.:Computer Defense:.

I have read through most of the posts here, and had initially developed a running dialog of responses, but then decided that there was too much hype and too much flaming going on for me to adequately respond to many of the posters here.

I will address a couple of points on my own, and move on – and I hope people realize that these are not meant to be flames, but in fact are relevant points that I feel need to be shared.

First off, I am almost 36 years old, been playing with computers since I was 12, and have the most experience with Windows-based PCs, with Linux and MacOS having almost equal time as second place. I know PCs better, and have used them longer, and have made my living supporting them because it is the most prevalent technology out there. That being said:

1) The initial debate started over whether Apple users had any more reason to display public outrage at the M$ EULA regarding the non-virtualization allowances for home editions of Vista. Arguments were made back and forth how Apple, it its own licensing statements, were politically motivated or motivated by some other factor because they are making the hardware as well, and thus want to be able to secure that their OS is run on their hardware, whereas the M$ EULA disallows the use of virtualization software of their Home version of Vista.

How can no one see that the motivation to sell more hardware is still a profit motive, when all is said and done? How can no one see that HT's arguments that M$ is providing alternatives, and that the M$ EULA is still *less* restrictive than the Apple License in the first place?

Also, for those arguing that you will need to run Vista for compatibility issues – let me remind you of one very *pertinent fact – and someone illustrated this very well in an earlier post. Mac users say they need to ensure cross-compatibility in an in-house developed spreadsheet, to ensure it works across all platforms in terms of OffixeX and Office 2003 / 2007. Keep in mind, folks, that Office 97, 2000, XP, 2003 *and* 2007 ***ALL RUN ON XP**** – so can you tell me why you *need* Vista again? For the blokes developing *applications* that need to be tested on various platforms, of for those sharing information in documents, spreadsheets, etc. that might run into problems with Vista's enhanced security, I can understand – however, to say that you only need Vista Home editions to test is utterly flawed in the first place, and sure it makes it easier to be able to drop into an OS without having to reboot, but lets face it – if you feel the need to test out your software / data store / whatever in Vista, you probably want to test in more than just the Home – I can see very few times where you would want to test in Home only and not in Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate. So, the arguments pointing to the M$ EULA and calling it [insert deprecatory remark of choice] are pretty much flawed, pointless, and invalid.

2) RE: the use of a modern OS on semi-antiquated hardware:

http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?s=&showtopic=12974&view=findpost&p=56483

Yes, quite frankly it can. It helps if you know what you are doing when you build a system instead of buying a cheap, slapped together box from a major marketer whose interest is in making the most profit from the bought-in-bulk POS limited upgradeable hardware.

This is still the same rig that I built, on which I installed Win XP SP1, Fedora Core 2, Debian Etch, Gentoo and Jackass! Gentoo, Ubuntu and Xubuntu, and now Vista RC1, RC2 and Ultimate final (3 days ago!). The same rig. The only upgrades, in terms of hardware, are larger drives (started out with 2 15 GB 5400 rpm and immediately went to 7200 RPM drives for performance, and now have 3 drives – a 120, an 80 and a 60 GB drive, all 7200 RPM), the CD ROM became a Memorex 52MAXX CDRW, and the original 100 Mbit NIC is now a NetGear Gigabit NIC (since I have a Gigabit router and am running Gigabit Ethernet on my internal network). Processor is still the same – P4 2.0(A) GHz Northwood CPU with 512KB L2 Cache, 1 GB matched pair of PC2100 RAM and an nVidia GeForce 4 MX 440 based GA (AGP). Amazingly I was able to install *all* of those OS's – but per Apple's license, I cannot install OS X any way, manner or fashion on this machine without violating the Licensing statement.

Does this help the argument just a little bit?

Enough of this.

Me again!

OK two last things as I think we have now addressed nearly all your FUD if people bother to read between the flaming and notice what you had no response to.

i) According to your link not only did they need to use an unecessary third party peripheral with Microsoft – style sloppily coded drivers, but they also needed to put the card into active scanning mode.
So they'd need access to the actual Mac and need to be logged in in the first place!
Or happen to be trying to perform their 'hack' when it's in that mode (typically only when you first connect to the local network and for about 30secs)
Wow, what a huge vulnerability. Far worse than those typically reported for any Windows build.
Silly me, it must be Macs that account for all the Bot nets.

ii) I forgot to riposte earlier; Stealth mode.
When visiting a site that is not fully trusted or taking part in an IM/IRC chat surely it's considered more secure to be in a mode where no unauthorised code is exchanged and no details of your platform/browser/net id/IP address are given thus giving malicious people no info to go on about the best way to try and ruin your day.
Not that they can currently do anything to me.
But it's yet another security feature that's provided 'just in case'.

PS it seems to me a lot of your dissatifaction with your Mac Mini boils down to;
a) not enough included memory.

I quite agree they should have more as standard although if you had a comparable Dell with the same specs and Vista it wouldn't do nearly as much at once. Heck it'd hardly run!

b) It doesn't work like a Windows machine so you don't always know where stuff is.

Funnily enough I always find if you put a total novice in front of OSX they're up and running very quickly and are far less hesitant to play with everthing than if you put them in front of a Windows machine.

I also find if you put an MCSE in front of one they complain t'il the cows come home basically cos it's not what they've got used to.
A few simple pointers along the lines of 'why would you have to do that? Just look where it would be sensible to put it, not where you're used to it being. & Just try what seems like a simple way to achieve it." has them saying things like "oh, is that all you do" but usually leaves them unsettled because they haven't clicked through enough dialog boxes or had to do enough typing or selecting.

Oh well, to each his own, but do try and get the facts right.

As a note.. I'm starting to limit the comments on this blog and delete any of the ones that are just insults… I think I've been enough of a sport with publishing them… I could also use them to demonstrate the tactics that some Mac users resort to… but I won't do that either.. I'm just not going to acknowledge them from this point on..

That being said I have four of you to address… justsaying, Zekel, LimeyBloke, Martin and Steve…

I'll try to respond to all of it, let me know if I've missed anything:

justsaying: Thanks for the clarification

Zekel: Yes those are user preference, however isn't it to look and feel that's always said to have convinced the "know nothing illiterates" to switch to Macs? (forgive the term.. but it's the easiest and shortest way to describe them)..

(I'm not addressing the Virtualization and EULA vs SLA issue because I think w have to agree to disagree… I see them as both being bottom of the line, money grabs and treat them both the same way… )

I agree that the advertising campaign is targeted to Windows users…

The firewall is enabled by default in XP SP 2.

Thanks for the link to the Window Application Switcher

LimeyBloke (and anyone else who the wifi issue was addressed with)… I'll point you towards <a href="http://projects.info-pull.com/mokb/MOKB-01-11-2006.html&quot; rel="nofollow">MOKB #1</a>

Martin: reread this thread… plenty of people have referred to Vista as XP with pretty graphics

Steve:

On Security (this can also apply for other people): If you want features in Vista that aren't present in OS X… How about ASLR, DEP and Patchguard? How about a built in anti-malware client..

As for the Admin account being default previously… yes it was… but Windows relied on users to create their own account… Users didn't do that…

As for UAC… I get popups from it about as infrequently as I do from my Mac… So I'm still not sure why the Mac community is attacking this.

On Virtualization: Your comments are fair… However they could do Vista in Bootcamp and XP in Parallels.. A properly configured XP is plenty secure for the internet.

As for the two things I continually ignore:

I. I've actually mentioned this a couple of times in my comments.. that ever 10.x is a different operating system.. not just an upgrade I realize this and address this. However everyone else wants to discuss them as a single OS… so I'm going to use that to my advantage…

II. The issue here is that Apple is not simply a hardware vendor… they do both… Do I know my mini needs more ram… of course I do.. but with Dell, for example, they are a hardware vendor.. the OS is of no concern to them.. Apple well the OS and hardware are of concern to them…. so they should sell a machine that can handle itself initally (yes I realize it's a mini)…

I've heard of 1Ghz PCs with 1GB RAM running vista… so I bet a 600Mhz PC with 1GB of RAM could… Maybe not with full aero support… but I'm sure it would run it.

As for how it looks antiquated.. I find it very Window 3.1ish… Especially things like an Applications Folder… (again this is just personal opinion)

Louis,

I approved your comment… but I'm not going to reply to much of it… There are a couple reasons but I'll rely on another Mac user who's been posting here to back me up…

Martin said, "anyone reasonable would not refer to Vista as XP with pretty graphics" (<a rel="nofollow" href="#comment-2599" rel="nofollow">posted here</a>)

Other reasons.. I still don't know that I consider NeXTStep (and therefore OS X) to be a modern OS…

I don't agree that Apple is becoming a major Microsoft competitor.. not yet anyways… Are they excelling in non-computer areas.. Yep.. but in the computer market.. they aren't a major competitor yet.. Perhaps when they have <a rel="nofollow" href="http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&quot; rel="nofollow">closer to a 25% market share</a> I'll consider them a serious competitor.

I don't agree that Apple is 5 years ahead of Microsoft in OS Development and your sources on Vista are "<strong>disgruntled</strong> Microsoft employees".. Disgruntled being the keyword…

You also say "WinCE is a joke" without any backing that up… something I've been attacked for when I haven't said anything that out there… Although I'll point you towards <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/default.mspx&quot; rel="nofollow">Windows Mobile</a>…

One last thing, I'd like to point you to <a rel="external nofollow" href="http://www.calendarofupdates.com/&quot; rel="nofollow">John Galt</a><a rel="nofollow" href="#comment-2661" rel="nofollow">'s post above</a> for reference on running Vista with Aero on an older PC (circa 2002).

Hi As I see it,
I mostly agree what what you said. The last thing that Microsoft wants is direct competition in PC OS's from Apple and Apple is unlikely to do that.

The real indication of their motivations come from where each gets their money. 80% of Microsoft's money come from Windows sales to OEM's while Apple gets their money from Hardware sales. It makes no sense for Microsoft to start making PC's like Dell or HP, or for Apple to start selling Mac OSX to OEM's. Dell or HP might like Apple to sell its OS to them, since that unshackles them from Microsoft, but that is very unlikely.

Apple can get away with allowing Windows XP to run in BootCamp or Parallels, because it is a "come on." Personal preferences aside, next to nobody who seriously tries the Macintosh for three months will go back to Windows. It takes that long to unlearn the "Windows" way of doing things. And as long as Apple stays ahead of Microsoft in OS development, the migration will be from the Windows side to the Mac. Eventually, even Windows zealots like HTRegz will convert. He's not a dummy, just brainwashed.

"I think Microsoft’s best interest should be to allow anyone to virtualize “Vista Home” on Parallels."

You would think so, but Microsoft is a monopolist. It doesn't want you to directly compare its Windows OS to Mac OSX on Apple hardware, because the comparison is unfavorable. That is why it broke so many things in Vista.

Microsoft will also try to avoid Virtualization of its software by charging more for the possibility of doing so. MS has made it difficult to use Windows inside Xen, but IBM and Intel collaborated recently to provide a hardware solution that makes it easier for a Hypervisor to place calls to Windows. That way the Windows OS doesn't even know that it is sharing a computer with another OS.

"If they don’t, they could lose some sales. To offset the loss they must convince enough people to buy the more expensive “Vista IDon’tRememberWhich Edition”. "

Microsoft wants people to stick with the "devil they know." I suspect that they are trying to confuse the issue so that they can milk the most money from their customers. The Longhorn fiasco cost them $7 billion in return for nothing and Microsoft's customers must be forced to pay for it.

Most people will get Vista when they buy a new computer, because upgrading is too confusing. Even to upgrade a two year old computer to Areo Vista will likely cost $250 plus the cost of the software according to PC World.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128930-pg,1/article.html

That means that upgrading an older computer to Areo Vista will cost $500 to $600, so why not buy a new $1200 to $1500 computer? Microsoft, naturally, wants that computer to be a Dell, HP or Lenovo, not Apple.

Apple is acting like a marauder: it is picking off converts from the periphery of the Microsoft herd. Apple doesn't want the low end computer or the enterprise market or the high end games yet. What it wants is the most profitable half of the consumer, creative and education markets. It's hardware is competing well against Sony, IBM, HP and Dell. Value conscious customers are increasingly turning to Apple.

Apple is on a high growth rate in market share (26% annually) while the market is almost flat (5%.) Apple's Consumer Electronics offering's are doing quite well (iPod, iTunes Store etc) and Apple will be expanding that segment with a bunch of new offerings (iPhone, Apple TV, etc.)

The projected market share for Apple in 2010 is to double what it currently has (5% of the US market and under 3% of the world market.) Apple will have some difficulty supplying that growth, because it doesn't want to grow too fast. Fast growth always introduces inefficiencies that come back to bite you. Apple is small enough that doubling its market share is comparatively easy. And doubling its market cap from doubling its sales at its high profit margins, will make it bigger than Microsoft by 2011 or 2012.

If you look at this link it it wouild appear that home editions are fine to run in v'tion, but the 'higher end' versions have the restriction.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/104107/vista-home-virtualisation-is-a-technology-tax-parallels.html

"Besides I believe that other users are sitting here telling me that OS X runs fine on any released Mac… now you’re telling me that it needs 1GB of RAM to operate?"

Those are two seperate issues, aren't they? Some G3 iMacs with plenty of RAM can run Panther fine. Mac OS X, just like Windows, does better with more RAM. In the case of Mac OS X, al least, less RAM means that the computer must use virtual memory more often if more applications are open.

Also, check this out:

http://marmadukeexplained.blogspot.com/