I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and it leaves
a mess on the desktop. Macintosh customers are usually soccer moms
who flail their arms about when they see a command line. PCs being far
too complicated for the simple minded. They flail because they need to
buy $900 software that costs $200 for PCs so they can make thier artsy
fartsy overdone restaurant menus and drive their husbands nuts
because they never actually make a penny because their overhead was
the price of a Macintosh. Which is, by the way, 10x more $$$ than a
comparable Windows PC. Well, lets see, I can RUN OS/2, WINDOWS, DOS,
NT, LINUX, NOVELL, WINDOWS95 and DOS4GW and other extenders of the
like on my PC, but not on a crapintosh. Try to get Mack WAREZ, hah hah
hah, good one. MAC OS is good, but it can't shake a stick at
WindowsNT, LINUX, or even Windows 95. Mac was made by a lucky moron,
who, in spite of being far ahead of his time with the Windows
interface, managed to drive not only NeXT but Apple into the ground.
STOP MAKING FOOLS OF YOURSELVES!


--
________
==\ /=================================
===\ /===I am the Blue Screen of Death==
====\ /======No one hears your screams====
=====\/====================================

http://31337.pl

Dude, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool windows user myself, but you are making some
pretty gross generalizations there. In fact I think every sentence there is
making some sort of blind generalization. The restaurant example seems like
it might have personal roots. You wouldnt happen to be married to a soccer
mom who ran a restaurant into the ground and cost you a bunch of money would
you? Macintosh computers fill the need for certain people, and windows
fills the need for others. I personally don't care for MacOS myself, but I
think that if you actually did some simple research on the web, you would
find that your statements lack much factual basis.

Where do you get this stuff about Mac desktops being a mess??? My XP
desktop is a fucking pig sty half the time. The functionality of windows
folder systems and windows folder systems seem pretty similar to me. Don't
like shit all over your desktop? Make categorized folders to put the crap
in. 1.5X seems like a more reasonable price comparison than 10X, and the
chances are that you don't know how to run half of those OSes (I certainly
don't.)
Mac warez are available if you know where to look.


"Omphalos" <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote in message
news:8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and it leaves
> a mess on the desktop. Macintosh customers are usually soccer moms
> who flail their arms about when they see a command line. PCs being far
> too complicated for the simple minded. They flail because they need to
> buy $900 software that costs $200 for PCs so they can make thier artsy
> fartsy overdone restaurant menus and drive their husbands nuts
> because they never actually make a penny because their overhead was
> the price of a Macintosh. Which is, by the way, 10x more $$$ than a
> comparable Windows PC. Well, lets see, I can RUN OS/2, WINDOWS, DOS,
> NT, LINUX, NOVELL, WINDOWS95 and DOS4GW and other extenders of the
> like on my PC, but not on a crapintosh. Try to get Mack WAREZ, hah hah
> hah, good one. MAC OS is good, but it can't shake a stick at
> WindowsNT, LINUX, or even Windows 95. Mac was made by a lucky moron,
> who, in spite of being far ahead of his time with the Windows
> interface, managed to drive not only NeXT but Apple into the ground.
> STOP MAKING FOOLS OF YOURSELVES!
>
>
> --
> ________
> ==\ /=================================
> ===\ /===I am the Blue Screen of Death==
> ====\ /======No one hears your screams====
> =====\/====================================
>
> http://31337.pl

In article <8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Omphalos <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote:

> I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them

[more mindless drivel snipped]

I wonder where all these Windiots keep coming from?

No, they won't because not enough people buy them.

"Omphalos" <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote in message
news:8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and it leaves
> a mess on the desktop. Macintosh customers are usually soccer moms
> who flail their arms about when they see a command line. PCs being far
> too complicated for the simple minded. They flail because they need to
> buy $900 software that costs $200 for PCs so they can make thier artsy
> fartsy overdone restaurant menus and drive their husbands nuts
> because they never actually make a penny because their overhead was
> the price of a Macintosh. Which is, by the way, 10x more $$$ than a
> comparable Windows PC. Well, lets see, I can RUN OS/2, WINDOWS, DOS,
> NT, LINUX, NOVELL, WINDOWS95 and DOS4GW and other extenders of the
> like on my PC, but not on a crapintosh. Try to get Mack WAREZ, hah hah
> hah, good one. MAC OS is good, but it can't shake a stick at
> WindowsNT, LINUX, or even Windows 95. Mac was made by a lucky moron,
> who, in spite of being far ahead of his time with the Windows
> interface, managed to drive not only NeXT but Apple into the ground.
> STOP MAKING FOOLS OF YOURSELVES!
>
>
> --
> ________
> ==\ /=================================
> ===\ /===I am the Blue Screen of Death==
> ====\ /======No one hears your screams====
> =====\/====================================
>
> http://31337.pl

In article <8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Omphalos <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote:

<trolling removed>
Nothing to see here, don't feed the trolls. Move along, move along. :)

--
Ari Ukkonen

In article <8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Omphalos <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote:

<Crap snipped>

No, Macs will never DEGENERATE that much!

--
Enough <enough[at]idontcare.com>

In article <8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Omphalos
<omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote:

> I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and it leaves
> a mess on the desktop. Macintosh customers are usually soccer moms
> who flail their arms about when they see a command line. PCs being far
> too complicated for the simple minded. They flail because they need to
> buy $900 software that costs $200 for PCs so they can make thier artsy
> fartsy overdone restaurant menus and drive their husbands nuts
> because they never actually make a penny because their overhead was
> the price of a Macintosh. Which is, by the way, 10x more $$$ than a
> comparable Windows PC. Well, lets see, I can RUN OS/2, WINDOWS, DOS,
> NT, LINUX, NOVELL, WINDOWS95 and DOS4GW and other extenders of the
> like on my PC, but not on a crapintosh. Try to get Mack WAREZ, hah hah
> hah, good one. MAC OS is good, but it can't shake a stick at
> WindowsNT, LINUX, or even Windows 95. Mac was made by a lucky moron,
> who, in spite of being far ahead of his time with the Windows
> interface, managed to drive not only NeXT but Apple into the ground.
> STOP MAKING FOOLS OF YOURSELVES!

The question should be
Will PCs ever be as good as Macs?

I doubt if very many mac owners waste time on PC related newsgroups
downgrading PCs.

On 30/6/03 3:40 am, in article
8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com, "Omphalos"
<omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote:

> I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and ..... thier artsy
> fartsy overdone restaurant menus ....more drivel

I guess you're jealous as other children in you class have Mac Powerbooks
and you only have a flimsy Intel laptop. Such is life, maybe you'll learn,
but I doubt it.

In article
<billbjohnson555-3006031144230001[at]pm2-broad-93.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
billbjohnson555[at]nospamhotmail.com (Bill B. Johnson) wrote:

> In article <8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com>, Omphalos
> <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and it leaves
> > a mess on the desktop. Macintosh customers are usually soccer moms
> > who flail their arms about when they see a command line. PCs being far
> > too complicated for the simple minded. They flail because they need to
> > buy $900 software that costs $200 for PCs so they can make thier artsy
> > fartsy overdone restaurant menus and drive their husbands nuts
> > because they never actually make a penny because their overhead was
> > the price of a Macintosh. Which is, by the way, 10x more $$$ than a
> > comparable Windows PC. Well, lets see, I can RUN OS/2, WINDOWS, DOS,
> > NT, LINUX, NOVELL, WINDOWS95 and DOS4GW and other extenders of the
> > like on my PC, but not on a crapintosh. Try to get Mack WAREZ, hah hah
> > hah, good one. MAC OS is good, but it can't shake a stick at
> > WindowsNT, LINUX, or even Windows 95. Mac was made by a lucky moron,
> > who, in spite of being far ahead of his time with the Windows
> > interface, managed to drive not only NeXT but Apple into the ground.
> > STOP MAKING FOOLS OF YOURSELVES!
>
> The question should be
> Will PCs ever be as good as Macs?
>
> I doubt if very many mac owners waste time on PC related newsgroups
> downgrading PCs.

If history is any indication, PCs in 10 years will be almost as good as
Macs are today.

On Mon 30 Jun 2003 03:05:54p, Mike <mike.2871DELETE_ME[at]btinternet.com>
wrote in news:BB2648A2.6510%mike.2871DELETE_ME[at]btinternet.com:

> On 30/6/03 3:40 am, in article
> 8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com, "Omphalos"
> <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and .....
>> thier artsy fartsy overdone restaurant menus ....more drivel
>
> I guess you're jealous as other children in you class have Mac
> Powerbooks and you only have a flimsy Intel laptop. Such is life,
> maybe you'll learn, but I doubt it.

As for Macintosh users, well some people like paying more for less.

On Sun 29 Jun 2003 10:40:04p, Omphalos <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote in
news:8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com:

> I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and it
> leaves a mess on the desktop. Macintosh customers are usually soccer
> moms who flail their arms about when they see a command line. PCs
> being far too complicated for the simple minded. They flail because
> they need to buy $900 software that costs $200 for PCs so they can
> make thier artsy fartsy overdone restaurant menus and drive their
> husbands nuts because they never actually make a penny because their
> overhead was the price of a Macintosh. Which is, by the way, 10x
> more $$$ than a comparable Windows PC. Well, lets see, I can RUN
> OS/2, WINDOWS, DOS, NT, LINUX, NOVELL, WINDOWS95 and DOS4GW and
> other extenders of the like on my PC, but not on a crapintosh. Try
> to get Mack WAREZ, hah hah hah, good one. MAC OS is good, but it
> can't shake a stick at WindowsNT, LINUX, or even Windows 95. Mac was
> made by a lucky moron, who, in spite of being far ahead of his time
> with the Windows interface, managed to drive not only NeXT but Apple
> into the ground. STOP MAKING FOOLS OF YOURSELVES!

Macintologists regard their computer preference as a lifestyle choice
or a religion rather than a useful computer.

In article <3f00a29b$1[at]Gilgamesh-frogadmin.yi.org>,
"AfterBurnr" <contra[at]fr.com> wrote:

> On Sun 29 Jun 2003 10:40:04p, Omphalos <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote in
> news:8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and it
> > leaves a mess on the desktop. Macintosh customers are usually soccer
> > moms who flail their arms about when they see a command line. PCs
> > being far too complicated for the simple minded. They flail because
> > they need to buy $900 software that costs $200 for PCs so they can
> > make thier artsy fartsy overdone restaurant menus and drive their
> > husbands nuts because they never actually make a penny because their
> > overhead was the price of a Macintosh. Which is, by the way, 10x
> > more $$$ than a comparable Windows PC. Well, lets see, I can RUN
> > OS/2, WINDOWS, DOS, NT, LINUX, NOVELL, WINDOWS95 and DOS4GW and
> > other extenders of the like on my PC, but not on a crapintosh. Try
> > to get Mack WAREZ, hah hah hah, good one. MAC OS is good, but it
> > can't shake a stick at WindowsNT, LINUX, or even Windows 95. Mac was
> > made by a lucky moron, who, in spite of being far ahead of his time
> > with the Windows interface, managed to drive not only NeXT but Apple
> > into the ground. STOP MAKING FOOLS OF YOURSELVES!
>
> Macintologists regard their computer preference as a lifestyle choice
> or a religion rather than a useful computer.
>
>

The funny thing is that you have that about completely reversed.

Mac users tend to be familiar with both Macs and Windows (and, often,
Linux), but choose Macs because they better fit their needs.

Wintrolls, OTOH, can't stand the thought of anyone choosing anything but
Windows - apparently, it's heretical.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:44:38 +0200, Snubis wrote:

> On Mon 30 Jun 2003 03:05:54p, Mike <mike.2871DELETE_ME[at]btinternet.com>
> wrote in news:BB2648A2.6510%mike.2871DELETE_ME[at]btinternet.com:
>
>> On 30/6/03 3:40 am, in article
>> 8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com, "Omphalos"
>> <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and .....
>>> thier artsy fartsy overdone restaurant menus ....more drivel
>>
>> I guess you're jealous as other children in you class have Mac
>> Powerbooks and you only have a flimsy Intel laptop. Such is life,
>> maybe you'll learn, but I doubt it.
>
> As for Macintosh users, well some people like paying more for less.
ahaha ahahaha ahahahahha ahahahahahahahah

Oh, you were serious.
--
Rick

<html><input type crash></html>
begin fix

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:00:46 GMT, flippo[at]mac.com blathered and smoked:

> In article <r667t-vcr.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
> Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:
>
>> <html><input type crash></html>
>> begin fix
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:35:03 GMT, flip[at]flippo.com blathered and smoked:
>>
>> > In article <20030630204438.B17AF5EC05[at]mail.zedz.net>,
>>
>> >> As for Macintosh users, well some people like paying more for less.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Sure. I paid a bit more. And I get less:
>> >
>> > Less viruses
>> > Less hassle
>> > Less problems
>> > Less intrusion from Microsoft
>> > Less spyware
>>
>> I get less of those too. It didn't cost me 3 months salary either. In
>> fact it cost me about $350 total for the machinery and about $.30 for
>> the media, plus whatever the value of the labor to download and burn
>> it.
>>
>> > Thanks for pointing that out.
>>
>> No, thank YOU for allowing me to show Linux is as safe as MAC (safer
>> actually, but we'll leave that for now). And it's *much* cheaper, too.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> First, it's "Mac", not "MAC". You've just labelled yourself as a moron.

Well, color me ashamed!

> Second, you haven't shown a thing that shows Linux to be safer than
> MacOS X.

Neither did you provide anything to show OS X or prior to be safer than
anything.

Let's start over on that point. Your turn since you went first last
time and it still isn't settled.

> Last time I checked, there wasn't a single known virus for Mac OS X.
> That's not true for Linux.

Check a little harder next time.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-faq/

Scroll on down to number 7.

http://www.hawaii.edu/macalerts/

http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_macexe.html

http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_macworm.html

http://www.macworld.com/2001/01/bc/18melissa/

http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_flash.html

http://antivirus.about.com/library/weekly/aa061101a.htm

http://www.sherpasoft.org.uk/MacVirus.archive/reference/autostart.html

More than just virus information enclosed in the following, but it has that in it, too:

http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletinsByType/vndr_apple_bulletins.html

I'll be here when you come up with your comparable list of virus and
other malware for linux.

While I still didn't "prove" that linux is more secure than MAC (sorry,
I'm still stupid), neither have you proven the opposite yet. What I
_have_ shown is at least some semblance of evidence that you might be
wrong barring something more supportive of your claims to the contrary.

At the very least I've shown satisfactorily that your claim that none
exist for MAC (man, am I a dumbshit or what?) is either absolutely and
completely false, or it is an uninformed statement.

Now, at least, the uninformed part should be remedied if that was the
problem.

--
Windows: It _just_ works.
Linux: It just _works_.

On Mon 30 Jun 2003 11:00:46p, flip <flippo[at]mac.com> wrote in
news:flippo-911AE4.21563730062003[at]news.central.cox.net:

> In article <r667t-vcr.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
> Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:35:03 GMT, flip[at]flippo.com blathered and
>> smoked:
>>
>>> In article <20030630204438.B17AF5EC05[at]mail.zedz.net>,
>>
>>>> As for Macintosh users, well some people like paying more for
>>>> less.
>>>
>>> Sure. I paid a bit more. And I get less:
>>>
>>> Less viruses
>>> Less hassle
>>> Less problems
>>> Less intrusion from Microsoft
>>> Less spyware
>>
>> I get less of those too. It didn't cost me 3 months salary either.
>> In fact it cost me about $350 total for the machinery and about
>> $.30 for the media, plus whatever the value of the labor to
>> download and burn it.
>>
>>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>>
>> No, thank YOU for allowing me to show Linux is as safe as MAC
>> (safer actually, but we'll leave that for now). And it's *much*
>> cheaper, too.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> First, it's "Mac", not "MAC". You've just labelled yourself as a
> moron.

We wouldn't want the world to come to an end now, would we?

> Second, you haven't shown a thing that shows Linux to be safer than
> MacOS X.
>
> Last time I checked, there wasn't a single known virus for Mac OS X.
> That's not true for Linux.

Mac OS X is a virus.


--
__________
=\ /================================
==\ /==You know how dumb the average==
===\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
=====\/====================================

http://31337.pl

Omphalos <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote in message news:<8qNLa.210115$

Yet another Classic example of a CrossPosting Troll.
His Sig is pretty kewl though


Jim

flip wrote:

> First, it's "Mac", not "MAC". You've just labelled yourself as a moron.

Ya know, Joe, it is possible to correct someone without insulting them.


<comp.sys.mac.system crosspost dropped.>
--
And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a
thousand thousand fold. The din of a million keyboards like unto a great
storm shall cover the earth, and the followers of Mammon shall tremble.

In article <4ld7t-cr2.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:00:46 GMT, flippo[at]mac.com blathered and smoked:

>> Second, you haven't shown a thing that shows Linux to be safer than
>> MacOS X.

>Neither did you provide anything to show OS X or prior to be safer than
>anything.

The lack of native viruses for OS X should be sufficient.

>> Last time I checked, there wasn't a single known virus for Mac OS X.
>> That's not true for Linux.

>Check a little harder next time.

>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-faq/

>Scroll on down to number 7.

... and all you'll find is stuff about viruses for the *old* MacOS.
*Not* OS X. IOW those viruses do not run on OS X.

>http://www.hawaii.edu/macalerts/

From the link you provided above:

"NOTE: The virus is not a Macintosh virus, it is a MACRO virus - it
can spread on a Macintosh computer, and on a PC, it replicates itself
like a regular macro virus. It doesn't mass-mail on Macintosh, it like
does on PC."

IOW we maccies can recieve the virus, we can even (apparently) pass it
on if we don't mess with the file, but it won't actually do anything
by itself when it's on a mac. Why? Because the MacOS (new *and* old)
is more secure than Windows of any kind.

Mind you, these macroviruses are a good reason to stay away from
everything that comes from Microsoft.

>http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_macexe.html

The viruses I recognized on that list were all from the original
MacOS. None would work on OS X. And notice how most of those viruses
were a, b, c, etc versions of the same half dozen viruses.

>http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_macworm.html

And that page is about the many versions of *one* worm - which like
the viruses in your previous link does not run on OS X.

>http://www.macworld.com/2001/01/bc/18melissa/

This article is from 2001. Since it does not say anything about OS X
I'm inclined to think it only affects the old MacOS. Either way, it's
not so much a Mac virus as a Microsoft macrovirus. Again - stay away
from Microsoft's stuff. One may view Microsoft applications as
platforms for running viruses.

>http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_flash.html

What does this have to do with the Mac?

>http://antivirus.about.com/library/weekly/aa061101a.htm

For the old Mac OS. Not OS X.

>http://www.sherpasoft.org.uk/MacVirus.archive/reference/autostart.html

The Hong Kong Worm was for the old Mac OS.

>More than just virus information enclosed in the following, but it has that in
>it, too:

>http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletinsByType/vndr_apple_bulletins.html

Look at the dates for the virus bulletins; they're all from the
eighties and nineties - which means not for OS X.

>I'll be here when you come up with your comparable list of virus and
>other malware for linux.

Your list turned out to be a list of nothing at all. Not one single
worm or virus for OS X. As for a comparable list, I'll provide you
with *one* link:

http://worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/asparticles/buzz/bz0917200
2.asp

One virus (slapper) is more than the zero you came up with for OS X.

>While I still didn't "prove" that linux is more secure than MAC (sorry,
>I'm still stupid), neither have you proven the opposite yet.

I did just now. One Linux virus vs zero for OS X.


>At the very least I've shown satisfactorily that your claim that none
>exist for MAC (man, am I a dumbshit or what?) is either absolutely and
>completely false, or it is an uninformed statement.

The uninformed one is yourself. You would have done yourself a favour
by reading those links you provided. Afaik there are no viruses/worms
for OS X. At worst we might have problems with some Microsoft macros,
but that can be avoided by not using their products.

>Now, at least, the uninformed part should be remedied if that was the
>problem.

Want some salt with that crow?

(ridiculously long newgroup list trimmed)

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

In article <4ld7t-cr2.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:

> <html><input type crash></html>
> begin fix
>
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:00:46 GMT, flippo[at]mac.com blathered and smoked:
>
> > In article <r667t-vcr.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
> > Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:
> >
> >> <html><input type crash></html>
> >> begin fix
> >>
> >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:35:03 GMT, flip[at]flippo.com blathered and smoked:
> >>
> >> > In article <20030630204438.B17AF5EC05[at]mail.zedz.net>,
> >>
> >> >> As for Macintosh users, well some people like paying more for less.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Sure. I paid a bit more. And I get less:
> >> >
> >> > Less viruses
> >> > Less hassle
> >> > Less problems
> >> > Less intrusion from Microsoft
> >> > Less spyware
> >>
> >> I get less of those too. It didn't cost me 3 months salary either. In
> >> fact it cost me about $350 total for the machinery and about $.30 for
> >> the media, plus whatever the value of the labor to download and burn
> >> it.
> >>
> >> > Thanks for pointing that out.
> >>
> >> No, thank YOU for allowing me to show Linux is as safe as MAC (safer
> >> actually, but we'll leave that for now). And it's *much* cheaper, too.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > First, it's "Mac", not "MAC". You've just labelled yourself as a moron.
>
> Well, color me ashamed!
>
> > Second, you haven't shown a thing that shows Linux to be safer than
> > MacOS X.
>
> Neither did you provide anything to show OS X or prior to be safer than
> anything.

It's been well documented to be safer than Windows.

OTOH, I didn't show it to be safer than Linux since I never made that
claim.

YOU claimed that Linux was safer than OS X. Since there isn't a single
known OS X virus, I'm curious how you reached that conclusion. In any
event, you're the one who claimed that Linux was safer, so feel free to
provide evidence.

>
> Let's start over on that point. Your turn since you went first last
> time and it still isn't settled.

Nice try. You're the one who claimed that Linux is safer than OS X. Back
up your own claim.

>
> > Last time I checked, there wasn't a single known virus for Mac OS X.
> > That's not true for Linux.
>
> Check a little harder next time.
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-faq/
>
> Scroll on down to number 7.

Not a single word about OS X.

Nice try, tough.

The rest of these are also oudated Mac OS Classic viruses - or Word
Trojans.

>
> http://www.hawaii.edu/macalerts/
>
> http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_macexe.html
>
> http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_macworm.html
>
> http://www.macworld.com/2001/01/bc/18melissa/
>
> http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/index_flash.html
>
> http://antivirus.about.com/library/weekly/aa061101a.htm
>
> http://www.sherpasoft.org.uk/MacVirus.archive/reference/autostart.html
>
> More than just virus information enclosed in the following, but it has that
> in it, too:
>
> http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletinsByType/vndr_apple_bulletins.html
>
> I'll be here when you come up with your comparable list of virus and
> other malware for linux.

So far, you haven't found a single virus that affects OS X.

So where's the evidence that Linux is safer?

>
> While I still didn't "prove" that linux is more secure than MAC (sorry,

That's right. you STILL haven't backed up your claim.

> I'm still stupid), neither have you proven the opposite yet. What I

Yes, you are.

> _have_ shown is at least some semblance of evidence that you might be
> wrong barring something more supportive of your claims to the contrary.

Sorry, you're the one who made the claim.

And I fail to see how a Mac OX 7.1 virus is relevant to OS X.

>
> At the very least I've shown satisfactorily that your claim that none
> exist for MAC (man, am I a dumbshit or what?) is either absolutely and
> completely false, or it is an uninformed statement.

I never claimed that no viruses existed for Macs. I said that they're
unknown for Mac OS X.

So, in addition to being too stupid to understand that "Mac" isn't an
acronym, you can't even tell the difference between Mac OS 7 and Mac OS
X.

>
> Now, at least, the uninformed part should be remedied if that was the
> problem.

You sure haven't informed yourself at all.

On Tue 01 Jul 2003 07:56:24a, flip <flippo[at]mac.com> wrote in
news:flippo-161981.06521401072003[at]news.central.cox.net:

> In article <4ld7t-cr2.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
> Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:00:46 GMT, flippo[at]mac.com blathered and
>> smoked:
>>
>>> In article <r667t-vcr.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
>>> Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:35:03 GMT, flip[at]flippo.com blathered and
>>>> smoked:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <20030630204438.B17AF5EC05[at]mail.zedz.net>,
>>>>
>>>>>> As for Macintosh users, well some people like paying more for
>>>>>> less.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. I paid a bit more. And I get less:
>>>>>
>>>>> Less viruses
>>>>> Less hassle
>>>>> Less problems
>>>>> Less intrusion from Microsoft
>>>>> Less spyware
>>>>
>>>> I get less of those too. It didn't cost me 3 months salary
>>>> either. In fact it cost me about $350 total for the machinery
>>>> and about $.30 for the media, plus whatever the value of the
>>>> labor to download and burn it.
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>>>>
>>>> No, thank YOU for allowing me to show Linux is as safe as MAC
>>>> (safer actually, but we'll leave that for now). And it's *much*
>>>> cheaper, too.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> First, it's "Mac", not "MAC". You've just labelled yourself as a
>>> moron.
>>
>> Well, color me ashamed!
>>
>>> Second, you haven't shown a thing that shows Linux to be safer
>>> than MacOS X.
>>
>> Neither did you provide anything to show OS X or prior to be safer
>> than anything.
>
> It's been well documented to be safer than Windows.
>
> OTOH, I didn't show it to be safer than Linux since I never made
> that claim.
>
> YOU claimed that Linux was safer than OS X. Since there isn't a
> single known OS X virus, I'm curious how you reached that
> conclusion. In any event, you're the one who claimed that Linux was
> safer, so feel free to provide evidence.

Why would someone bother writing a virus for a system that no one uses?


--
__________
=\ /================================
==\ /==You know how dumb the average==
===\ /===guy is? Well half of everyone==
====\ /======is even dumber than that=====
=====\/====================================

http://31337.pl

Nah. While the Macintosh community continues to shower its choice of
computer with praise, the rest of the world can't help but shake their
heads.

The world moved on long ago.

> [Flip]
> Sure. I paid a bit more. And I get less:
>
> Less viruses
> Less hassle
> Less problems
> Less intrusion from Microsoft
> Less spyware
>
> Thanks for pointing that out.

[gr]
Less viruses? Yes, definitely.
Less hassle? Debatable since there are literally thousands of Usenet
postings concerning Mac problems.
Less problems? See above
Less intrusion from Microsoft? Well DUH!!!
Less spyware. True, but less programs like Morpheus or Kazaa.

I'm new to the Mac environment. I ran PCs for years but hated Windoze.
I have to agree with whoever said that Mac hardware is very expensive,
because it is. It's basically the same hardware you can buy anywhere
else, but it costs you at least twice as much, if not more in some
cases. Apple should seriously consider lowering the price of their
hardware, or, seriously reconsider letting third party manufacturers
clone the Mac.

Consider what I have on my desktop: Blue iMac, 400 MHz G3 with a 100
MHz bus. An ATI Rage 128 with 8 MB RAM, 15'' monitor.The motherboard
originally came with 128 MB RAM and there was no CD burnner, just a
slot-loading reader. The cost? Over $1500. For that price, I could
have bought a PC with the same quality hardware, perhaps better, but
with a much faster bus speed, a much faster processor, a 17'' monitor,
a fast CD burner and DVD reader, 512MB RAM and a 40-60 Gig HD, yada
yada yada. In short, for the same price I could have had a kick-ass
system.

It's too bad Apple never wrote the Mac OS for the PC as well, or maybe
ported one over; that would have been kick-ass.

<html><input type crash></html>
begin fix

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:59:53 +0200, christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no blathered and smoked:

> In article <4ld7t-cr2.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
> Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:00:46 GMT, flippo[at]mac.com blathered and smoked:
>
>>> Second, you haven't shown a thing that shows Linux to be safer than
>>> MacOS X.
>
>>Neither did you provide anything to show OS X or prior to be safer than
>>anything.
>
> The lack of native viruses for OS X should be sufficient.

I might agree with it if I didn't find it laughable.

Your original claim (quotes provided upon request) were that none
existed for Mac/MAC/mac/MaC/mAc. Even immediately above, we see you
claiming "lack of native viruses". We shall see in due order that the
claim is not correct.

>>> Last time I checked, there wasn't a single known virus for Mac OS X.
>>> That's not true for Linux.

Ah. I don't need to provide it. There it is.

We continue.....

>>Check a little harder next time.
>
>>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-faq/
>
>>Scroll on down to number 7.
>
> .. and all you'll find is stuff about viruses for the *old* MacOS.
> *Not* OS X. IOW those viruses do not run on OS X.

I realized my mistake, and did so far too late to correct it.

Don't you know I'm stupid? I use MAC instead of Mac, after all! I also
use OSX, OSx, OS 10 and a few others as the feeling hits me. So I'm
just a dyed-in-the-wool maroon!

Now, let me correct that little misstep:

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2001/08/06/hacker/

"The Simpsons virus can affect Mac OS X -- so can SevenDust, CODE 0911
and MBDF, but only in the Classic environment."

Are we all better now?

Remember, your claim was there was none that was native. Looks to me
like there's at least one, plus 3 more that can run under it, making
them card-players even if they wouldn't classify as "native" in the
purest sense.

<SNIP OF PROOF I SCREWED-UP *YAWN*>

> Your list turned out to be a list of nothing at all. Not one single
> worm or virus for OS X. As for a comparable list, I'll provide you
> with *one* link:
>
> http://worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/asparticles/buzz/bz0917200
> 2.asp
>
> One virus (slapper) is more than the zero you came up with for OS X.

See above.

We're now 1 to 1, unless you use Classic. Then we're 4 to 1. Do you
ever use Classic mode while playing around in (you're probably
anal-retentive about this one, too) OSX/OsX/osX/OS X/OS 10/OS 20-X?

>>While I still didn't "prove" that linux is more secure than MAC (sorry,
>>I'm still stupid), neither have you proven the opposite yet.
>
> I did just now. One Linux virus vs zero for OS X.

See way above. Then see slightly above (either tied, or you edge me out
4:1, take yer pick).

Anyway, you still haven't shown Mac/mac/MAC/mAc to be _more_ secure.
You've simply given evidence that Linux isn't perfect. Good for you!
Did somebody make the claim that it was perfect?

I did, however, show that your claim of "no native" virus is an invalid
claim.

>>At the very least I've shown satisfactorily that your claim that none
>>exist for MAC (man, am I a dumbshit or what?) is either absolutely and
>>completely false, or it is an uninformed statement.

This part is now true, though I was wrong about it the first time. Now
that I've shown something that meets the limitations you put on the
original uninformed claim, limitations which I missed in my haste, I
have now shown properly that your claim of no virus on MAC/mac/Mac or
whatever name makes you feel all wet is still incorrect.

> The uninformed one is yourself. You would have done yourself a favour
> by reading those links you provided. Afaik there are no viruses/worms
> for OS X. At worst we might have problems with some Microsoft macros,
> but that can be avoided by not using their products.

My mistake was in not noticing how you narrowed things. I've fixed
that. Now, back to you, because I've shown either 1 or 4, depending on
whether you use legacy things or not.

>>Now, at least, the uninformed part should be remedied if that was the
>>problem.
>
> Want some salt with that crow?

No thanks. You can keep it all for yourself. You'll need it.

> (ridiculously long newgroup list trimmed)

Wasn't added by me. It was added by the Windoze/MAC troll that got this
all started.

--
Yesterday it worked.
Today it does not work.
Windows is like that.

flip wrote:

> In article <eC8Ma.357395$Vi5.9033443[at]news1.calgary.shaw.ca>,
> knowbodies <mark.ritchie.REMOVETHIS[at]shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> flip wrote:
>>
>> > First, it's "Mac", not "MAC". You've just labelled yourself as a moron.
>>
>> Ya know, Joe, it is possible to correct someone without insulting them.
>
> Not when they're being inetntionally stupid.

Okay you fucking asshole.

:)

--
And the beast shall be made legion. Its numbers shall be increased a
thousand thousand fold. The din of a million keyboards like unto a great
storm shall cover the earth, and the followers of Mammon shall tremble.

In article <010720030845153856%wade[at]remove.spam.dogwatchsw.com>,
Wade Williams <wade[at]remove.spam.dogwatchsw.com> wrote:

> In article <transop-85F631.08520601072003[at]news21.bellnet.ca>, GR
> Gaudreau <transop[at]sympatico.not> wrote:
>
> > The cost? Over $1500. For that price, I could
> > have bought a PC with the same quality hardware, perhaps better, but
> > with a much faster bus speed, a much faster processor, a 17'' monitor,
> > a fast CD burner and DVD reader, 512MB RAM and a 40-60 Gig HD, yada
> > yada yada. In short, for the same price I could have had a kick-ass
> > system.
>
> Then why didn't you?
>
> If the PC was so much better of a choice, why didn't you choose it?

[gr] Did I say the PC was a much better choice??? No, I didn't say
that! I was merely comparing prices and commenting that the Apple
people would do well to lower the price of their hardware; and I stand
by what I said and implied, i.e., that Mac prices are too high. They
need not be, especially considering they use basically the same
hardware PCs use.

Macs are great computers and so is the Mac OS, whether OS 9.x or OS X.
But the Mac hardware prices are way too high. The Apple people would
gain many more satisfied users, because their products are so good,
_IF_ they offered their hardware at competive prices. That's what I
was saying between the lines, and that's all I was saying.

<html><input type crash></html>
begin fix

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 11:56:24 GMT, flippo[at]mac.com blathered and smoked:

> In article <4ld7t-cr2.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
> Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:
>
>> <html><input type crash></html>
>> begin fix
>>
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:00:46 GMT, flippo[at]mac.com blathered and smoked:
>>
>> > In article <r667t-vcr.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
>> > Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> <html><input type crash></html>
>> >> begin fix
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:35:03 GMT, flip[at]flippo.com blathered and smoked:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <20030630204438.B17AF5EC05[at]mail.zedz.net>,
>> >>
>> >> >> As for Macintosh users, well some people like paying more for less.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Sure. I paid a bit more. And I get less:
>> >> >
>> >> > Less viruses
>> >> > Less hassle
>> >> > Less problems
>> >> > Less intrusion from Microsoft
>> >> > Less spyware
>> >>
>> >> I get less of those too. It didn't cost me 3 months salary either. In
>> >> fact it cost me about $350 total for the machinery and about $.30 for
>> >> the media, plus whatever the value of the labor to download and burn
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks for pointing that out.
>> >>
>> >> No, thank YOU for allowing me to show Linux is as safe as MAC (safer
>> >> actually, but we'll leave that for now). And it's *much* cheaper, too.
>> >
>> > Nonsense.
>> >
>> > First, it's "Mac", not "MAC". You've just labelled yourself as a moron.
>>
>> Well, color me ashamed!
>>
>> > Second, you haven't shown a thing that shows Linux to be safer than
>> > MacOS X.
>>
>> Neither did you provide anything to show OS X or prior to be safer than
>> anything.
>
> It's been well documented to be safer than Windows.

Hre's a harder one: name something that has been documented to _not_ be
safer than Winders.

> OTOH, I didn't show it to be safer than Linux since I never made that
> claim.

True. But neither did I make the claim that Linux was safer than Mac.
Since you saw fit to challenge me on something I didn't say, I figured
turnabout was fair play.

> YOU claimed that Linux was safer than OS X. Since there isn't a single
> known OS X virus, I'm curious how you reached that conclusion. In any
> event, you're the one who claimed that Linux was safer, so feel free to
> provide evidence.

I did make that statement. I made that statement based on the FACT that
there are anti-virus products sold for Mac to help Mac not get
infected, including under OS X. There are no such things available for
Linux. There _are_ products sold that are used to scan WinDOS emails
and the like that work on Linux. But nothing is sold to stop a virus
from infecting Linux machines.

For the record, the same types of other things that can affect Linux
can also affect Mac, due to the underpinnigs. That FACT is ennunciated
in this link that I provided in another part of the thread:

http://maccentral.macworld.com//news/2001/08/06/hacker/

"Hackers and viruses pose more of a threat than ever for the Mac
platform due to the Unix underpinnings of Mac OS X, according to Robert
Franklin, Symantec's senior product specialist. Symantec is the company
behind such products as Norton Anti-Virus and Norton Utilities."

Various vulnerabilities can be exploited on both. Now that Mac has
joined the big leagues, it can expect to have similar potential
problems with the same types of software. That is owed to the software
itself, not to the OS for the most part.

The only part I might disagree with is that having Unix underpinnings
makes it _more_ vulerable. It simply opens up the possibilities of
vulnerability in new directions at the same time older ones were closed
by the same action. None of these new directions are of the viral sort,
though. Not even the WORM (not VIRUS) you chose to show for linux shows
any sort of viral quality.

A virus is going to have tough going to wreak havoc on a system using
permissions properly. Where Mac is still vulnerable under OS X is when
Classic mode is activated. All of the safeguards of permissions go out
the window when Classic is activated. I saw this when I installed
drivers for various things that chose to use Classic mode on my wife's
machine. Things such as her scanner driver, her original printer driver
(now updated to work under the present OS, but not at that time), her
graphics tablet driver (again, the original) and others. Though the
drivers have all been updated (sans the scanner driver, which Microtek
still hasn't seen fit to update), they all originally circumvented
permissions when I installed them by pushing the machine into Classic
mode. That is an area where a virus stands a chance.

There is no such thing as Classic mode in Linux. This, all by its
lonesome, makes Linux somewhat safer than Mac.

If most Mac users operate mostly logged in as an administrator, all
safeguards are lost. I'll admit to not knowing how most users login, so
this might not be much of a big deal. I know that many Winders users
still use the admin login primarily because some things won't work for
them otherwise. I know some linux users login all of the time as root
because it's easier for them to get things done (right up to the point
when they have to reinstall everything because they've been raped over
the internet). I suspect there are a similar number of Mac users doing
similar things. But I don't know that to be fact.

In short, the presence of a Classic mode KEEPS the Mac more vulnerable
than Linux because it does an end-run around the permissions that tend
to make Mac safer than it used to be. The fact that at least one virus
will operate under OS X negates your claim of there being none as well.

--
SoBig: An original Microsoft web crawler.

Omphalos wrote:
> On Tue 01 Jul 2003 07:56:24a, flip <flippo[at]mac.com> wrote in
> news:flippo-161981.06521401072003[at]news.central.cox.net:
>>YOU claimed that Linux was safer than OS X. Since there isn't a
>>single known OS X virus, I'm curious how you reached that
>>conclusion. In any event, you're the one who claimed that Linux was
>>safer, so feel free to provide evidence.
>
>
> Why would someone bother writing a virus for a system that no one uses?
>

I hope that is what most think.
But, then again, why do you waste any of your life- any heartbeats at
all- coming here to write about something that, as you say, 'no one uses'?

> > Why would someone bother writing a virus for a system that no one uses?


They're a lot more Mac users than you think. Sure win computers are in
larger quantity out there because they count all the cash registers.
Macs are not now and never will be a simple cash register......having
said that, the Apple store is using them as cash registers, but Apple is
not going after that market nor do they need too. Let the cheap
dedicated boxes rule that world, then windows works as long as you don't
assign it more than one task to perform at once.

Sinister Midget wrote:

>>>>>No, thank YOU for allowing me to show Linux is as safe as MAC (safer
>>>>>actually)

and then he wrote:

> True. But neither did I make the claim that Linux was safer than Mac.

and then he wrote:

> I did make that statement.

and then he reasoned:

> I made that statement based on the FACT that
> there are anti-virus products sold for Mac to help Mac not get
> infected, including under OS X. There are no such things available for
> Linux.

Which should come as a surprise to Microsoft who just bought a company
that writes anti-virus software for Linux...
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1141750
....and then decided to do the M$ thing of stopping development for
non-M$ platforms.

But here are some other 'such things not available for Linux':
http://www.f-prot.com/
http://www.centralcommand.com/index.html

Dingleberry wrote:

> Nah. While the Macintosh community continues to shower its choice of
> computer with praise, the rest of the world can't help but shake their
> heads.
>
> The world moved on long ago.

But, you are still here? They went that way ---->
Run along, you might catch them. Don't forget to shake your head.

in article TheSpider-988AC8.11013501072003[at]zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com, Spider at
TheSpider[at]spiderweb.com wrote on 7/1/03 11:00 AM:

> There are a lot more Mac users than you think. Sure, Win computers are in
> larger quantity out there because they count all the cash registers.
> Macs are not now and never will be a simple cash register......having
> said that, the Apple store is using them as cash registers, but Apple is
> not going after that market nor do they need to. Let the cheap
> dedicated boxes rule that world, then Windows works as long as you don't
> assign it more than one task to perform at once.

Not only are Windoze PeeCees cash registers, but they are also glorified
XBoxes. Windoze PeeCees work as long as one does not do anything else while
playing a game.

<html><input type crash></html>
begin fix

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:45:15 -0500, wade[at]remove.spam.dogwatchsw.com blathered and smoked:

> In article <transop-85F631.08520601072003[at]news21.bellnet.ca>, GR
> Gaudreau <transop[at]sympatico.not> wrote:
>
>> The cost? Over $1500. For that price, I could
>> have bought a PC with the same quality hardware, perhaps better, but
>> with a much faster bus speed, a much faster processor, a 17'' monitor,
>> a fast CD burner and DVD reader, 512MB RAM and a 40-60 Gig HD, yada
>> yada yada. In short, for the same price I could have had a kick-ass
>> system.
>
> Then why didn't you?
>
> If the PC was so much better of a choice, why didn't you choose it?
>
> Wade

I won't answer for him. I'll say the one thing that keeps me from
buying another Mac for the house is price. That's it.

I can live with the price of the OS (though I personally think that's a
little steep, too). But I wait until it comes down before purchasing,
which means I'm still not up to 10.2 yet. I'm actually more inclined to
purchase a more recent version of the OS than I am to buy a newer
machine, or even an additional one. The difference has 100% everything
to do with price. I hear that same lament time and again with WinDoze
users and even some Linux users.

If the hardware prices were lowered considerably, I'd be more inclined
to buy the OS to support it. That isn't going to happen as long as
Apple won't allow others to manufacture and sell comparable products.

As for superiority, I find Linux to be far and away better in many
areas and use it because of that. I once had YellowDog Linux installed
on the Mac. That isn't necessary now since OS X has come out. In many
departments it beats out Linux, especially on the same hardware. So it
does a better job on that architecture. I doubt anything even nearing
the job it does on Mac could be translated with any success on a PC, so
Linux on one and OS X on the other is an appropriate thing.

If Apple allowed others to make the hardware, they'd sell more
software. At least I think that would be the result. Since they won't
let go of the reins, we can only guess. But it would certainly make the
hardware more accessible to more users and expand the base.

Even at that, I won't let go of Linux. I'd still keep a PC with Linux
on it for several reasons, mostly having to do with the costs of the
software and what comes with it standard. The same funtionality costs
extra to have on Mac and that is likely to be the case for a long time
and maybe forever.

It comes down to me seeing them both shine in slightly different ways.
But I use the one that doesn't eat my wallet regularly, while the wife
uses one (and I toy around with it) that keeps me working overtime.

--
Aren't you glad you use linux? Don't you wish everybody did?

moon wrote:
<snip>
>> I made that statement based on the FACT that
>> there are anti-virus products sold for Mac to help Mac not get
>> infected, including under OS X. There are no such things available for
>> Linux.
>
>
> Which should come as a surprise to Microsoft who just bought a company
> that writes anti-virus software for Linux...
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1141750
> ...and then decided to do the M$ thing of stopping development for
> non-M$ platforms.
>
> But here are some other 'such things not available for Linux':
> http://www.f-prot.com/
> http://www.centralcommand.com/index.html

This has been discussed in COLA recently at least... You see, Linux
antivirus software is generally used on servers which are providing
email accounts for Winblows computers. These virus scanners run on
Linux, but are meant to protect M$ machines (and I suppose the Mac as
well).

So in short, we don't need Linux anti-virus software to protect Linux
computers. We need anti-virus software to protect everyone else's computers.


--
"One day I woke up, and I realized I was never going to be normal...I
said so be it." --Hard Harry, Pump Up the Volume

<html><input type crash></html>
begin fix

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 11:02:15 -0500, harvest-this[at]mail.utexas.edu blathered and smoked:

> Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>>>>>>No, thank YOU for allowing me to show Linux is as safe as MAC (safer
>>>>>>actually)
>
> and then he wrote:
>
>> True. But neither did I make the claim that Linux was safer than Mac.

I actually intended to remove that because I found I actually _did_
make that statement. I also _DIDN'T_ intend to back it up at that time
because it was a separate issue from what I was going over. Then I
forgot about it. Shoot me.

> and then he wrote:
>
>> I did make that statement.

As I did. And I admitted right there. I screwed up and didn't remove
the other stupid claim when I discovered I'd made a mistake. Shoot me.

> and then he reasoned:
>
>> I made that statement based on the FACT that
>> there are anti-virus products sold for Mac to help Mac not get
>> infected, including under OS X. There are no such things available for
>> Linux.
>
> Which should come as a surprise to Microsoft who just bought a company
> that writes anti-virus software for Linux...
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1141750
> ...and then decided to do the M$ thing of stopping development for
> non-M$ platforms.

A company that wrote anti-virus software for linux to scan Win*DOH*s
files passing through the system to keep WinDOS machines safe.

It's still a FACT. The virus scanners for Linux are to protect WinDoze.
The virus-scanners for Mac are to protect Macs.

This is much like the macro junk the other joker said passes through
Macs but doesn't hurt them and trash WidNoze boxen. He was right on
that point. I'm right on this one. You aren't unless you can find
something attached to them that shows they make/made products that
scanned linux for linux viruses. You can't because they didn't and
don't. Neither do any of the others that make virus-scanners that
operate under linux.

> But here are some other 'such things not available for Linux':
> http://www.f-prot.com/
> http://www.centralcommand.com/index.html

Same as above. Need links to some others that scan for WinDoze viruses
before files get sent to Winders machines?

--
Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make it
more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay for new
products or new versions of existing products [except our own,
suckers]."

Yeah and Macs also lack a floppy disk drive, and legacy ports built
in. This means that those like me who will upgrade to a new world
will need to replace all my hardware with USB versions, or buy crazy
adaptors or PCI cards costing me $! The lack of a floppy disk drive
tells me that Mac does not want a step into the corporate, education,
or legal markets. Mac is a niche that I enjoy, but its use is bound
to consumers and desighners. I want Mac to expand and a step is to
include a floppy disk drive so those office workers, students, and
lawyers can use a macintosh.

Who wants to buy an external drive, man that costs money... macs are
already too expensive.


Flip <flip[at]flippo.com> wrote in message news:<flip-E1E255.16333730062003[at]nnrp04.earthlink.net>...
> In article <3f00a29b$1[at]Gilgamesh-frogadmin.yi.org>,
> "AfterBurnr" <contra[at]fr.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun 29 Jun 2003 10:40:04p, Omphalos <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote in
> > news:8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> >
> > > I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and it
> > > leaves a mess on the desktop. Macintosh customers are usually soccer
> > > moms who flail their arms about when they see a command line. PCs
> > > being far too complicated for the simple minded. They flail because
> > > they need to buy $900 software that costs $200 for PCs so they can
> > > make thier artsy fartsy overdone restaurant menus and drive their
> > > husbands nuts because they never actually make a penny because their
> > > overhead was the price of a Macintosh. Which is, by the way, 10x
> > > more $$$ than a comparable Windows PC. Well, lets see, I can RUN
> > > OS/2, WINDOWS, DOS, NT, LINUX, NOVELL, WINDOWS95 and DOS4GW and
> > > other extenders of the like on my PC, but not on a crapintosh. Try
> > > to get Mack WAREZ, hah hah hah, good one. MAC OS is good, but it
> > > can't shake a stick at WindowsNT, LINUX, or even Windows 95. Mac was
> > > made by a lucky moron, who, in spite of being far ahead of his time
> > > with the Windows interface, managed to drive not only NeXT but Apple
> > > into the ground. STOP MAKING FOOLS OF YOURSELVES!
> >
> > Macintologists regard their computer preference as a lifestyle choice
> > or a religion rather than a useful computer.
> >
> >
>
> The funny thing is that you have that about completely reversed.
>
> Mac users tend to be familiar with both Macs and Windows (and, often,
> Linux), but choose Macs because they better fit their needs.
>
> Wintrolls, OTOH, can't stand the thought of anyone choosing anything but
> Windows - apparently, it's heretical.

In article <239312c.0307011036.62c2d1ed[at]posting.google.com>,
johnw[at]Southcoast.net (Dude) wrote:

> Yeah and Macs also lack a floppy disk drive

What's a 'floppy disk?' Could it be a PERSONAL problem? I sure you have
a floppy dick! LEARN TO SPELL, MORON!

--
Enough <enough[at]idontcare.com>

In article <239312c.0307011036.62c2d1ed[at]posting.google.com>,
johnw[at]Southcoast.net (Dude) wrote:

> Yeah and Macs also lack a floppy disk drive, and legacy ports built
> in. This means that those like me who will upgrade to a new world
> will need to replace all my hardware with USB versions, or buy crazy
> adaptors or PCI cards costing me $! The lack of a floppy disk drive
> tells me that Mac does not want a step into the corporate, education,
> or legal markets. Mac is a niche that I enjoy, but its use is bound

No, it merely tells me that you have no concept what the corporate,
education, or legal markets want.

We stopped buying floppy disks in our PCs ages ago.


> to consumers and desighners. I want Mac to expand and a step is to
> include a floppy disk drive so those office workers, students, and
> lawyers can use a macintosh.

If you want a floppy drive, buy one. Very few people want or need them.

>
> Who wants to buy an external drive, man that costs money... macs are
> already too expensive.
>

Then don't buy one. I can't remember the last time I needed a floppy
drive.

On Tue 01 Jul 2003 04:08:25p, Enough <enough[at]idontcare.com> wrote in
news:ZSlMa.177657$cm4.4462972[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article <239312c.0307011036.62c2d1ed[at]posting.google.com>,
> johnw[at]Southcoast.net (Dude) wrote:
>
>> Yeah and Macs also lack a floppy disk drive
>
> What's a 'floppy disk?'

You sound like a clueless newbie.

In article <ufnMa.223726$4y6.3744493[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
Omphalos <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote:

> On Tue 01 Jul 2003 04:08:25p, Enough <enough[at]idontcare.com> wrote in
> news:ZSlMa.177657$cm4.4462972[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > In article <239312c.0307011036.62c2d1ed[at]posting.google.com>,
> > johnw[at]Southcoast.net (Dude) wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah and Macs also lack a floppy disk drive
> >
> > What's a 'floppy disk?'
>
> You sound like a clueless newbie.

Floppys are dead, like the 5.25, 8, audio tape, all dead and gone
forever. Get with the program.

s

Mike <mike.2871DELETE_ME[at]btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<BB2648A2.6510%mike.2871DELETE_ME[at]btinternet.com>...
> On 30/6/03 3:40 am, in article
> 8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com, "Omphalos"
> <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and ..... thier artsy
> > fartsy overdone restaurant menus ....more drivel
>
> I guess you're jealous as other children in you class have Mac Powerbooks
> and you only have a flimsy Intel laptop. Such is life, maybe you'll learn,
> but I doubt it.

Don't kid yourself. There are intel laptops that can survive
aircraft crashes and in college backpacks. The nice thing about an
open platform is the diversity of product. If you want to pay more,
you can get more... or not.

On 1 Jul 2003 11:36:02 -0700, johnw[at]Southcoast.net (Dude) wrote:

>Macs also lack a floppy disk drive

Ah and so do PC these days....

http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_3x_special64.htm

I haven't used mine in over a year!

Dude wrote:

> Steven Fisher <sdfisher[at]spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<96OLa.321223$ro6.7838064[at]news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...
>
>>Omphalos wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and it leaves
>>
>>Wow. That is close to the most perfect troll I've seen. In fact, it's so
>>good that hopefully people will think twice before replying...
>
>
> Even better than jwolf6589?

Yeah, much better technically.

In article <2qf8t-07q.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> whimpered and whined:

><html><input type crash></html>

Why the html?

>begin fix

>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:59:53 +0200, christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no blathered
>and smoked:
>> In article <4ld7t-cr2.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
>> Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 03:00:46 GMT, flippo[at]mac.com blathered and smoked:
>>>> Second, you haven't shown a thing that shows Linux to be safer than
>>>> MacOS X.
>>>Neither did you provide anything to show OS X or prior to be safer than
>>>anything.
>> The lack of native viruses for OS X should be sufficient.
>I might agree with it if I didn't find it laughable.

>Your original claim

*My* original claim? Don't you even know who you're replying to?

> (quotes provided upon request) were that none
>existed for Mac/MAC/mac/MaC/mAc. Even immediately above, we see you
>claiming "lack of native viruses". We shall see in due order that the
>claim is not correct.

Having read your post I can tell you you're wrong.

>>>> Last time I checked, there wasn't a single known virus for Mac OS X.
>>>> That's not true for Linux.
>Ah. I don't need to provide it. There it is.

Again, try to keep track of the posters. Mind you, there are so far no
native viruses for OS X (unless one was released *really* recently).

>We continue.....

>>>Check a little harder next time.

>>>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-faq/
>>
>>>Scroll on down to number 7.
>> .. and all you'll find is stuff about viruses for the *old* MacOS.
>> *Not* OS X. IOW those viruses do not run on OS X.

>I realized my mistake, and did so far too late to correct it.

>Don't you know I'm stupid? I use MAC instead of Mac, after all! I also
>use OSX, OSx, OS 10 and a few others as the feeling hits me. So I'm
>just a dyed-in-the-wool maroon!

>Now, let me correct that little misstep:

>http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2001/08/06/hacker/

>"The Simpsons virus can affect Mac OS X -- so can SevenDust, CODE 0911
>and MBDF, but only in the Classic environment."

>Are we all better now?

No you're not. The classic environment is not OS X. It's an emulator
running under OS X. Those viruses need an emulator for the old Mac OS
to run under OS X just like all the other Mac OS applications.

So still no OS X native viruses.

>Remember, your claim was there was none that was native. Looks to me
>like there's at least one, plus 3 more that can run under it, making
>them card-players even if they wouldn't classify as "native" in the
>purest sense.

You have four viruses that work in Classic mode. What do you mean by
"alt least one plus 3 moreŠ"?

What you're saying is similar to saying that windows viruses run
native on OS X if they work under Virtual PC.

No, you're still wrong.

>> Your list turned out to be a list of nothing at all. Not one single
>> worm or virus for OS X. As for a comparable list, I'll provide you
>> with *one* link:

>> http://worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/asparticles/buzz/bz0917200
>> 2.asp
>> One virus (slapper) is more than the zero you came up with for OS X.

>See above.

Yeah, do that.

>We're now 1 to 1,

No, we're still at 1 Linux virus vs 0 OS X viruses.

> unless you use Classic.

Unless you include emulators, you mean. Maybe you want to include
Windows/PC emulators while you're at it? Not to mention the Microsoft
Macros?

> Then we're 4 to 1.

Only if you include emulators. IOW we're no longer talking about
native viruses.

> Do you
>ever use Classic mode while playing around in (you're probably
>anal-retentive about this one, too) OSX/OsX/osX/OS X/OS 10/OS 20-X?

Occasionally. But a virus that needs an emulator to run is not native.

>>>While I still didn't "prove" that linux is more secure than MAC (sorry,
>>>I'm still stupid), neither have you proven the opposite yet.

>> I did just now. One Linux virus vs zero for OS X.

>See way above. Then see slightly above (either tied, or you edge me out
>4:1, take yer pick).

Yeah, I've seen above. We're still at one Linux virus vs zero for OS X.

>Anyway, you still haven't shown Mac/mac/MAC/mAc to be _more_ secure.
>You've simply given evidence that Linux isn't perfect. Good for you!
>Did somebody make the claim that it was perfect?

Hmm.. strawman?

>I did, however, show that your claim of "no native" virus is an invalid
>claim.

No, you did not.

>> The uninformed one is yourself. You would have done yourself a favour
>> by reading those links you provided. Afaik there are no viruses/worms
>> for OS X. At worst we might have problems with some Microsoft macros,
>> but that can be avoided by not using their products.
>My mistake was in not noticing how you narrowed things. I've fixed
>that. Now, back to you, because I've shown either 1 or 4, depending on
>whether you use legacy things or not.

No, We're down to one vs zero.

>>>Now, at least, the uninformed part should be remedied if that was the
>>>problem.
>> Want some salt with that crow?
>No thanks. You can keep it all for yourself. You'll need it.

Why?

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

In article <12j8t-5js.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:

>I did make that statement. I made that statement based on the FACT that
>there are anti-virus products sold for Mac to help Mac not get
>infected, including under OS X.

The people who made anti-virus software for the old Mac OS want to
keep on selling anti-virus stuff to us maccies. They do this now by
spreading FUD about viruses, and many maccies buy their stuff because
the concept of a virus-free is rather alien.

Besides, it's only a matter of time before the first virus hits OS X.

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

<html><input type crash></html>
begin fix

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 10:34:05 +0200, christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no blathered and smoked:

> In article <2qf8t-07q.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
> Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> whimpered and whined:
>
>><html><input type crash></html>
>
> Why the html?

The first one crashes Outhouse Excess. It does on Winders. I have no idea if
Mac has the same effect I suppose I could try it out, but the wife has
it hidden since she uses Eudora. I don't really care to bother finding
out.

>>begin fix

This one does two things. It hides everything following it from
Outhouse excess. It shows up as an attachment, but with only a title
and no content. It also makes the first bug work. Too much text
following the first thing makes it show up as you see it instead of
crashing the client. By using the second bug, the client gets confused
into thinking nothing follows the first bug and makes it crash
properly.

The second one will show everything that comes after an line with the
word "end" all alone on it. The first could be made to work without
benefit of the second by placing it in the signature block. I use that
for random signatures and do it the way I'm doing it now.

--
Use Microsoft Windows(tm). It's not like you needed those rights or
that money anyway.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:53:19 GMT, Spider <TheSpider[at]spiderweb.com> wrote:
>Floppys are dead, like the 5.25, 8, audio tape, all dead and gone
>forever. Get with the program.

You must be very young and stoopid. I use floppies all the time, they
are very handy for transferring small files. Still use audio tape,
too (8-track tape, in the car, reel-to-reel and cassette at home),
and I have absolutely no interest in digital entertainment media.

You can take your "program" and shove it where the sun don't shine.

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)

Sounds like everyone's computer is running fine. We're down to "my weenie is
bigger than your weenie".

--
Don
Egad! The Earth is Alive!... People are its fleas.


"Omphalos" <omphalos[at]xmsg.com> wrote in message
news:8qNLa.210115$4y6.3390561[at]twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> I don't like Macs because you can't do anything on them and it leaves
> a mess on the desktop. Macintosh customers are usually soccer moms
> who flail their arms about when they see a command line. PCs being far
> too complicated for the simple minded. They flail because they need to
> buy $900 software that costs $200 for PCs so they can make thier artsy
> fartsy overdone restaurant menus and drive their husbands nuts
> because they never actually make a penny because their overhead was
> the price of a Macintosh. Which is, by the way, 10x more $$$ than a
> comparable Windows PC. Well, lets see, I can RUN OS/2, WINDOWS, DOS,
> NT, LINUX, NOVELL, WINDOWS95 and DOS4GW and other extenders of the
> like on my PC, but not on a crapintosh. Try to get Mack WAREZ, hah hah
> hah, good one. MAC OS is good, but it can't shake a stick at
> WindowsNT, LINUX, or even Windows 95. Mac was made by a lucky moron,
> who, in spite of being far ahead of his time with the Windows
> interface, managed to drive not only NeXT but Apple into the ground.
> STOP MAKING FOOLS OF YOURSELVES!
>
>
> --
> ________
> ==\ /=================================
> ===\ /===I am the Blue Screen of Death==
> ====\ /======No one hears your screams====
> =====\/====================================
>
> http://31337.pl

In article <slrnbg5jvv.472.rogblake10[at]unix3.netaxs.com>,
rogblake10[at]iname10.com (Roger Blake) wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:53:19 GMT, Spider <TheSpider[at]spiderweb.com> wrote:
> >Floppys are dead, like the 5.25, 8, audio tape, all dead and gone
> >forever. Get with the program.
>
> You must be very young and stoopid. I use floppies all the time, they
> are very handy for transferring small files. Still use audio tape,
> too (8-track tape, in the car, reel-to-reel and cassette at home),
> and I have absolutely no interest in digital entertainment media.
>
> You can take your "program" and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Well, I ain't young (as to whether I'm stoopid, that's in the eye of the
beholder), and when I bought my first floppy-less Mac, it came bundleled
with a USB floppy drive (I had my choice of that or a cheap color inkjet
printer). In the 5 years since I bought that B&W G3, I have used the
floppy drive about twice. I find that I, simply, have no use for them.
Small files are more efficiently transfered electronically and floppies
are next to worthless for storage. Nobody mourns their passage.

--
George Graves

Sinister Midget wrote:
>
> As I did. And I admitted right there. I screwed up and didn't remove
> the other stupid claim when I discovered I'd made a mistake. Shoot me.

Bang. Check for holes.

As to all the other bits, it seems that Mac OS X will be a _common_
target for vulnerabilities, and having a company like Apple around to
help patch up holes should be a good thing.

In article
<christopher.lund-3CB27B.10371302072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
C Lund <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

> In article <12j8t-5js.ln1[at]host.newsservicer.org>,
> Sinister Midget <xunil[at]k-c.rr-com> wrote:
>
> >I did make that statement. I made that statement based on the FACT that
> >there are anti-virus products sold for Mac to help Mac not get
> >infected, including under OS X.
>
> The people who made anti-virus software for the old Mac OS want to
> keep on selling anti-virus stuff to us maccies. They do this now by
> spreading FUD about viruses, and many maccies buy their stuff because
> the concept of a virus-free is rather alien.
>
> Besides, it's only a matter of time before the first virus hits OS X.

Since virui are rare on the Unix platform in general what works on on
verient (AT&T, Berkley, ETC) doesn't work on the others MacOS X uses a
application on top its Unix varient it will likely be a LONG time before
a virus comes to the Mac again.

Note worms and trogan horses are totally different things though Windows
again has more problems than the wider spread unix world.

<html><input type crash></html>
begin fix

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:17:39 -0500, harvest-this[at]mail.utexas.edu blathered and smoked:

> Sinister Midget wrote:
>>
>> As I did. And I admitted right there. I screwed up and didn't remove
>> the other stupid claim when I discovered I'd made a mistake. Shoot me.
>
> Bang. Check for holes.
>
> As to all the other bits, it seems that Mac OS X will be a _common_
> target for vulnerabilities, and having a company like Apple around to
> help patch up holes should be a good thing.

I don't disagree. I don't know their history with such things, but I'm
willing to bet they have a far better track record than $OTHER_OS does
with such concerns.

Now that they're moving in a unixy direction, they should have much
less chance of problems with successful viral material creating chaos.
That doesn't exclude the possiblity of other vulnerabilites in
programs. But those are always going to be around to some extent. What
counts most is how easily they're exploited in large numbers, and how
quickly the problems are addressed. Once again, it's hard work trying
to do as poorly as MICROS~1 does.

--
"One world, one web, one program" -- Microsoft promotional ad
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" -- Adolf Hitler

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:28:48 GMT, rogblake10[at]iname10.com (Roger Blake)
wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:53:19 GMT, Spider <TheSpider[at]spiderweb.com> wrote:
>>Floppys are dead, like the 5.25, 8, audio tape, all dead and gone
>>forever. Get with the program.
>
>You must be very young and stoopid. I use floppies all the time, they
>are very handy for transferring small files. Still use audio tape,
>too (8-track tape, in the car, reel-to-reel and cassette at home),
>and I have absolutely no interest in digital entertainment media.
>
>You can take your "program" and shove it where the sun don't shine.


Must be lonely!

My first real computer was a Mac 128K (the TI-99 doesn't count).
My parents loved it and I had a pirate source for just about
any program. Nevertheless, I always feel as if I'd been
handicapped by my Mac experience. The Mac never let you get
inside its inner workings, they always remained a mystery.
But all PCs came with DEBUG, any kid could manipulate the
PCs processor's contents bit by bit. About the only thing
useful I did with my Mac was write a BASIC program that made
it generate the blue box tones to make phree phone calls.
I had a blast with that little program I wrote!

In article <slrnbg5jvv.472.rogblake10[at]unix3.netaxs.com>,
rogblake10[at]iname10.com (Roger Blake) wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:53:19 GMT, Spider <TheSpider[at]spiderweb.com> wrote:
>>Floppys are dead, like the 5.25, 8, audio tape, all dead and gone
>>forever. Get with the program.
>
>You must be very young and stoopid. I use floppies all the time,

Then you're in the minority.

> they
>are very handy for transferring small files.

Email is even better. More reliable too.

> Still use audio tape,
>too (8-track tape, in the car, reel-to-reel and cassette at home),
>and I have absolutely no interest in digital entertainment media.

>You can take your "program" and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Whatever.

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

In article <bgrubb-B65603.13185802072003[at]news.zianet.com>,
Bruce Grubb <bgrubb[at]zianet.com> wrote:

>> Besides, it's only a matter of time before the first virus hits OS X.

>Since virui are rare on the Unix platform in general what works on on
>verient (AT&T, Berkley, ETC) doesn't work on the others MacOS X uses a
>application on top its Unix varient it will likely be a LONG time before
>a virus comes to the Mac again.

I hope you're right. But it only takes *one* jackass to write a virus.
B(

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

> For the record, the same types of other things that can affect Linux
> can also affect Mac, due to the underpinnigs. That FACT is ennunciated
> in this link that I provided in another part of the thread:

That may or may not be a FACT, but let me be a cynic
and point out that the one who said it sells virus
protection.

> A virus is going to have tough going to wreak havoc on a system using
> permissions properly. Where Mac is still vulnerable under OS X is when
> Classic mode is activated. All of the safeguards of permissions go out
> the window when Classic is activated. I saw this when I installed

I also distrust this statement. One of the reasons
a few programs do not work in Classic is because
Classic inherits permissions checking from OS X.

If I boot OS 9, any one can read and write what
I call ~wgroleau/Desktop

This will not happen with Classic.

> Consider what I have on my desktop: Blue iMac, 400 MHz G3 with a 100
> MHz bus. An ATI Rage 128 with 8 MB RAM, 15'' monitor.The motherboard
> originally came with 128 MB RAM and there was no CD burnner, just a
> slot-loading reader. The cost? Over $1500. For that price, I could

Huh? Cut the speed back to 350 MHz, throw in a printer
to compensate, add $250 for MachTen to make me think
I have Unix, and you have what I got new for under $1100.

Still higher than the _allegedly_ equivalent PC, but
far from double.

I had a new iMac picked out for my father for
$799, printer included, 400 MHz. But the salesman
told him Macs are more expensive and sold him a PC
for $1250. He only uses it for e-mail and he says
he can barely tolerate that.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:07:24 -0500, Wesley Groleau
<wesgroleau[at]despammed.com> wrote:

>Still higher than the _allegedly_ equivalent PC, but
>far from double.

Dells have been available for a few hundred bucks for a long time.
$1100 / $1500 are both vastly more than double the price of a similar
Dell. Even back then.

>I had a new iMac picked out for my father for
>$799, printer included, 400 MHz. But the salesman
>told him Macs are more expensive and sold him a PC
>for $1250. He only uses it for e-mail and he says
>he can barely tolerate that.

Why can he only 'barely tolerate that'? What's difficult about e-mail
for him that you think would be remotely different on a Mac?

Wesley Groleau wrote:

>
>> Wow. That is close to the most perfect troll I've seen. In fact, it's
>> so good that hopefully people will think twice before replying...
>
>
> Wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills
> up first.

Oh, I know. I can't help wishful thinking sometimes -- that individuals
are better than they've already proven themselves to be.

In article <woofbert.spam-BD2713.22411403072003[at]typhoon.sonic.net>,
Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

> In article <4d3agvoul5693hhqn9fvt9p58q9e44gjbn[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:07:24 -0500, Wesley Groleau
> > <wesgroleau[at]despammed.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Still higher than the _allegedly_ equivalent PC, but
> > >far from double.
> >
> > Dells have been available for a few hundred bucks for a long time.
> > $1100 / $1500 are both vastly more than double the price of a similar
> > Dell. Even back then.
> >
> > >I had a new iMac picked out for my father for
> > >$799, printer included, 400 MHz. But the salesman
> > >told him Macs are more expensive and sold him a PC
> > >for $1250. He only uses it for e-mail and he says
> > >he can barely tolerate that.
> >
> > Why can he only 'barely tolerate that'? What's difficult about e-mail
> > for him that you think would be remotely different on a Mac?
>
> I'm surprised that you are sniping at Wesley's father instead of at the
> salesman who said PCs are cheaper and sold him a more expensive one.

Why would foo do that? ANYTHING that stops someone from buying a Mac is
OK with foo. Even outright lies.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:31:25 GMT, flip <flippo[at]mac.com> wrote:

>In article <woofbert.spam-BD2713.22411403072003[at]typhoon.sonic.net>,
> Woofbert <woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <4d3agvoul5693hhqn9fvt9p58q9e44gjbn[at]4ax.com>,
>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:07:24 -0500, Wesley Groleau
>> > <wesgroleau[at]despammed.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Still higher than the _allegedly_ equivalent PC, but
>> > >far from double.
>> >
>> > Dells have been available for a few hundred bucks for a long time.
>> > $1100 / $1500 are both vastly more than double the price of a similar
>> > Dell. Even back then.
>> >
>> > >I had a new iMac picked out for my father for
>> > >$799, printer included, 400 MHz. But the salesman
>> > >told him Macs are more expensive and sold him a PC
>> > >for $1250. He only uses it for e-mail and he says
>> > >he can barely tolerate that.
>> >
>> > Why can he only 'barely tolerate that'? What's difficult about e-mail
>> > for him that you think would be remotely different on a Mac?
>>
>> I'm surprised that you are sniping at Wesley's father instead of at the
>> salesman who said PCs are cheaper and sold him a more expensive one.
>
>Why would foo do that? ANYTHING that stops someone from buying a Mac is
>OK with foo. Even outright lies.

That's an unusually stupid statement from you (and that's saying quite
a bit) considering the Macs I've bought, recommended, or sold to
people.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:45:13 GMT, George Graves <gmgraves[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
>Small files are more efficiently transfered electronically and floppies
>are next to worthless for storage. Nobody mourns their passage.

Only the young and stoopid would believe that all computers are
networked and/or connected to the internet. There are many standalone
computers used in industrial applications and other areas where it is
not possible to "transfer electronically." (Didn't one idiot say
to use email to transfer files? As though every computer in the
world has access to email? What an ass!!)

Floppies have not passed, they are still in daily use in many places
and will continue to be for quite some time.

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)

In article <slrnbgb5k3.etl.rogblake10[at]unix3.netaxs.com>,
rogblake10[at]iname10.com (Roger Blake) wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:45:13 GMT, George Graves <gmgraves[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Small files are more efficiently transfered electronically and floppies
> >are next to worthless for storage. Nobody mourns their passage.
>
> Only the young and stoopid would believe that all computers are
> networked and/or connected to the internet. There are many standalone
> computers used in industrial applications and other areas where it is
> not possible to "transfer electronically." (Didn't one idiot say
> to use email to transfer files? As though every computer in the
> world has access to email? What an ass!!)

I would actually accept being stoopid as the price for being young
again. :->

But I didn't suggest that all computers were networked or connected to
the internet. I just said electronic transfers are more efficient. As
for using E-mail. Most e-mail servers have an attachment limit of 1.5 MB
per e-mail message, and that 's just about the same as a floppy.

> Floppies have not passed, they are still in daily use in many places
> and will continue to be for quite some time.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean that they aren't obsolete.

--
George Graves

In article <aO2cnQ2PkYZz05uiXTWJhA[at]gbronline.com>,
Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau[at]despammed.com> wrote:

> >>I'm surprised that you are sniping at Wesley's father instead of at the
> >>salesman who said PCs are cheaper and sold him a more expensive one.
> >
> > Who made the choice to purchase?
>
> Hey, he's 70 years old, never typed in his life,
> and his wife still owns a manual typewriter.
>
> How is he to know the guy is lying?
>
> (Then again, by the time you get to be seventy, you
> ought to automatically _assume_ a salesman is lying.)

Why did he believe the salesperson over you?

Sorry - I just don't believe salespeople, and I have a tough time having
sympathy for those that do.

If you want the truth, you must do your own research.

An Apple Store employee told my mom today no faxing software came with
the 17" PBs. Sigh... She was also told the $300 512MB RAM chip from
the Apple store was faster and better than the $40 512MB RAM chip from
MacMall. Sigh. Finally, she was told Apple wouldn't warranty the Mac
if she added RAM to it from another source. Sigh. (Apple does warranty
the system...unless adding the RAM destroys the machine. They just
don't warranty the *RAM* if bought from another source.) The blatent
lies that took place during this $3500-$4000 information session are
simply sickening.

One can't believe salespeople.

She's also elderly, and I do have sympathy for her. She was taken for a
ride today, but fortunately I was able to steer her towards the facts of
the matter.

So, yes, I do have sympathy for the elderly and people who'd take
advantage of them (if, in fact, that did actually happen... I really
doubt it did, but the elderly can be influenced more than, say, an
aggressive middle-aged person - there is a gray area there), but you're
right - by the time they're older, they should know their limits, how
the world around them works, and other basic things about life.

(Newsgroups trimmed - alt.space.monkeys!?!?!?!)

In article <aO2cnRKPkYav05uiXTWJhA[at]gbronline.com>,
Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau[at]despammed.com> wrote:

> > Why can he only 'barely tolerate that'? What's difficult about e-mail
> > for him that you think would be remotely different on a Mac?
>
> Getting outlook express to actually work.
> Took me seven hours of toll calls to help
> my mother set it up. a few more every time
> she did something to break it.
>
> Granted, with their newness to computers,
> they might even have trouble with Mac.
>
> But not nearly as much as the Wind Blows.
>

Given that e-mail setup is almost exactly the same with both OSs, I
really, really don't think that's fair or correct.

Can you give me a few examples of differences between the two platforms
that would cause you to feel Mac e-mail is any easier to set up or "get
to actually work"? What in the world would cause 7 *HOURS* of toll
calls? You plug in your name / isp smtp/pop address / password / email
login and you're done - what else is there to know or do?

In article <foo-77F216.00121605072003[at]nnrp06.earthlink.net>, foo <foo[at]bar.com> writes:

<snip>


> If you want the truth, you must do your own research.
>
> An Apple Store employee told my mom today no faxing software came with
> the 17" PBs. Sigh... She was also told the $300 512MB RAM chip from
> the Apple store was faster and better than the $40 512MB RAM chip from
> MacMall.

Quite apart from the price difference you quote, I'll add that here
in Switzerland a 512MB RAM chip comes in at something like 250
Swiss Francs from my local Mac retailer. For comparison purposes,
at the middle exchange rate, your price of $300 works out at 390
Swiss Francs.

Now _that_ is truly expensive.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 06:37:05 +0000, foo wrote:

> The Apple Store is horribly overpriced.

so much for Pan-Euro-Socialism

me? i'm buying one of those md91 HP boxes that come out on
Monday!

In article <slrnbgb5k3.etl.rogblake10[at]unix3.netaxs.com>,
rogblake10[at]iname10.com (Roger Blake) wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:45:13 GMT, George Graves <gmgraves[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Small files are more efficiently transfered electronically and floppies
> >are next to worthless for storage. Nobody mourns their passage.
>
> Only the young and stoopid would believe that all computers are
> networked and/or connected to the internet. There are many standalone
> computers used in industrial applications and other areas where it is
> not possible to "transfer electronically." (Didn't one idiot say
> to use email to transfer files? As though every computer in the
> world has access to email? What an ass!!)
>
> Floppies have not passed, they are still in daily use in many places
> and will continue to be for quite some time.

If you really have to have a floppy drive for the Mac, it's available.

But they're so rarely used, I'm glad I didn't have to pay for one.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 17:52:22 -0500, Wesley Groleau
<wesgroleau[at]despammed.com> wrote:

>
>> calls? You plug in your name / isp smtp/pop address / password / email
>> login and you're done - what else is there to know or do?
>
>1. Turn on or off all the things that M$ defaults
> to the stupidest settings

Specifics?

>2. Overcome all the set up errors that are very easy
> to make when you've never touched a computer before.

Done on any platform. Specifics?

>3. Figure out how to tell them what to do when you can't
> see what they have and they don't know the jargon.

That's your issue, not MS's (or Apple's).

>I even bought and sent them a "Windows XP Visualized"
>book by Microsoft Press and made notes in it with arrows
>and numbers. Surprise: Microsoft published the book and
>then changed what things look like.

No they didn't. You need to get the right version for whatever
version of e-mail your dad uses. This isn't some nefarious plot - MS
updates software just like Apple does.

>E-mail setup is not "almost exactly the same"

Oh please.

>but I'll admit that OE is not a _lot_ harder--
>for someone who knows what a password is and
>what SMTP and POP stand for, and can understand
>"close the window" instead of "Find the little
>square with an X in it in the upper right corner
>of the big rectangle. Move the mouse so the
>little arrow points to the middle of the X and
>then press and release the left button."

Or just hit OK....

>But if they had gotten the iMac, _I_ would have
>set it up for them by sending them a CD containing
>a script to run.

I don't see anything that's remotely MS's fault here.

> I don't see anything that's remotely MS's fault here.

Never said it was. Except for their stupid
book, or defaulting e-mail to HTML, or
defaulting the world's most efficient
virus distributor to open and execute
e-mails, or .....

But I didn't start out talking about that,
merely lamenting someone's getting conned
into paying way too much for a PC.

I admit it's all my fault for not recognizing a troll.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 20:03:50 -0500, Wesley Groleau
<wesgroleau[at]despammed.com> wrote:

>
>> I don't see anything that's remotely MS's fault here.
>
>Never said it was. Except for their stupid
>book,

I see. So if I bought a book on Claris Mail 2.0r3 and System 9, and
sent it to my mom, and her new Mac had Apple Mail and OS X, Apple
would be at fault? That's pathetic, Wesley.

>or defaulting e-mail to HTML, or

The problem here is ... what, exactly?

>defaulting the world's most efficient
>virus distributor to open and execute
>e-mails, or .....

It does require a bit of training (now mom, don't open porno messages)
and an AV program, but that's a 30 second solution. Another solution
is spam-filtering software (McAfee's SpamSomething, highly rated, is
FREE.) Where's the issue here?

>But I didn't start out talking about that,
>merely lamenting someone's getting conned
>into paying way too much for a PC.

And I have sympathy for anyone messing around with salespeople
(shudder).

>I admit it's all my fault for not recognizing a troll.

You need to recognize a clue. Your arguments have no merit.

In article <sjscgvgvjl3h8d4lmhibj5e7sh3q7rpj3h[at]4ax.com>, foo <foo[at]bar.com> writes:
> On 5 Jul 03 08:24:00 +0200, p_sture[at]elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) wrote:
>
>>In article <foo-77F216.00121605072003[at]nnrp06.earthlink.net>, foo <foo[at]bar.com> writes:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>> If you want the truth, you must do your own research.
>>>
>>> An Apple Store employee told my mom today no faxing software came with
>>> the 17" PBs. Sigh... She was also told the $300 512MB RAM chip from
>>> the Apple store was faster and better than the $40 512MB RAM chip from
>>> MacMall.
>>
>>Quite apart from the price difference you quote, I'll add that here
>>in Switzerland a 512MB RAM chip comes in at something like 250
>>Swiss Francs from my local Mac retailer. For comparison purposes,
>>at the middle exchange rate, your price of $300 works out at 390
>>Swiss Francs.
>>
>>Now _that_ is truly expensive.
>
> The Apple Store is horribly overpriced.

Ouch - from
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/swissdestore.woa/953/wo/bKvV922N2LcrFUaLoa/1.3.0.5.7.0.5.0.1.3.5.0.1.3.1.1.0?74,50

I see the Apple store is charging 390 Swiss Francs.

"Roger Blake" <rogblake10[at]iname10.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbg5jvv.472.rogblake10[at]unix3.netaxs.com...
: On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:53:19 GMT, Spider <TheSpider[at]spiderweb.com>
wrote:
: >Floppys are dead, like the 5.25, 8, audio tape, all dead and gone
: >forever. Get with the program.
:
: You must be very young and stoopid. I use floppies all the time, they
: are very handy for transferring small files. Still use audio tape,
: too (8-track tape, in the car, reel-to-reel and cassette at home),
: and I have absolutely no interest in digital entertainment media.
:
: You can take your "program" and shove it where the sun don't shine.
:
: --
: Roger Blake
: (Subtract 10 for email.)

OOOOOEeeeeeeOOOooo! Well said, Roger. I have a reel-reel that's 24
years old
and still plays just fine. Some folks know quality and some are of the
disposable
era - unfortunately they tend also to view people in the same way.

Helen


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.496 / Virus Database: 295 - Release Date: 7/3/03

George Graves <gmgraves[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
<Snip>
> But I didn't suggest that all computers were networked or connected to
> the internet. I just said electronic transfers are more efficient. As
> for using E-mail. Most e-mail servers have an attachment limit of 1.5 MB
> per e-mail message, and that 's just about the same as a floppy.
<Snip>

Most? Do you have a source for that?

I never encountered a limit except for sending to AOL people.

--
Walter It is difficult to get a man to understand something," wrote
Upton Sinclair, "when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Walter

In article <1fxvpem.17g1vvl1mm1lzpN%proto[at]panix.com>,
proto[at]panix.com (Walter Bushell) wrote:

> George Graves <gmgraves[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
> <Snip>
> > But I didn't suggest that all computers were networked or connected to
> > the internet. I just said electronic transfers are more efficient. As
> > for using E-mail. Most e-mail servers have an attachment limit of 1.5 MB
> > per e-mail message, and that 's just about the same as a floppy.
> <Snip>
>
> Most? Do you have a source for that?
>
> I never encountered a limit except for sending to AOL people.

Actually, I have a limit of about 2-3 MB on Earthlink. I think there's a
limit on a number of others, as well.

In article <1fxvpem.17g1vvl1mm1lzpN%proto[at]panix.com>,
proto[at]panix.com (Walter Bushell) wrote:

> George Graves <gmgraves[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
> <Snip>
> > But I didn't