MS's support logic

On 8/17/14 5:43 PM, Justin wrote:
On 8/12/14, 10:01 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 8/12/14 4:40 PM, Justin wrote:
On 8/8/14, 2:01 PM, pjp wrote:

snip

http://macdailynews.com/2014/02/26/a...le-to-attacks/

So?
Mavericks cost is...
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013...App-Store.html

In this case, you are assuming the hardware with Snow Leopard is capable
of running Mavericks. And that may not be true.

There's also the consideration of "Does Mavericks have anything to offer
me, other than being free?" In my case, no it doesn't. But like
Windows, moving to the next version of the OS causes problems for
existing software. Problems I don't have by staying with Mountain Lion.

The same issues happen with Windows. In fact, it may be easier for me
to "regress" from 8.1 and use Windows 7 for my history research. The UI
design is better suited.

snip

Get a Mac, you won't have to worry about malware or viruses. It's a
simple fact.

Also not true, but you get to worry about it a lot less. Apple has made
many patches to OS X for malware that targeted OS X.

The same is true for Linux. If you go search the web, you'll find there
is malware for Linux also.


Malware on the mac and Linux is quite ineffective and isn't installed
simply be one false click. One false click in IE and it's installed.
I use ClamxAV because I get alot of files from Windows users. Sometimes
I even use the Sentry option.

A lot of people use ClamxAV, I used to on Windows 98 when it was the
only AV software supporting W98. But, the few times I've seen the
software rated, it was never very high.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 8/18/14, 11:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
In this case, you are assuming the hardware with Snow Leopard is capable
of running Mavericks. And that may not be true.

That's true with any OS upgrade.


There's also the consideration of "Does Mavericks have anything to offer
me, other than being free?" In my case, no it doesn't. But like
Windows, moving to the next version of the OS causes problems for
existing software. Problems I don't have by staying with Mountain Lion.

That's also a problem with any OS upgrade.


The same issues happen with Windows. In fact, it may be easier for me
to "regress" from 8.1 and use Windows 7 for my history research. The UI
design is better suited.

Saying the UI in Win7 is better suited than 8 is like saying my cock is
bigger than a hamster's. Meaningless.

A lot of people use ClamxAV, I used to on Windows 98 when it was the
only AV software supporting W98. But, the few times I've seen the
software rated, it was never very high.



It's mediocre, but It did instantly detect some malware included with
DVDstyler before I tried to install it.
OSX and 'nix in general is simple harder to write viruses and malware
for. There's no way around that fact.

| The same issues happen with Windows. In fact, it may be easier for me
| to "regress" from 8.1 and use Windows 7 for my history research. The UI
| design is better suited.
|
| Saying the UI in Win7 is better suited than 8 is like saying my cock is
| bigger than a hamster's. Meaningless.

That's a rather odd statement. I wonder if your
wife or girlfriend would agree. (I'm sure she'd agree
it's an odd statement, but I'm not sure she'd agree
that it's a good analogy.

And how could UI design be meaningless? Win8
is quite a bit different from Win7. It also requires more
power because it's essentially running a sandboxed
VM -- a dual UI -- on top of the OS.

UI is certainly important to me. After excessive
cost, restrictions, limited usability and lack of software,
that annoying vacuum cleaner animation on the toolbar
and those icons that look like they were drawn by a
12-year-old girl who dots her i's with hearts are the
biggest reasons I don't buy a Mac myself. I don't
like to use UIs that say, "Congratulations. You're
graduating to third grade this year."
Well, I guess I'd have to also include the generally
irritating arrogance of AppleVille and their cloying,
irrelevant TV ads, which appear to be selling the
latest post-prozac happy pills, as reasons I don't buy
a Mac.
...And did I mention the ridiculously high cost?

I will give them credit, though, for some aspects
of their UI. The overall look is childish, but some of
the actual client area window details can be so clean
and neat that the sheer simplicity borders on beautiful.
(Of course, it *is* easier to make a clean UI when you
don't provide people with any options. If a program's
settings window only needs 3 radio buttons and a
checkbox then one can afford to obsess over the spacing
of those items.)

On 8/21/14 4:15 PM, Justin wrote:
On 8/18/14, 11:06 PM, Ken Springer wrote:

snip

The same issues happen with Windows. In fact, it may be easier for me
to "regress" from 8.1 and use Windows 7 for my history research. The UI
design is better suited.

Saying the UI in Win7 is better suited than 8 is like saying my cock is
bigger than a hamster's. Meaningless.

That depends on the users needs and goals. If there's a feature or
features of UI #1 that is/are removed in UI #2, and using #2 means more
work/steps to accomplish the same goals, it's not meaningless.

It's simply a matter of finding the best tool for your job, nothing else.

snip


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 8/21/14 4:58 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| The same issues happen with Windows. In fact, it may be easier for me
| to "regress" from 8.1 and use Windows 7 for my history research. The UI
| design is better suited.
|
| Saying the UI in Win7 is better suited than 8 is like saying my cock is
| bigger than a hamster's. Meaningless.

That's a rather odd statement. I wonder if your
wife or girlfriend would agree. (I'm sure she'd agree
it's an odd statement, but I'm not sure she'd agree
that it's a good analogy.

And how could UI design be meaningless? Win8
is quite a bit different from Win7. It also requires more
power because it's essentially running a sandboxed
VM -- a dual UI -- on top of the OS.

UI is certainly important to me. After excessive
cost, restrictions, limited usability and lack of software,
that annoying vacuum cleaner animation on the toolbar
and those icons that look like they were drawn by a
12-year-old girl who dots her i's with hearts are the
biggest reasons I don't buy a Mac myself. I don't
like to use UIs that say, "Congratulations. You're
graduating to third grade this year."
Well, I guess I'd have to also include the generally
irritating arrogance of AppleVille and their cloying,
irrelevant TV ads, which appear to be selling the
latest post-prozac happy pills, as reasons I don't buy
a Mac.
...And did I mention the ridiculously high cost?

I will give them credit, though, for some aspects
of their UI. The overall look is childish, but some of
the actual client area window details can be so clean
and neat that the sheer simplicity borders on beautiful.
(Of course, it *is* easier to make a clean UI when you
don't provide people with any options. If a program's
settings window only needs 3 radio buttons and a
checkbox then one can afford to obsess over the spacing
of those items.)

My first impression of the Win 8.0 desktop when I first saw it, it
wasn't all that much different than the GEM3 desktop. To me, it still
looks old and dated, utilitarian if you will. I kind of like something
a little more sophisticated looking, and pleasing to my eye. And that
isn't the Win8 desktop.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 8/21/14, 6:58 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| The same issues happen with Windows. In fact, it may be easier for me
| to "regress" from 8.1 and use Windows 7 for my history research. The UI
| design is better suited.
|
| Saying the UI in Win7 is better suited than 8 is like saying my cock is
| bigger than a hamster's. Meaningless.

That's a rather odd statement. I wonder if your
wife or girlfriend would agree. (I'm sure she'd agree
it's an odd statement, but I'm not sure she'd agree
that it's a good analogy.

I liked doing the "hamster dance."


And how could UI design be meaningless? Win8
is quite a bit different from Win7. It also requires more
power because it's essentially running a sandboxed
VM -- a dual UI -- on top of the OS.

UI is certainly important to me. After excessive
cost, restrictions, limited usability and lack of software,
that annoying vacuum cleaner animation on the toolbar
and those icons that look like they were drawn by a
12-year-old girl who dots her i's with hearts are the
biggest reasons I don't buy a Mac myself. I don't
like to use UIs that say, "Congratulations. You're
graduating to third grade this year."

Funny you mention that. Here in the US there are kindergarten
graduation ceremonies made to look like a real graduation. I was
complaining to my boss that parents like to take the day off for that.
Modern American parents are idiots.

Well, I guess I'd have to also include the generally
irritating arrogance of AppleVille and their cloying,
irrelevant TV ads, which appear to be selling the
latest post-prozac happy pills, as reasons I don't buy
a Mac.
...And did I mention the ridiculously high cost?

What about the ridiculously *low* cost to own? It is a fact that macs
have lower costs to own and maintain, especially in an enterprise
environment.
You'll need prozac to be happy after the first Windows malware infection.

On 8/18/14, 6:58 PM, John wrote:


I was not then saying that the *poster* was deliberately lying, just
that this is an untruth told by Apple and its supporters so often that
it has become a cultural cliché used by millions unthinkingly. It is
nonetheless a lie.

Indeed, the truth sounds like a cliché because it is repeated so often
and never changes. Like Samuel Clemens said, its better to tell the
truth, so you don't have to remember anything.


Wrong.

No, right. Zombying Windows boxes by the millions is done easily and
routinely. Zombying Macs is more rare. Therefor the cumulative reward
for Windows hacks is greater. Simple arithmetic.

No, wrong. The trick is to go for the big score. Macs with their users
and their supposedly higher incomes would have more to steal, therefore
their personal information would be a target with higher spoils. Then
there's the fact that whoever writes a virus for OSX would go down in
history forever along with Kevin Mitnick and Gary McKinnon. I know
they're not the in the same genre ad virus "developers" but that's how
that culture works.


Mac users tend to have higher incomes, therefore compromising a Mac
would have greater rewards.

Not true. Not even *close* to being true. *I* have Macs.
Socialist crap about IQs and incomes deleted


Whose house would you try to rob? The Mansion on the hill or the
crackhouse by the tracks?

I wouldn't rob houses, I'm a GoodGuy. I *help* people.
Were I a burglar, I *think* I would rob average-income houses on
average roads as those would have enough gear to make it worth a punt
yet not sufficient wealth to make burglar alarms wired directly to the
police a standard installation. I'd make a lousy burglar, not enough
experience in the trade to be any good, so I'd go for the obviously
soft, not-too-risky targets.

Because in UKLand you can't have guns that's makes sense. Here, middle
and classes homes may have a firearm.

Mansions on hills I'd leave to the genuine experts who have teams and
vans and people who can fence the goods. Me, I wouldn't know *how* to
find a fence.

I'll go with the experts.

I would have thought this to be *obvious*.
Likewise, were I a cracker, I would go for middle-income users
without the skill to install good anti-malware-ware and keep it up to
date. Bosses, judges, lawyers, top cops (who tend to be older and less
focused on tech) and other reasonably well-paid people. I would also
tend to attack Windows boxes as there are far more of them and a
vector that works on one should work on many. That is not always true
of Apple boxes or machines with one of the many flavours of Unix
installed. Apple has such a small user-base that each machine could be
configured differently from the previous one you hacked into. Unixxy
boxes are almost guaranteed to be unique. Windows machines are largely
left as configured by the vendors. Going for the easy money would make
sense. Less per hit but far more successful hits.

So you work your ass off for minimal returns? I'll go for the big
score. The rich girl on the Macbook with her plastic surgeon father's
information on it. Clean out everything (maybe even her) and spend a
few weeks in Monaco with my "earnings."

As I'm not interested in a career as a criminal (too much like work,
too high risk, too low reward and it's a little too parasitical for
my tastes (it *hurts* people when you ransack their drawers and steal
their wedding rings)) I am probably *way* off the mark in my
theoretical analysis and anyway it is moot.

As a soon to be CPA, I have to understand how criminals work, especially
the white collar variant.
The criminals who get caught are the ones who constantly repeat the same
routine. A "once and done" robbery of the house on the hill or it "Home
by the Sea" on your side of the pond, act will have a high chance of
success.


There *are* *Nixxy malwares. So *someone* didn't fail. To assume *I*
would is insulting and maybe ad hominem. I'd pout if I knew which
smilie to use to demonstrate one.

nixxy malwares are fairly ineffective and have to be installed by the
user with an extra step. Not true with Windows. Just clicking on
something causes an execution. The only way malware gets installed on
Macs these days is by tricking the user during an installation -
DVDStyler almost got me with "installmac."

That was jesting anyway as I had already discounted my ability to
convert from my present good-citizen status to living off of the
immoral proceeds of a life of crime. I'm far too lazy to start a new
career even were it easy, lucrative and risk-free, which burglary and
computer crimes are not.

If I had to, yes I would take a stab at a life of crime. But it would
take a major change in the economy. I was unemployed for three years
and did consider one or two nefarious opportunities. I even met the
potential employer. the ADD version is it involved money laundering. I
met the guy at Independence Hall in Philadelphia.

I was merely suggesting that I'm a contrarian who finds routine work
boring and learning experiences more fun.
Which is one reason I went into the computer business.
J.

That's why I got out. My undergrad degrees are in Computer science, so
computers are my "first love" so to speak. I got the ****s of it and
went all business after the dot-bomb. One can't explain to a CEO why
that $200 laptop is a piece of ****. All he cares about is his bonus.
Therefore a solution with the short term appearance of a gain ends up
being the course taken - Windows. All those idiot MCSE's scoffing at
anything non-Microsoft - they're worse than Mac-philes. "I can play WMV
files natively!" As if that were a selling point.

| ...And did I mention the ridiculously high cost?
|
| What about the ridiculously *low* cost to own? It is a fact that macs
| have lower costs to own and maintain, especially in an enterprise
| environment.

I don't understand. My PC doesn't cost anything to own.
I've had an XP Pro license for many years. I can move it
to new boxes when I build them. The boxes I build typically
cost me about $400. Here's the last one I built, in 2013,
with parts from TigerDirect:

Asus F2A55-M/CSM Socket FM2 Motherboard $74.99
AMD A-Series A6-6400K 4.1/3.9 GHz, $69.99
Patriot Viper Xtreme 4GB Memory - DDR3, $49.99
Samsung 24X DVDRW Internal Drive - $24.99
Ultra XBlaster Mid-Tower V2 Case - $49.99

Total for all Items: $269.95 plus about $50 for a hard disk.

I build more often than I need to, for the fun of it,
but I still don't spend nearly what I would to run
a Mac. And most of my Mac friends seem to think they
need to always buy the latest. If I were someone who
buys PCs I could get one for about $300. (I actually
have a Win7 PC that was given to me, but prefer to use
XP for most things.)

What is the cost of just having a PC?

| You'll need prozac to be happy after the first Windows malware infection.

I've been running Windows since 1998 and haven't
had any malware problems. I think you do have a point,
though. I know many people who have switched to Macs,
for two basic reasons: 1) It's fashionable. 2) They don't
want to deal with security. They're mainly younger
people who simply don't want to fret about risks to
security and privacy. Their phones and computers are
shopping/entertainment/social devices. It is more realistic to
ignore security in that way with a Mac. Macs are the new
AOL. They do a good job of shielding you from the
details while still maintaining decent security.

For me it's not really an issue. I don't mind dealing
with security and privacy online. I don't enable risky
browser behaviors. I avoid shopping online, and I
would never do anything like banking online. In short,
I don't have any juicy data on my PC for malware to
steal, even if I got an infection.

On 8/22/14, 4:13 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| ...And did I mention the ridiculously high cost?
|
| What about the ridiculously *low* cost to own? It is a fact that macs
| have lower costs to own and maintain, especially in an enterprise
| environment.

I don't understand. My PC doesn't cost anything to own.

I stopped reading here. This is why techies shouldn't run businesses.
Everything from maintenance to depreciation is lower on a Mac. It's a
fact, look it up.

| I don't understand. My PC doesn't cost anything to own.
|
| I stopped reading here. This is why techies shouldn't run businesses.
| Everything from maintenance to depreciation is lower on a Mac. It's a
| fact, look it up.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of maintenance.
I don't do any maintenance.

And what is depreciation on a item that's not resold?
You're saying that if you buy a Mac for $2,000 while
I buy a PC for $300, your Mac will retain a higher percentage
retail value after some years? So what? I only paid $300!
And I have no plan to resell my PC. (Unlike a Mac, a PC is
really just an assemblage of parts. I can reuse them to
make another cheap PC.)

What other costs might there be? Aside from software,
I buy CD and DVD blanks occasionally. If a hard disk dies
I'll have to replace it, but that's not a common thing, and
that can also happen with a Mac.

On 8/22/14, 5:29 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| I don't understand. My PC doesn't cost anything to own.
|
| I stopped reading here. This is why techies shouldn't run businesses.
| Everything from maintenance to depreciation is lower on a Mac. It's a
| fact, look it up.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of maintenance.
I don't do any maintenance.

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/03/15/it-pr...nage-than-pcs/
"The Enterprise Desktop Alliance (an association of several Mac-centric
IT vendors) recently surveyed 260 IT administrators in the US to find
out which computing environment is cheaper to manage: PCs or Macs. It
turns out Macs cost less to manage than PCs for 65% of the IT admins
surveyed. 19% of survey respondents said the two platforms cost the same
to manage, while 16% said PCs cost less to manage than Macs."

So you have a pile of old PC parts laying in your basement? No
defragmenting, no hard drive replacements ever? You don't install
programs? Anything somebody would need to call their IT guys for is
maintenance. The fact you know how to do it yourself is irrelevant, it
takes time and time=$$$. Multiply that times 10,000 for an enterprise
environment and that is a significant expense; enough to make or break a
CEO's predictions.
Also, if you replace the motherboard you're supposed to get a different
license for Windows. The installation key is married to the mainboard.


And what is depreciation on a item that's not resold?

100%.
I stopped reading here.
If you don't resell the machine, or part of the machine, then your
residual value is zero. Therefore, your graphics card that cost $20
depreciated $20 when it was taken out of service.

On 2014-08-22, Mayayana wrote:
| I don't understand. My PC doesn't cost anything to own.
|
| I stopped reading here. This is why techies shouldn't run businesses.
| Everything from maintenance to depreciation is lower on a Mac. It's a
| fact, look it up.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of maintenance.
I don't do any maintenance.

I wipe the spittle from my screen.
Vacuum up the cheetos, stuff like that.


And what is depreciation on a item that's not resold?
You're saying that if you buy a Mac for $2,000 while
I buy a PC for $300, your Mac will retain a higher percentage
retail value after some years? So what? I only paid $300!
And I have no plan to resell my PC. (Unlike a Mac, a PC is
really just an assemblage of parts. I can reuse them to
make another cheap PC.)


Mac user "research".

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachme...4&d=1248062863

The x-axis is in hours.
Starting Price = 10am, Value Now = 4pm-ish.
The study seems to use two guesses as data

What other costs might there be? Aside from software,
I buy CD and DVD blanks occasionally. If a hard disk dies
I'll have to replace it, but that's not a common thing, and
that can also happen with a Mac.


You guys need to use Linux.
Make a PC look like a Mac, and gouge 'em

--
An effective way to deal with predators is to taste terrible.

On 8/13/14, 1:51 AM, Paul wrote:
Justin wrote:

Get a Mac, you can easily use a Mac for 5+ years.

Get a Mac, you won't have to worry about malware or viruses. It's a
simple fact.

I own a Mac, but would not be in a rush to promote
it to others.

For an example why, go to the Wireshark site, and try and figure
out which version of executable, runs on your machine. Programs
released for the Mac, are OS version specific, and an installer
can insist it will only run on some other version of OS. The
Wireshark people did not mark their archive list in any way,
leaving you with a ton of files to try and match against
your machine. My Mac runs MacOSX 10.3.

Wireshark is for IT pro's - a group of people (supposedly) well versed
is the systems they're screwing around with. Unless they're MCSE,
that's pretty much the Digital Dunce badge these days.


The Mac wasn't always that picky, and there were some eras
with good backward compatibility.

There were certain exploits for Safari (web browser), so
in some respects it's no different than running browsers
on other platforms.

It's really security by obscurity. If a significant market
share existed for Mac, there would be malware. Even if it
was social engineering at work, such as offering software
in a disk package, to tip over the machine. People love
free software, enjoy adding browser plugins when prompted
and so on. Getting something into the machine and getting
the user to click it, isn't going to be all that difficult.

Wrong.
With the jump in Mac sales there should be a jump in
breaches/infections/whatever but there isn't. It is simply more
difficult to create viruses and malware for OSX.


On Linux, people accept PPAs at the drop of a hat, so
again, social engineering can be used to achieve a
desired result. The human at the machine, is the
weakest link. "Click monkeys" tend to get infected,
no matter what platform they're on.

https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA

Paul

Get the packages from a repository associated with that distro and
there's nothing to worry about. Don't install one from some dude on teh
intarwebs.

Justin wrote:
On 8/22/14, 5:29 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| I don't understand. My PC doesn't cost anything to own.
|
| I stopped reading here. This is why techies shouldn't run businesses.
| Everything from maintenance to depreciation is lower on a Mac. It's a
| fact, look it up.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of maintenance.
I don't do any maintenance.

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/03/15/it-pr...nage-than-pcs/
"The Enterprise Desktop Alliance (an association of several Mac-centric
IT vendors) recently surveyed 260 IT administrators in the US to find
out which computing environment is cheaper to manage: PCs or Macs. It
turns out Macs cost less to manage than PCs for 65% of the IT admins
surveyed. 19% of survey respondents said the two platforms cost the same
to manage, while 16% said PCs cost less to manage than Macs."

But what criteria do they use when deciding whether to buy a PC or a Mac
for a particular job?

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

| http://www.tuaw.com/2010/03/15/it-pr...nage-than-pcs/
| "The Enterprise Desktop Alliance (an association of several Mac-centric
| IT vendors) recently surveyed 260 IT administrators in the US to find
| out which computing environment is cheaper to manage: PCs or Macs. It
| turns out Macs cost less to manage than PCs for 65% of the IT admins
| surveyed. 19% of survey respondents said the two platforms cost the same
| to manage, while 16% said PCs cost less to manage than Macs."

You started out saying that we/I would be better off with
Macs. Now you're talking about corporations. Corporations
rarely even use Macs. But I'm talking about me. For me a
Mac would be far more expensive, not to mention the software
lacking. To tell me I'd be better off with a Mac because some
corporate admin thinks they're easier to manage is not making
a case for Macs.

| Also, if you replace the motherboard you're supposed to get a different
| license for Windows. The installation key is married to the mainboard.

That's only partially accurate. If the license is OEM
it's married to the motherboard. A full Pro license,
which I have, can be moved to any number of
computers so long as it's only on one at a time.
You're imagining all kinds of problems and expenses
that just don't exist.