munkery
May 2, 04:42 PM
google...
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
'windows more secure than OSX'
check the results, you have people who are professional coders telling it how it is... and has been since 2007.
ignorance of facts doesn't equal knowledge, if no one is trying to break the door down you don't need a big lock.
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Man in the browser is now the biggest issue for all OS's, malware wise.
All the info. happens via the browser, there is no point attacking anything else.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
citizenzen
Mar 15, 11:24 PM
Have I defined "contain" to your satisfaction?
Not really.
Here. I'll provide an example of equally insightful commentary ...
One day, this will all be over.
Not really.
Here. I'll provide an example of equally insightful commentary ...
One day, this will all be over.
jefhatfield
Oct 8, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
i don't think there is an easy way to test a mac vs a pc for speed issues
but overall, i like barefeats and i think those tests give one a general idea of what a machine can do and are not specifically one hundred percent accurate all the time in the tests
sometimes magazine comparisons between two pc machines are not equally matched in terms of ram, video card, etc...
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
my overclocked 2 cents;)
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
i don't think there is an easy way to test a mac vs a pc for speed issues
but overall, i like barefeats and i think those tests give one a general idea of what a machine can do and are not specifically one hundred percent accurate all the time in the tests
sometimes magazine comparisons between two pc machines are not equally matched in terms of ram, video card, etc...
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
my overclocked 2 cents;)
mdntcallr
Oct 25, 10:58 PM
This is starting to sound like the war of the razors...
Anyone remember when the Mach-3 came out, and everyone thought "wow... three blades. that's a lot!" Now we're up to FIVE... and an extra one on the back.
Just more proof positive that when it comes to Apple you should buy when you need, and enjoy what you've got, cause in two months it'll be replaced anyway.
... okay, I'm done. Eight cores is pretty wild. ;)
S
Dude, your so funnnnY!!
but this is a happy time, tech advancements are a great thing.
this is happily something better than how long it took with G5 to update.
Hope they do an update with Blu-Ray option.
Anyone remember when the Mach-3 came out, and everyone thought "wow... three blades. that's a lot!" Now we're up to FIVE... and an extra one on the back.
Just more proof positive that when it comes to Apple you should buy when you need, and enjoy what you've got, cause in two months it'll be replaced anyway.
... okay, I'm done. Eight cores is pretty wild. ;)
S
Dude, your so funnnnY!!
but this is a happy time, tech advancements are a great thing.
this is happily something better than how long it took with G5 to update.
Hope they do an update with Blu-Ray option.
BJNY
Oct 14, 08:21 AM
HP to announced quad-core workstations on Nov. 13th
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/13/quadcore/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/13/quadcore/index.php
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 01:06 PM
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
Sorry but I find this patently laughable. True Christian? Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the bible as you do? I bet there are millions who would point the finger at you and say you are not a true Christian. You both, of course, are wrong as there cannot be any truth in a system based on faith.
Sorry but I find this patently laughable. True Christian? Does that mean anyone who doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the bible as you do? I bet there are millions who would point the finger at you and say you are not a true Christian. You both, of course, are wrong as there cannot be any truth in a system based on faith.
roadbloc
Apr 15, 09:49 AM
That was the most depressing 6mins of my life. But still, good cause I guess...
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 10:46 PM
You're all far too willing to accept the RIAA's iron grip over downloading music. Apple's DRM is disgusting - but you want to say "shut it down! or our prices will go up! or they'll make the DRM worse!" Well, you've got to do better than that - because they owe it to us to sell a better product. I want to own my music - I know the paradigm is new, I know it's a virtual product any way you slice it, but DVD Jon is doing the right thing, and we need to send a message.They owe it to us? The only people Apple owes anything to is their shareholders.
Aduntu
Apr 15, 01:06 PM
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
benixau
Oct 9, 07:39 AM
CaoCao
Mar 24, 11:01 PM
Perhaps I missed something but these all appear to be acts of violence against homosexuals. Don't get me wrong, they are horrible acts but I believe that CaoCao specifically stated acts motivated by mainstream Catholicism.
exactly, subtract the gangs, the mentally unstable, the non-Catholics and the inconclusively because the victim was homosexual and see where we are
exactly, subtract the gangs, the mentally unstable, the non-Catholics and the inconclusively because the victim was homosexual and see where we are
Lesser Evets
Apr 15, 10:11 AM
Why does bullying have to be attached to GLBT?
I was never L, B, G, or T, and my 7th and 8th grade were a constant fist fight as I went from class to class... kinda cool, now that I look back at it. Never a dull moment.
I was never L, B, G, or T, and my 7th and 8th grade were a constant fist fight as I went from class to class... kinda cool, now that I look back at it. Never a dull moment.
r.j.s
May 2, 09:16 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
There has been malware for years, and IIRC, it all requires the user to do something to install it.
Basic user awareness will prevent this from becoming an issue.
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
There has been malware for years, and IIRC, it all requires the user to do something to install it.
Basic user awareness will prevent this from becoming an issue.
balamw
Apr 11, 11:05 AM
Would it be considered switching if I bought the mini? I"ll still have a few laptops which I'll be using with XP, but then again; I can just VNC to the OSX mac mini
Many of us maintain multiple machines or run Windows as well as OS X.
I think you can define a switcher as someone who, given the choice of performing a task either on one platform or the other that either could do, will more often than not pick the Mac using OS X.
B
Many of us maintain multiple machines or run Windows as well as OS X.
I think you can define a switcher as someone who, given the choice of performing a task either on one platform or the other that either could do, will more often than not pick the Mac using OS X.
B
skunk
Apr 23, 04:09 PM
The Bible, as you may or may not know, is the basis for Christianity, and the Old Testament is the basis for Judaism.No, the basis of Christianity is the Old and New Testaments.
sblasl
Oct 28, 02:25 PM
Has any one installed a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive in one of the current systems to use as their boot drive?
macfan1977
Mar 18, 09:05 PM
How does that matter? Last I heard, iPods didn't cost $.99. Plus Apple doesn't get $.99 per song, they get roughly $.34. iTMS makes Apple money, sure... but compared to the amount of money iPods make them there is no comparison.
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
I've said it over and over again, and so has plenty of others... iTMS exists to sell iPods.
I've used iTMS before I bought my iPod Shuffle (way cool!) to simply download music and burn to it CDs. Beats the inconvenience of running out to Walmart and buying the CD for even more money. And I get to search and preview. This is the best way to buy music WITH OR WITHOUT a portable music player.
Also, $0.34 is a nice profit per song * 300+ million songs and growing. Not bad business for just pushing bits! :cool:
Off Topic: Any with an iPod Shuffle think the plastic is reminiscent of Lego (R) plastic?
brianus
Jul 12, 02:09 PM
If they can put that BURNING G5 into iMac, why not the Conroe?
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
I'm glad somebody pointed this out. Why does everyone who says it "can't be done" or is a bad idea, putting such a chip in a little iMac case, forget that that very same case was designed for, and originally housed, a G5?
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
So we might then see Conroe on the low end and Woodcrest on the high end, but they'd still all be marketed as Mac Pro (no clumsy "Mac Pro Widdle" monicker*)? Sounds about right to me and might explain the discrepancies between the AppleInsider and ThinkSecret reports. Not that I trust TS much these days, mind you.. but as others have pointed out, putting single Woodcrests on the low end simply makes no sense. Paying extra for an advantage these lower-end pro desktops would not have (namely, the possibility of multiple sockets) is not something the business I work for would be willing to consider. We don't need quad power or a ridiculous price tag, but neither will we be satisfied with a cheap "consumer" tower.
<anal>*Which reminds me, people have got to stop calling it "MacPro" all as one word and then adding suffixies to it. It's Mac = line, Pro = modifier, just like MacBook = line, Pro = modifier or Mac = line, mini = modifier. "Mac" now means "headless desktop computer", "iMac" means all-in-one and "MacBook" means laptop. There are then modifiers separating out the different ends of those particular product lines. There is no "MacPro" line.</anal>
Putting 65 W hot processor in iMac enclosure isn't that difficult.
I'm glad somebody pointed this out. Why does everyone who says it "can't be done" or is a bad idea, putting such a chip in a little iMac case, forget that that very same case was designed for, and originally housed, a G5?
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
So we might then see Conroe on the low end and Woodcrest on the high end, but they'd still all be marketed as Mac Pro (no clumsy "Mac Pro Widdle" monicker*)? Sounds about right to me and might explain the discrepancies between the AppleInsider and ThinkSecret reports. Not that I trust TS much these days, mind you.. but as others have pointed out, putting single Woodcrests on the low end simply makes no sense. Paying extra for an advantage these lower-end pro desktops would not have (namely, the possibility of multiple sockets) is not something the business I work for would be willing to consider. We don't need quad power or a ridiculous price tag, but neither will we be satisfied with a cheap "consumer" tower.
<anal>*Which reminds me, people have got to stop calling it "MacPro" all as one word and then adding suffixies to it. It's Mac = line, Pro = modifier, just like MacBook = line, Pro = modifier or Mac = line, mini = modifier. "Mac" now means "headless desktop computer", "iMac" means all-in-one and "MacBook" means laptop. There are then modifiers separating out the different ends of those particular product lines. There is no "MacPro" line.</anal>
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 11:50 AM
"China syndrome", not "Japan" syndrome.
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
Silly boy, the Earth's magma would swallow that 'little' pill with no problem.
And gravity has yet to go up. :p LOL
*LTD*
May 2, 09:55 AM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X
They don't.
They don't.
OllyW
Apr 28, 08:02 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
If you had read the first post you would realise they were in third place last quarter.
Dropping to fourth is not slipping upwards.
You do not "slip" upwards.
If you had read the first post you would realise they were in third place last quarter.
Dropping to fourth is not slipping upwards.
munkery
May 2, 08:18 PM
Problems with Windows security in comparison to Mac OS X presented just in this thread:
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
EDIT:
If malware doesn't need to use some method to achieve privilege escalation or actively phish users for their credit card number to be profitable enough to warrant their creation, then why did the specific example of malware that started this thread rely on these methods to be profitable?
Why did it not use the methods presented by KnightWRX? Why do you not see malware that only uses user level access to upload a user's data files to achieve some effect that is profitable? I can't recall any malware that uses this method.
Is it because most users do not have valuable info stored in insecure data files? I keep that type of info in encrypted secured notes in Keychain Access or in encrypted sparse bundle disk images.
Is it because it would require too much time to data mine the files for valuable info in relation to the amount of profit gained? How many GBs of data are on your system? Even the data I keep in encrypted sparse bundle disk images wouldn't be very useful for identity theft even if it was not encrypted.
Is it because given all the variables it is more cost effective to go after achieving system level access to keystroke log passwords protected by user space security mechanisms or simply to use basic phishing scams on unknowledgeable users? Makes sense to me but maybe I am wrong.
1) Greater number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities:
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=win32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+privileges+2011
2) Earlier versions of NT based Windows (Windows XP and earlier) do not use discretionary access controls by default.
3) Permissions system does not include a user defined unique identifier (password) by default. More susceptible to user space exploitation leading to authentication stolen via spoofed prompt that appears unrelated to UAC because password not associated with authentication.
4) Windows sandbox mechanism relies on inherited permissions so that turning off UAC turns off the sandbox. This sandbox has been defeated in the wild (in the last two pwn2owns).
I do not know of any TrustedBSD MAC framework (BSD and Mac sandbox), AppArmor (openSUSE and Ubuntu), or SE Linux (Fedora) mandatory access control escapes? These sandbox mechanisms do not rely on inherited permissions.
5) The Windows registry is a single point of failure that can be leveraged by malware.
EDIT:
If malware doesn't need to use some method to achieve privilege escalation or actively phish users for their credit card number to be profitable enough to warrant their creation, then why did the specific example of malware that started this thread rely on these methods to be profitable?
Why did it not use the methods presented by KnightWRX? Why do you not see malware that only uses user level access to upload a user's data files to achieve some effect that is profitable? I can't recall any malware that uses this method.
Is it because most users do not have valuable info stored in insecure data files? I keep that type of info in encrypted secured notes in Keychain Access or in encrypted sparse bundle disk images.
Is it because it would require too much time to data mine the files for valuable info in relation to the amount of profit gained? How many GBs of data are on your system? Even the data I keep in encrypted sparse bundle disk images wouldn't be very useful for identity theft even if it was not encrypted.
Is it because given all the variables it is more cost effective to go after achieving system level access to keystroke log passwords protected by user space security mechanisms or simply to use basic phishing scams on unknowledgeable users? Makes sense to me but maybe I am wrong.
Multimedia
Jul 12, 04:55 PM
This thread is getting too funny. Apple has been so far behind on power these past few years and now we get the chance to use Conroe, and suddenly that's not good enough for the Mac snobs. Conroe is an extremely fast chip (especially compared to G5), so I don't get why some people think it's a bad choice for the pro-line up. Sure, it can't do smp, but not everyone needs or want to pay for quad processing.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.
So, aside from the ability to do multiple processing, what advantages does Woodcrest have that make it mandatory to go in the pro-line? How much "faster" is it going to be over the Conroe? It's my understanding that they are identical in that respect.Yes they are. I agree with you. But when I wrote that earlier in this thread, someone wrote that economies of scale dictated that Woody goes in everything Pro rather than only in the Quad. Makes no sense to me either. I think all non-quads should be Conroe.
aegisdesign
Sep 20, 06:56 AM
Yeah Ok, thats fine, but then I also need a machine to get content from my TV/tuner/satelite to my Mac.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
Nope. That's what ElGato's EyeTV does. If Apple and ElGato can come together and add EyeTV support into iTV and Front Row over the next few months then you can chuck away your TV tuner, Freeview and stick your sat box hidden away next to your computer.
Then all you need under your TV is an iTV.
As I understand it, iTV is only for wireless streaming in one direction. If I need a cable to get broadcast programmes into my Mac, then I may as well use that cable to get the content back onto my TV!
Bingo. And that's why iTV doesn't include a TV tuner - you've already got one.
No comments:
Post a Comment