attn: computer peoples

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by surferboy, Jan 1, 2009.

  1. surferboy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,182
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunrise, Florida
    i have a quick question. i have windows vista, yah? what's the difference between sleep and hibernate in the close down menu thing?
     
  2. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Sleep is sometimes known as 'suspend to RAM', hibernate as 'suspend to disk'. Essentially sleep is a low power use state, hibernate is a zero power use state where the entire 'session' is saved to disk.

    Read about them here ...

    Practical PC Online - Beginner's Guides: Sleep Or Hibernate?
     
  3. BlackCock85

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,655
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    64
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    I may be wrong, haven't had a pc in awhile, but I thought sleep put the computer to "sleep" but the harddrive was still going. As opposed to hibernate that turns the harddrive off and is essentially like you turned your computer off but when you go back to it there is no boot-up like if you had actually turned the computer off all the way.

    Or what he said, lol.
     
  4. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,595
    Likes Received:
    884
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    You have to be asleep to buy a windows PC.

    You have to be in Hibernation to buy Vista.
     
  5. surferboy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,182
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunrise, Florida
    aaaaand of course phil's here to troll peoples

    but mahalo dong and black
     
  6. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,595
    Likes Received:
    884
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Its not trolling...surfer...

    Just fact... only one computer maker has enjoyed an increasing in market share these past many years.

    I actually have two windows machines... and I occasionally have to run windows on my Macs.
    It works okay as long as I do not, in any way, allow any windows system to see or speak to any other windows system. Routing ALL internet traffic and email thru the macs.


    For most users... Buying a windows machine is like having unprotected sex with 100 million other people.
    ...Might as well wear a sign saying "INFECT ME!"

    By not allowing my windows machines to speak to the net... and relying on Macs for all incoming and outgoing traffic, I have not had a single piece of malware in 21 years.
     
  7. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    How do you figure that one?

    Merely routing all traffic through a perceived 'safe' route to a perceived 'risky' location will have zero effect on any risks that traffic carries - in other words if your email attachment has a virus when it's sent, it will still have one when it arrives via your magical MAC filtering or not. Why ... because that's all routing does ... route.

    Unless you are applying some form of packet or other filtering in which case the MAC isn't doing anything. If you are, then your statement is somewhat disingenuous.

    There's a reason MACs are not the mainstream target for virus and other attacks; it's not because Windows OSs are inherently insecure, it's because people are.

    If you can access the NET via your wintel box, then it is talking to the NET. If all you have relied on for protection is MAC passthrough, then what has primarily protected you is blind luck. Not to mention that Malware or virus' as it's meant today hasn't been around for anything like 21 years.
     
  8. surferboy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,182
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunrise, Florida
    it's one thing for recommend not buying something, then there's dissing the peoples that do buy them. sorry i'm not a mac person *rolls eyes*
     
  9. Deno

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    27
    there's a bad apple in every bunch, hehe.
     
  10. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,595
    Likes Received:
    884
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Um, no , it won't... because the PCs never see the attachment.
    All my email, FTP and other net applications are strictly done on the mac platform. We only have the PCs to run ONE program that we use in our business... and that is MOSTLY producing files for export.
    Other than that, all our computer work is done on the mac.


    The ONLY files that actually get forwarded to the PC are files that have either been manipulated on the Macs.... such a pictures that we re-format for import into our software... or files such as raw STL and point cloud data than can not carry viruses.

    Interestingly... Most PC viruses that are invisible on PCs actually show up as exe files on the Mac desktop...
    And because we do not use ANY MS browsers, macro enabled, or email apps, we don't ever see the hidden exploits that find their way in thru MS's shitty software execution.

    As to disingenous- I can tell you that I set up 2 factories overseas, who were PLAGUED by PC viruses and malware, with iMacs to handle all their customer correspondence... and strict instructions to not allow any PC access to the internet.

    That alone eliminated 99% of their malware events.


    I partly agree... however, Apple does generally produce much better, much more secure systems and software.
    I have been thru 5 major OS changes with Apple and every one of them has been essentially painless and trouble free.

    And Apple rigorously tests their own software and, when they find a vulnerability, immediately issue an update. Whereas MS is famous for waiting for some hacker to take advantage of a vulnerability before they even admit to it.




    Bullshit. I got my first virus on a Mac 23 years ago. ( 1985 ) Back then, Apple had a much larger share of the PC market. It was before Windows 1 even came out.
    Secondly... whether or not my PC can "see" our LAN is moot. They have firewalls preventing any tacit intrusion, and their browser and email software has been rendered inoperable.

    On the Mac side, firewalls prevent any tacit intrusion, and all active traffic is thru NON-microsoft browsers, mail and FTP clients.

    All files transfer to and from the mac environment... are opened in non-MS Mac software, and the files re-formated prior to being copied to the server that the PCs do have access to.

    You can call it luck if you want...
    But it works... Given that I have 4 workers generating 500 mbs per day of incoming and outgoing data... I would say that 8 years without a single PC Virus is pretty solid evidence that I am doing something right.
     
  11. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,595
    Likes Received:
    884
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    PS- We do not re-format all incoming data as an antivirus precaution... even tho it has that effect...
    We re-format because it is necessary to bring the data into the software we use.

    But if not for that ONE piece of Windows only software we need to run.... the simplest and most direct way to eliminate viruses is to simply not use Windows PCs.

    Sure... the primary cause of Mac invulnerability is simply that there are not enough of them on the net to propagate viruses effectively...

    So what?

    For whatever reason, they don't get viruses.
     
  12. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Then, as I previous stated, your own assertion was disingenuous.

    The clear implication was that merely routing your traffic through the MACs would somehow clean it up. Again, mere routing will not remove attachments or prevent attacks, that isn't what routing is. What you are referring to is filtering which is not all the same thing.

    To make an analogy; an armed thief wants to break into your house, merely coming via the nice next door neighbourhood won't remove his weapon, whereas a roadblock might. It's an important distinction to remember when making the assertions you did.

    Then again, you should have been more specific in your statement.

    Again, none of this was mentioned in your post. You merely threw out some general statements.

    What you wrote was disgingenuous because you omitted a great deal of salient information, while implying that MACs are able to remove such material, merely by virtue of being MACs.

    Better is rather subjective, so let's leave that aspect to personal choice?

    You appear to be taking my comments as an attack on MACs. They're not, I have no beef with MACs - I like them a great deal and have used them for years - but they are not the miracle machines that many of their evangelisers would tout them to be.

    Macs are not targetted because (in part) they don't have a big enough market share to make it worthwhile - and (in part) because Apple isn't hated the way Microsoft is. It has far less to do with any inherent lack of security.

    I think that's infamous.

    Well, firstly - comparing the situation almost 25 years ago with that today isn't really adding value.

    Secondly - It's not bullshit. I said talking to not connected to. A stateless HTTP session vs a socket connection (for example) - which aren't the same things at all. To restate; you omitted all mention of firewalls and software neutering.

    I worked on the assumption you had them, even though in was only an assumption - but none of what you assert is especially inherent to MACs but simple good security practice. Your posts were (perhaps unintentionally) misleading in that regard to anyone who didn't know how to secure a network - a clear implication being that DMZing some MACs will solve your problems, well as we both know - it won't.

    It would have been luck had your setup been as you implied. As you have now provided fuller details then it's far less a case of luck. I didn't say you were doing anything wrong, I was disputing your assertion as to the simplicity of achieving that result.

    No OS is invulnerable and If the market share % were reversed, I'd wager so would this argument. I'm not disputing the comparative infection rates merely the primary reasons for them.
     
    #12 dong20, Jan 2, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2009
  13. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,595
    Likes Received:
    884
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    I am not responsible for your misinterpretation of my meaning.

    I never said I used the mac as a 'router'...I used the word route, not router.

    A mac is NOT a "router"... and I did not say it was one nor used as one... therefore, I don't know why you would make the assumption that I was using THAT definition of the word, rather than the common meaning of the word.
    If I said I route all my email thru a yahoo account you would not assume I meant that I was using yahoo as a "router", would you?

    And, actually, YES... run ALL internet traffic from a mac and avoid ALL Microsoft software on your mac ( non-MS browsers, and clients and nothing with MS "macro" capacity ) and you will find your chances of being infected drop by 90% or more. I know because I have done it. 90% of infected files that might come in will never get transferred to your PC because they will clearly be bogus.
    ( of course, you have to avoid using Excel and other regularly exploited MS crapware, too)

    Yes sir Mr Communication nazi, sir... I will do my best to accommodate your fundamental limitations on discourse...

    You mean, like you did in yours? Like, about viruses 20 years ago?


    Bullshit. Don't tell me what I 'implied".... you are just making up stuff in your own mind and claiming I said it without having said it.

    Excuse me if I paid you the compliment of assuming you understood the basics and could understand me in that context.

    Macs don't remove viruses and I never said they did. They are, however, impervious to viruses that afflict windows systems... therefore, on your mac, you never have to worry about opening attachments nor websites that spuriously seize control of the shithole MS browser you're not using, and download shit without you seeing it or being able to stop it in time.


    Actually, better is quantifiable. In marketing its determined by customer satisfaction and brand loyalty data. People willingly pay more for Macs, and once having bought a Mac, overwhelmingly tend to come back to Apple for their future purchases, despite the price disincentive.

    PC users show no particular loyalty to any manufacturer, demonstrating an inability to see any benefit from any one over the others in terms of quality, service or durability.

    As far as recognition, Apple steadily wins design awards for both hardware and software design, and consistently is the innovator that other company's seek to copy.
    By all rational measures, yes, Apple makes the better machine.



    I do not take your comments as an attack on Macs... just as parsing and overly picayune.

    I do not think they are miracle machines any more than I think a G35 is a miracle machine... That doesn't mean, however, that I am incapable of discerning that the G35 is a hellava better car that the Chevy Cobalt. More responsive, more fun, and better engineered.

    They both serve much the same function... either would get me to work... but one is definitely gonna make the experience a lot more satisfying.


    Not meant to add value, just to point out that the statement YOU made was, perhaps not disingenous, but flat out incorrect.
    Yes there were viruses, trojan horses and their like back when the Mac was relatively new.
    Back then they spread among macs because the community was pretty small overall, and close knit; MUGs ( mac user groups) were all over and they tended to swap discs a lot.... ( what we used to call VD- venereal discs ) It was a heady time when most users would accept any old disc ( we called them 'slots' )

    Sure, the rise of the net, and the indolence of Microsoft has created all kinds of NEW ways in which hackers can exploit software... And rendered macs so few and far between on the net as to make Mac viruses unable to effectively propagate.


    Again, sorry I assumed you were bright enough to figure out that when I say I don't let my PCs 'talk' to other PCs that you could figure out that they do not connect to the internet ( mostly other PCs) nor do they even connect directly with each other.
    The only thing each PC can see is the storage server.
    When I say they don't talk to other PCs I mean they don't talk to other PCs in any way.


    PCs are like gremlins... don't get them wet or feed them after mdinight and they can be well mannered.

    ( Whoa, now...not that you should imagine that I am implying that water or food actually factor into computer malware proliferation......)


    My only disagreement is that I don't think you and I are in dispute on this point.
    It would not even take a reversal... just the threshold percentage of macs in the grid to allow a chain reaction of infection.

    But I will assert that Apple pays a LOT more attention to their software than does Microsoft. IN part, it is easier for Apple to make better software because they control the hardware on which it will run.
    And I don't feel they make a better product cause JObs is a "visionary"... I think they make a better product because they HAVE to, or they would die.

    In competing against the overwhelming monopoly of Windows and clone PCs, They can not possibly do so on price...
    their only option is to do so in quality.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted