book. Don't get me wrong. Macs have these capabilities, too - but they are limited. How can you tell? Because Mac owners may find 1 or 2 pieces of software to make those birthday cards, while PCs will have so many, you'll have to look for advice on which is best and why. Go to a site like download.com and look at all they offer for PCs v. Macs. Or, go into your local computer store and look at the shelves of PC software v. Mac software. It's that simple. If you're wanting to use your computer to do things, PCs have a lot more to offer.

That being said, Macs are GREAT for A/V. Photo/Video/Audio editing professionals only use Macs. Period. Many publishers swear by Macs as well, because of the wonderful Adobe software. But, this software is now fully functional on PCs.

Macs will do most anything a PC will do, but you'll have fewer choices.

Macs are more expensive: to buy, repair, upgrade, maintain, and to purchase software. Mac peripherals are more expensive, too.

Macs crash less often than PCs.

2. Macs expose you to fewer internet viruses and spy-ware. PCs require persistent threat protection. By far, the most threatened computers are PCs running Windows 98 and using a dial-up connection. If you are are in this category, backup everything important to you immediately! If you own a PC running windows XP, and you use a security software such as Norton or McAfee, you are fine.

In the end, Macs are just fine for most users who have the extra denero and they certainly look cool, but they don't mix well with PCs.

PCs are just fine, too, with so many varieties, you can find any look you want - but there goes any $$ savings. I own one of each, but I'm always on the PC.

So, pick the one you want - but plan to stick with it for a while.

Hope i was helpful!


Peace.

[LittleClarkie]

10. About those choices...

Programs that are good and/or popular on the PC are often the ones that get ported over to the Mac. Thank you, PC user, for slogging your way through the crap so that we Mac users don't have to. We in turn test out the latest technology for y'all. There's a list somewhere of the innovations that Apple put on their computers first. Don't know it off the top of my head, though. I think diskettes was one of them.

Seriously, though, it depends on what you wanna do with your computer. Games? If I want to play games, I'll get a Playstation. Now if you're looking to get work done, then it depends on what you're doing as to which of the two computer systems you pick. Number crunching - PC. Graphics - Mac.

[northzax]

11. do you think this will still apply

with the Intel-based Macs? isn't that supposed to make Macs run Windows as smoothly as a PC Clone?

and did you see this?

The first Mac OS X malware has been spotted in the wild, but it appears to be something of a damp squib.

Called Leap-A by anti-virus companies, the worm appears as a JPEG file that spreads via iChat to contacts on the infected user's buddy list.


read more at Cult of Mac

for the record, I run an iBook G4 14"

[keopeli]

12. I'd wait and see, we'll know pretty soon.

The Intel chip is being hyped right now. Soon, honest to goodness users will use them and we'll know. Everyone I know that's used one is biased.

I hadn't read of this current attack through iChat, but I know that product has been a problem in the past. The fact is that they make virus protection software for Mac too, and I install it on all of my client's computers. The threat to Macs is low, but why take the chance?

I have an iMac G4 and a PowerBook G3.

Cheers!

[Tesha]

35. Windows *IS* the problem with PCs

The problem with PCs isn't the hardware. While Intel chips or PCs as
a whole are not architecturally elegant, barring an occasional bug in
the chips or bad bypass capacitors (the latter of which have affected
both Macs and PCs), there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the
hardware.

But the Windows *SOFTWARE* is a swamp of bugs and security holes,
and it simply can't be fixed without scrapping it all and starting over.
The "NT" family of operating systems(Win/NT, WIndows/2000, and XP)
was a good start in that direction, scrapping a lot of the ancient code
"underneath the hood" and substituting it with well-designed, modern
code, but a lot of potential security improvements of the NT family were
discarded or put on hold in favor of maintaining applications program
compatibility with the ancient, clunky, pre-NT versions of Windows.
And until Microsoft decides to break that compatibility, they simply
can't fix what's really wrong with Windows.

The advantage of the Macs is that they can run Windows "inside
a box" (using an emulator or hypervisor), allowing a given instance of
Windows to crash and burn while the rest of the machine (including
other instances of Windows) keeps on operating. The box can also
enforce the additional security disciplines that Windows itself can't.

Tesha

[Tesha]

15. You're an "IT" guy? You have no idea what you're talking about.

(In our shop, the Macs, PCs, and Sunstations peacefully coexist.)

Tesha

[benburch]

18. Ditto here. Macs, PCs and Linux boxes.

White Rose is nearly all Macs and Linux, but we do have two PCs for the occasional thing that streams better on Windows.

And by the way, I freely admit that Windows 2000 is better than any other Windows I have ever used (and I am a Windows driver software engineer) and hardly ever crashes or has a problem. (Note that I do not use Outlook, and I do not use it for surfing, so I don't expose it to many viruses...) And yes, Windows 2000 is ancient, but until it stops working for me, I don't plan to change a thing.

[FatDave]

31. They all network just fine

So you can share files between any OS you like. Thank Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn and the Department of Defense for TCP/IP.

Where they differ is in binary compatibility. You can't take a piece of software compiled for Windows and run it on a Mac.

But then there's Wine, the Windows emulator for Unix-like systems (which includes OS X) and it's getting quite good. It lets you do exactly that; run Windows binaries under X. There's still a ways to go, but it's getting very very close.

But commercial software is getting to be not as big a consideration these days anyhow. Opensource software is thriving, and in a lot of cases is best-of-breed. Think Firefox and Thunderbird. Audacity is top-notch audio editing software and The GIMP is getting really close to having all of Photoshop's functionality in a free package. OpenOffice is actually quite a bit better than MS Office in some ways, and it even does a great job reading and writing MS Office documents.

Personally, I switched completely to Linux last November and I've yet to be disappointed. It does require some knowlege of how to use your computer though, at least for best results.

The only place Windows has a clear lead today is in games. But that's why I have a Playstation.

But I'd still love to see Apple release an official version of OSX for commodity Intel hardware, just to bring competition to the OS market. I have no idea why Jobs is so reluctant to do it.

[InsultComicDog]

33. I will consider myself fortunate

when I can get all my Windows programs to run on Windows....XP x64, that is

[keopeli]

23. I see you differ.

I can't tell how, since I was suggesting that both Macs and PCs are "just fine."

In any case, thanks.

Peace

[Tesha]

27. Let's take just one thing you said...

> In the end, Macs are just fine for most users who have the extra denero and they certainly look cool, but they don't mix well with PCs.

This statement is simply unsupportable, and I made that clear
by citing the example of my shop, where all of our machines
peacefully coexist. And there are plenty of other shops that
have had the same experience (as evidenced by another
reply from someone else).

The machines happily share the same network, disks, and
Microsoft Office file formats. If you like, they'll share file
servers.

Tesha

[keopeli]

29. sigh...you're not "hearing" me, and it seems you just want to argue

Thanks for chatting.

[Tesha]

34. I'm hearing you fine but perhaps you're not speaking clearly.

> In the end, Macs are just fine for most users who have the extra denero
> and they certainly look cool, but they don't mix well with PCs
(emphasis added).

I'm hearing you fine but perhaps you're not speaking clearly.
You made a statement here, and I pointed out that, in my
experience (which is sufficiently considerable to have an
informed opinion), you are wrong.

Two other folks have now also said you are wrong on this point
(and at least one mentioned you're also wrong about the cost
of software and accessories).

Perhaps you need to offer some evidence showing that you are
correct? Or admit that you are wrong.

Tesha

[Toots]

21. Mac's OS is UNIX...hack that

UNIX is what the military uses. Macs are not hacked because they have less market share. They are not hacked because it is way too difficult. The market share Macs do possess like the military are especially desirable targets to hack but so far they have not been... Windows OS is like a piece of swiss cheese...

[Rob H.]

28. "Mac peripherals are more expensive, too."

That may have been true at one time, but not anymore and not for the last several years. I can go buy a generic USB mouse or a Firewire hard drive or whatever without paying extra. If they require any driver software (in the case of a multi-button USB mouse or trackball, for example), most of the time it's included in the box or downloadable off the internet, anyway.

Same goes for software prices, too. The Mac OS- and Windows-compatible versions of Photoshop, for instance, are exactly the same price, as are several other programs.

My department at work uses Macs (a couple of us have both Wintel and Macs) and they all play just fine with the network and with sending and receiving Office and other files. They're the only Macs in the entire company, fwiw, and we do all of our own software installation, updates, and maintenance ourselves. (The guys in IS don't know anything about Macs and apparently aren't willing to learn.) About the only things we don't do ourselves are major hardware repairs. They get taken to the local Apple Store for that.

Edited for clarity. And I like 'em both, fwiw. I freely admit that I like Macs a whole lot more, though. ;)

[SpiralHawk]

17. Soave - got a G4 Powerpuppy, too

Soave

[Greybnk48]

2. Just bought an ibook G4 about a month ago

and I absolutely love it. My black and white powerbook from 1993 that I gave to my daughter when I went pc in '97 still works fine. No problems at all.

[evlbstrd]

4. Trusty ole Indigo iMac here.

Dual G5 tower at work though. Sweet.

[benburch]

5. Six Macs here...

eMac G4 1GHz
iMac G3 800 MHz
iMac G3 233 MHz
PPC-650 with the TV tuner
Two IBook G3-300MHz Tangerine. (Single USB)

[Old and In the Way]

7. Got my XP enabled, HP zd7000 running like a champ.

Wouldn't part with it for the world!

:P

[benburch]

20. No reason why you should.

If it works well enough for you, keep it!

[LifeDuringWartime]

8. powerbook also

one of the last G4 powerbooks. the backlit keyboard is incredible.
(not my photo, found it with google)

[RepublicanElephant]

13. i almost bought a mac except for the same reasons stated by keopeli.

so now i still use the pc, but AVOID internet explorer and outlook like a ken mehlman interview.

[midnight]

14. what do you use to search?

If you don't use internet explorer,or out look what do you use?

[windlight]

16. Well I don't know about him

But I use Firefox/Mozilla for my Browser and I mostly use web based email, sometimes i use Thunderbird for email.

[berni_mccoy]

19. I use Firefox w/ built-in Googlebar

Mac OS X Mail WORKS GREAT, Far better than Outlook.

If I'm on a PC, Outlook is ok, but I also use Thunderbird.

[Old and In the Way]

22. I use Firefox, too.

I'm trouble free with my Outlook, going on 6 years. I've done 3 back-ups of Outlook. When you get to 1.9GB e-mail files/attachments, it maxes out (about 20,000 files, in my case). When I worked at a major corporation, we used to use cc:mail and it was not nearly as well integrated as Outlook. In retrospect, I don't know why the IT guys bought that package when almost all the PCs had Outlook available.

Anyway, the one area that's always been a problem is spam and e-mail virus vulnerabilities. I never found any of the Outlook anti-spam add-in filters worked very well....I got lots of program crashes using them. Since I switched to Mailwasher Pro (on the advice of fellow DUer's), my spam management time has dropped to nil. I only download real e-mail and kill all the spam/virus mails on the server before they can get into my machine.

One thing I wonder about Macs, can you run engineering software like Pro-E, AutoCAD, etc? I don't use the applications, but I do need rely on viewer software for those files (.dxf/.dwg/.igs/.prt). Does Mac support these?

[we can do it]

24. I Am Laughing Here At My Imac

[QC]

25. How CUUUUUUTE!!! Aren't they just the dickens!!!!!

:grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

[NYC Liberal]

26. I have the last PowerBook made -

1.67GHz AlBook 80GB HD/512MB RAM/128MB VRAM/DL SuperDrive

I absolutely love it!

[jim3775]

30. Any company that shuts down web forums for linking to

a website that provides patches that let people use software they own in a non-traditional manner isn't cool.

http://digg.com/apple/OSX86Project_served_with_DMCA_Violation_notice_and_it_s_closed

As an anti-corporate liberal I have a problem supporting a company that is starting to look a lot like microsoft.

Apple antitrust suit gets green light

Also, now that apple has switched to intel the new OSX viruses are going to get a lot more sophisticated.

[FatDave]

32. I wholeheartedly disagree with your virus assessment

Modern viruses are hardware agnostic. Plus, as others have stated, OS X is based on a Unix variant and therefore more secure. The proliferation of Windows viruses is due almost entirely to boneheaded decisions made by Microsoft. Things like Outlook automatically opening email attachments, integrating an insecure web browser into the operating system, and allowing unchecked scripting in files that should only contain data.

Unix and its descendants are more secure for a few reasons. It was a multi-user OS from the very begining. It was networked from the very begining. For these reasons, security was a concern during every step of its evolution. Not to mention the source code is available for peer review (even Darwin, the guts of OS X, is opensource).

Microsoft operating systems on the other hand originated on single-user, disconnected systems. There was no need for tight security on such a system, so security was an afterthought at best. User accounts and networking have been hacked in over time, and they've done a job that can only be described as piss-poor. And the only people with access to the code is MS themselves, hence no peer review possible.