THE PACK Message Boards

shadow wulf
most 2 button mouses will work with a mac

geekboy1500 wrote:shadow wulf
most 2 button mouses will work with a mac

Oh yeah I know that but it has to be a usb port mouse.

Shadow Wulf wrote:Oh yeah I know that but it has to be a usb port mouse.

That's pretty much the only thing that's been made in the past 3 years anyway.

Lupin wrote:

Shadow Wulf wrote:Oh yeah I know that but it has to be a usb port mouse.

That's pretty much the only thing that's been made in the past 3 years anyway.

sorry, I have been using the old ones with ball in the middle for the past 3 years.

Those can still be USB. Several new computers don't even come with the old connections any more (yay.)

Lupin...I think you are 'Obsessed'.

...confusing...inapropriate...choice...of...words...

That is all it was.

I can't believe you made two entire posts about the fact that the article said "In" instead of "With".
(In all likelyhood, phrasing the entire statement completely differently, using neither word, would have been advisable to avoid such confusion)

And what was with the quoting of the definitions of "Operating Sytem" "Unix" and all that?


It's called a "Mistake" braniac. ...they happen...


Obviously, Unix is not a programming language, as you have been so insistant upon repeating as if I didn't allready know that well over a decade ago...

...so it does not take a great deal of inteligence to look at that quote, realise that the author clearly didn't mean it that way, and reasonably esitmate what the statement MEANT to say.


...sheesh...


Do you need me to post links to five different sites that give the definition of "Error", or find an article covering the frequency of gramatical and similar mistakes in published works, or can we move on?

geekboy1500 wrote: MACS CAN RUN WINDOWS
(without viruses)

...Oh brother...


A Mac running Windows is little more than a PC with variant hardware architecture.

It is the Software that controlls the security of the system...so a Windows Mac would be EQUALLY open to viruses as any other Windows PC running standard PC software.

It is the differences in Mac's proprietary OS and the programs that run with it that give it a higher rating of security over Windows and most Windows Software...

...but again...Mac OS is NOT "Immune" to virus's either!...

...merely more 'resistant' because of the streamlined, somewhat more refined software, and largely untouched because of being mosty ignored as targets by most Hackers.

Vuldari wrote:It's called a "Mistake" braniac.

Ah. Ad hominem.

I'm done here.

Lupin wrote:Ah. Ad hominem.

I'm done here.

I Meant a Gramatical mistake.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy.

Your Concieted, "I'm allways right...so everyone else must be wrong" attitude is really getting on my nerves.

You've insulted the credibility of my freinds, my ability to understand the research and information I find and even, aparently, my capacity to properly comprehend what we are talking about.

Your research shows discrepencies compared to my own. That is wierd and frustrating.

...but what the hell is up with this attitude of yours? So...the things I have learned from years of credible sources are false, but somehow all of YOUR information is infallible, and totally complete?


Take note. You are pissing me off, and I doubt anyone else here appreciates your attitude so far either.


Ralith challenged my information too, but I am not Pissed at him.

...why?...

Because he has been responding relevantly to the convesation and to the points presented, rather than going off on loosely related tangents about gramatical phrasing, or the "official" ownership and branding of products briefly mentioned...

...but mostly because he acknowlaged that there is some fact behind what I have been saying, and he presented his facts as elaboration upon and clarification of my statements, rather than trying to shoot me down and discredit my Knowlage and intelligence Completely, as your responses have been doing.

...Courtesy and Respect matter...



That said, I would like to appologise now for my unfrendly responses to the claims of Macs being "Virus-Proof". My challenge to this rediculous claim are fair, as no program as complex as a modern OS is flawless...but the way I have presented that challenge has been very rude.

I'm sorry.



So you say "Ad hominem"?...


...and just who has been attacking the dignity of which messenger here?...

Vuldari wrote:So...the things I have learned from years of credible sources are false, but somehow all of YOUR information is infallible, and totally complete?

folklore.org, is a first person account. Wikipeida is internally consistant, provides references, and agrees with sites like this, and this which is also a first person account. The refrences I have provided, are numerous, all support my position, and are consistant with each other.

I passed the quote you highlighted about Unix and the Apple II and everyone I asked said that, due to the second part of the sentence, the person who wrote that did not know what they were talking about.

Vuldari wrote:...Courtesy and Respect matter...

Explain how this is "Courtesy" or "Respect" then:

Vuldari wrote:...all you are prooving here is that you are a J***@** "Knowitall"

That said, I would like to appologise now for my unfrendly responses to the claims of Macs being "Virus-Proof". My challenge to this rediculous claim are fair, as no program as complex as a modern OS is flawless...but the way I have presented that challenge has been very rude.

In the beginning, I believe this all came to a simple misunderstanding: When I said the UNIX permissions system works, and Mac do not get viruses, I meant 'ever get viruses like Windows does'. In other words without application of root's powers, they don't wedge themselves into the OS through user action and can't ever be removed. Sure, you could probably get something that could change your web brower's home page to pr0n, send spam as fast as possible, and email itself to a bunch of people, but it would take direct interaction of the user and is easy enough to fix, you just remove the user's account, an start fresh. The ability for a user to run malicious code isn't a flaw in the OS, until it starts affecting things that aren't owned by that user. In Windows everyone is automaticly given an account equivlent to 'root' since various applications demand that just for basic functionality. Once you run malicious code as a privleged user, you're sunk. While this is true for both OS types, in various unix-based systems usage of the root account is discouraged, and, to assume root's powers, one must enter a second password, which may or may not be the same as the user's primary password.

Vuldari wrote:Lupin...I think you are 'Obsessed'.

...confusing...inapropriate...choice...of...words...

That is all it was.

I can't believe you made two entire posts about the fact that the article said "In" instead of "With".
(In all likelyhood, phrasing the entire statement completely differently, using neither word, would have been advisable to avoid such confusion)

And what was with the quoting of the definitions of "Operating Sytem" "Unix" and all that?


It's called a "Mistake" braniac. ...they happen...


Obviously, Unix is not a programming language, as you have been so insistant upon repeating as if I didn't allready know that well over a decade ago...

...so it does not take a great deal of inteligence to look at that quote, realise that the author clearly didn't mean it that way, and reasonably esitmate what the statement MEANT to say.


...sheesh...


Do you need me to post links to five different sites that give the definition of "Error", or find an article covering the frequency of gramatical and similar mistakes in published works, or can we move on?

geekboy1500 wrote: MACS CAN RUN WINDOWS
(without viruses)

...Oh brother...


A Mac running Windows is little more than a PC with variant hardware architecture.

It is the Software that controlls the security of the system...so a Windows Mac would be EQUALLY open to viruses as any other Windows PC running standard PC software.

It is the differences in Mac's proprietary OS and the programs that run with it that give it a higher rating of security over Windows and most Windows Software...

...but again...Mac OS is NOT "Immune" to virus's either!...

...merely more 'resistant' because of the streamlined, somewhat more refined software, and largely untouched because of being mosty ignored as targets by most Hackers.

Vuldari you are absolutely right (about the no viruses with macs running windows)


however i dissagree with the amount of annoyance you have at lupin (yes i know my grammer stinks) if he annoys you you do not have to keep posting the last thing we need is a flame war over somthing as stupid as operating systems

Lupin wrote:

Vuldari wrote:So...the things I have learned from years of credible sources are false, but somehow all of YOUR information is infallible, and totally complete?

folklore.org, is a first person account. Wikipeida is internally consistant, provides references, and agrees with sites like this, and this which is also a first person account. The refrences I have provided, are numerous, all support my position, and are consistant with each other.

I passed the quote you highlighted about Unix and the Apple II and everyone I asked said that, due to the second part of the sentence, the person who wrote that did not know what they were talking about.

That is very strange.

The thing is...I'm not just making this stuff up.

I found that quote because I was looking for it, having heard this (or similar) same information several times before, from different sources in the past.

I did a search for histories of OS sytems and the first article I found provided supportive information to what I had allready known.

I distinctly recall being told that the intoductory OS's for both Microsoft and Apple were built from, evolutions of, or at least in most significant ways modeled after the Original "Unix" program.

...up untill this discussion, I have never been confronted with any contest to this Supposed fact.

I find it suprising that I would have been fed the same mis-information multiple times over the last 8-10 years that I have begun taking interest in such information.

If anything good has come from this argument, it is that it has inspired me to invest more time to learn more of the fine details that I have often wondered about, but never looked up.

I will certainly look into it again...but I've heard the contrary too many times to simply take your word (Or Wikipedias) for it just yet.

Lupin wrote:

Vuldari wrote:...Courtesy and Respect matter...

Explain how this is "Courtesy" or "Respect" then:

Vuldari wrote:...all you are prooving here is that you are a J***@** "Knowitall"

That was me getting pissed because your responses had mostly been what came across as the equivilant to stamping a big red "WRONG" sign on my forehead...coupled with questioning my inteligence, and accusing my trusted, inteligent friend of exagerating the truth...which I know he did not, (Though the precise facts from the year-old conversation I have been referring to may be partially mis-remembered...which sadly happens to me often.).

No one likes being labeled the Fool...but insulting my freinds REALLY get's me steamed.

Lupin wrote:

That said, I would like to appologise now for my unfrendly responses to the claims of Macs being "Virus-Proof". My challenge to this rediculous claim are fair, as no program as complex as a modern OS is flawless...but the way I have presented that challenge has been very rude.

In the beginning, I believe this all came to a simple misunderstanding: When I said the UNIX permissions system works, and Mac do not get viruses, I meant 'ever get viruses like Windows does'. In other words without application of root's powers, they don't wedge themselves into the OS through user action and can't ever be removed. Sure, you could probably get something that could change your web brower's home page to pr0n, send spam as fast as possible, and email itself to a bunch of people, but it would take direct interaction of the user and is easy enough to fix, you just remove the user's account, an start fresh. The ability for a user to run malicious code isn't a flaw in the OS, until it starts affecting things that aren't owned by that user. In Windows everyone is automaticly given an account equivlent to 'root' since various applications demand that just for basic functionality. Once you run malicious code as a privleged user, you're sunk. While this is true for both OS types, in various unix-based systems usage of the root account is discouraged, and, to assume root's powers, one must enter a second password, which may or may not be the same as the user's primary password.

Now THIS is the 'relevant', On-Topic sort of response you should have presented from the beginning, rather than making all of that fuss about everything else.



I'm no expert on how most malicious programs work, but I'm still pretty sure that Mac's OS is not quite that air-tight...again... because of too much hearsay from trusted, experienced people I know who ARE, suggesting the contrary.

It's simply amazing what kinds of sneaky, supposedly "impossible" things hackers can do, given the right motivation and inspiration.

If it were that easy to virus-proof a computer, don't you think ALL new computers would be by now?...considering how much money buisnesses all over the world loose each year due to malicious code?

If Apple really was holding such a significant trump-card right now, wouldn't buisnesses everywhere be scrambling to replace all of thier PC's with macs to protect their assets?

I don't know or fully understand exactly how Mac's, and these other OS's are so secure (besides the idea that they are programed to "Not Let That Happen")...but something about all of this just doesn't add up to me.

...I'm not buying it...

I'm thinking that this idea is so commonly accepted because a significant access leak (or some other sneaky "Back Door" trick) has not been exploited on a mass scale on Macs...Yet...


I do not deny, however, that (for the time being) an average consumer running a Mac is exponentially more secure against dangerous code right now, vs. a PC running basic security programs.


...at least untill some ambitious Jerk decides to create a Mac-Cracking program, and it begins to wreak havok for overconfident Mac Users everywhere...

----------------------------------

Ovarall though...untill the day comes that Mac's can run all the Great New Computer games I want to play, I will have no reason to want to own one.


A "Secure" machine that does not do what I want it to do has no value for me.

...and a Mac running Windows is just an overpriced PC that would be a royal headache to try to upgrade later on (due to all the proprietary components).


In spite of thier numerous imbedded flaws, I remain a faithful PC man.

...though I look on upon the arrival of "Vista" with a wary...significantly less-than-enthusiastic... eye...

Vuldari wrote: If Apple really was holding such a significant trump-card right now, wouldn't buisnesses everywhere be scrambling to replace all of thier PC's with macs to protect their assets?

It's not that easy for a business to do things like that. A lot of them haven't even made the transition to XP yet. In a corprate environment one has to deal with all sorts of processes that make sure a business contiunes to run smoothly during the transition from one platform to another.

I don't know or fully understand exactly how Mac's, and these other OS's are so secure (besides the idea that they are programed to "Not Let That Happen")...but something about all of this just doesn't add up to me.

...I'm not buying it...

I'm thinking that this idea is so commonly accepted because a significant access leak (or some other sneaky "Back Door" trick) has not been exploited on a mass scale on Macs...Yet...

It's actually really simple. Unix is more secure, because it's already, 'run the gauntlet', it's gone through this period where people find flaws in its security model. There's been no shortage of attacks against the typical programs that run on a Unix host. However the developers have had the time to figure out ways to minimize any damage that could be cause by those sorts of attacks.

That's why so few things run as root, or drop unnecessary root privs. after doing what they need.

One also has to take into account the fact that Windows started out as a single-user operating system with limited to no network connectivity, and Unix started started out as a multiuser OS. This means it's had to support access control from day one, while with Windows this sort of thing was added later.

...and a Mac running Windows is just an overpriced PC that would be a royal headache to try to upgrade later on (due to all the proprietary components).

Actually, other than what keeps OS X from running on whitebox PCs, there isn't anything like that anymore. It's not like back in the old days when Mac and PCs used competing standards for everything.

...though I look on upon the arrival of "Vista" with a wary...significantly less-than-enthusiastic... eye...

Honestly, I downloaded the beta, and I wasn't too impressed. It went way overboard in asking me if I was sure I wanted to do whatever it was to the machine, and I think users are going to end up cliking through things without bothering to use them.

Lupin wrote:

...and a Mac running Windows is just an overpriced PC that would be a royal headache to try to upgrade later on (due to all the proprietary components).

Actually, other than what keeps OS X from running on whitebox PCs, there isn't anything like that anymore. It's not like back in the old days when Mac and PCs used competing standards for everything.

Have you ever actually tried to upgrade an Apple computer before?

...I'm talking physical components here...power-supply...extra drives...graphics card...processor...RAM...etc.

Unless this has recently changed (I know they have finally adopted Intell compatability at least), most or all Mac components have to be specifically 'Mac Compliant', and Apple happily charges 25-100% more for thier parts, compared to comparable, non-specific hardware for a PC.

My brother tells me that "DELL" does the same thing with thier PC's (Or at least with HIS), but to a lesser extent.

Vuldari wrote:

Lupin wrote:

...and a Mac running Windows is just an overpriced PC that would be a royal headache to try to upgrade later on (due to all the proprietary components).

Actually, other than what keeps OS X from running on whitebox PCs, there isn't anything like that anymore. It's not like back in the old days when Mac and PCs used competing standards for everything.

Have you ever actually tried to upgrade an Apple computer before?

...I'm talking physical components here...power-supply...extra drives...graphics card...processor...RAM...etc.

Unless this has recently changed (I know they have finally adopted Intell compatability at least), most or all Mac components have to be specifically 'Mac Compliant'

512MB of 533MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-4200)

160GB Serial ATA hard drive

16x SuperDrive (double-layer)

Three open PCI-Express expansion slots

NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE with 128MB GDDR SDRAM

That's a listing for a G5 PowerMac. As you can see, they're all standard components.

Lupin wrote:That's a listing for a G5 PowerMac. As you can see, they're all standard components.

So was My brothers Powersupply (the exact same hardware as the generic...or so it seemed), untill he actually tried to replace it with a more powerful one that would support his extra drives and energy hog graphics card...

...same box...different plugs.

To get a comparable PowerSupply to what he originally bought, he had to pay nearly $100 more...just because the plugs were proprietary.

The hardware really isn't any different, aside from the variant plug (with reversed connections, or something like that), so if one (who knew what they were doing) simply modified the connection, any brand would work. ...but he didn't trust his re-wiring skills enough to risk his whole box over it, so he payed.

I know that Mac's used to be this way too...again...unless it has recently changed in the last few years.

Vuldari wrote: So was My brothers Powersupply (the exact same hardware as the generic...or so it seemed), untill he actually tried to replace it with a more powerful one that would support his extra drives and energy hog graphics card...

...same box...different plugs.

To get a comparable PowerSupply to what he originally bought, he had to pay nearly $100 more...just because the plugs were proprietary.

The hardware really isn't any different, aside from the variant plug (with reversed connections, or something like that), so if one (who knew what they were doing) simply modified the connection, any brand would work. ...but he didn't trust his re-wiring skills enough to risk his whole box over it, so he payed.

I know that Mac's used to be this way too...again...unless it has recently changed in the last few years.

Yeah, that was considered a very bad move on the part of Dell. The G5 PSU isn't an ATX powersuply, but the case isn't exactly ATX form factor either. The powersupplies seem to be equivlent in price to ATX ones of similar specs, depending on where you shop. As Apple isn't shipping any Intel PowerMacs yet, I couldn't tell you what they're going to do there.

I just realised that Lupin and I are dragging the convesation off-topic again.


Microsoft "Windows" vs. "Mac OS 10.4"


(Operating systems...not hardware...my bad...)


From a user-standpoint, does anyone know any featrues-of-note that are available on a Mac, that can not be done in Current versions of Windows, and vise versa?

I've heard that the "Seach" function is much more useful on macs, vs windows, and "Widgets" are apparently pretty cool.

...any cool Windows features that are sorely missed when switching to a Mac?...



[Discuss]

dont care threads here seem to take on a life of there own

new mac laptops at least have a dedecated easy to remove panel for upgrading ram etc. for me at least macs have enought hard drive space (up to 120 GB at 5400 rpm or 100 GB at 7200 rpm) to last there lifetime ram is also sufficent (up to 2 GB) but again this is for my standards as the regular old mac owner. I realize that if you are gaming or somthing (i have a Xbox 360 for that ) you May need more, i dont really know

as to features, not really
you can completely custimize your desktop to accomadate prettymuch everything you want, battery life, bluetooth, wifi, ethernet, lifespan of your mothers fathers best friend's former roomate, etc.

geekboy1500 wrote:dont care threads here seem to take on a life of there own

new mac laptops at least have a dedecated easy to remove panel for upgrading ram etc. for me at least macs have enought hard drive space (up to 120 GB at 5400 rpm or 100 GB at 7200 rpm) to last there lifetime ram is also sufficent (up to 2 GB) but again this is for my standards as the regular old mac owner. I realize that if you are gaming or somthing (i have a Xbox 360 for that ) you May need more, i dont really know

100 GB of hard-drive space is MORE than enough for most users, and 2GB of ram is pretty darn good, even for gaming.

I was running on 512 up untill recently when I tripled it to 1.5GB so I could run "Oblivion" more smoothly. Two-Gigs is considered fairly high end, as most software and games are not even programed to take advantage of more than that (if even that much).

geekboy1500 wrote:as to features, not really
you can completely custimize your desktop to accomadate prettymuch everything you want, battery life, bluetooth, wifi, ethernet, lifespan of your mothers fathers best friend's former roomate, etc.

Mac desktops drive me nuts. ...not sure exactly why...but those annoying "Rolling, Expanding" toolbars surely don't help.
(Yes, I know that you can turn that off)

...I'm not aware of any of those things NOT being possible on a Windows desktop as well...

Shadow Wulf wrote:I personaly like both, I like PCs a little better, but I got nothing on mac except the one click mouse. otherwise macs are better for graphics software.

all right WHY are macs better for developers, grafic artists etc. (yes i know i spelled that wrong)

Well, i'm most famillair with windows. I have worked with Macs before and I have found in my incredibly limited expirience that the fact tht you can:

-make entirely new skins for windows xp
-run most if computer games including ones meant for other platforms through emulators
-use a ten-button mouse easily and have a definite use for each button
-have 5,000 icons on your desktop

kindof outranks Mac.

yes 114000 viruses is certainly more than 32, if your going by the numbers that is.

and i will say this again WHY is macintosh better for graphic designers, artists etc. etc. etc.

Kzinistzerg wrote:-use a ten-button mouse easily and have a definite use for each button

Someone missed the large graphic on the first page:

geekboy1500 wrote:yes 114000 viruses is certainly more than 32

Macs practicly has no viruses.....if their is 32 viruses what are the odds you'll catch one them?