Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Brags About Vista, Reacts to Apple's Latest Ads

fr8_liner writes "In an unusually candid interview with Newsweek Bill Gates lays it all on the line, bragging about the benefits of Vista, ragging on Apple for their 'I'm a Mac' ads, and claiming primacy in a number of features shared by Vista and OSX. Specifically, it is Mr. Gates' opinion that the Apple adverts are misleading if not untruthful. He makes the claim that 'security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.' The interview also touches on the future of Microsoft and Operating systems, and some of the company's plans for internet-based computing."

891 comments

  1. ring ring by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 5, Funny

    > And then I might edit a high-definition movie

    Bill, is that the MPAA on the phone?

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    1. Re:ring ring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      no u

    2. Re:ring ring by ReverendLoki · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:ring ring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No its the RIAA. Hand in your geek pass on the way out please.

      Don't you feel stupid now. Unless of course that's how you always feel.

    4. Re:ring ring by billimad · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ok i feel pretty stupid. this might take me some time to get over.

    5. Re:ring ring by GuyverDH · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, he probably wouldn't get it.

      He probably has 20 or 30 HD Camcorders lying around unused, and thought, hey - I can edit HD movies.

      I really don't want to know what's on those tapes. You shouldn't either.

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
    6. Re:ring ring by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sorry bud, GP got it right. MPAA = Motion Picture Association of America, while RIAA = Recording Industry Association of America.

      And together they form the MAFIAA = Music And Film Industry Association of America!!

    7. Re:ring ring by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      this might take me some time to get over. Don't be too hard on yourself. I'm sure nobody noticed. After all Slashdot only has a million registered users.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    8. Re:ring ring by sh3l1 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Does anyone else think that a name that could be pronounced the same as "the mafia" for 2 companies that have mafia-like tactics might have been a bad idea?

      --
      Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
    9. Re:ring ring by 5of0 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Did you hear that woosh?

      --
      You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
    10. Re:ring ring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha pathetic little trolls, where has your wikipedia page gone?

    11. Re:ring ring by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 0

      And together they form the MAFIAA = Music And Film Industry Association of America!!

      No, together they form Voltron (the industry association one, not the lion one or the little vehicle one).

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    12. Re:ring ring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I herd u leik mudkips?

    13. Re:ring ring by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 3, Informative

      NSFW

    14. Re:ring ring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Does anyone else think that a name that could be pronounced the same as "the mafia" for 2 companies that have mafia-like tactics might have been a bad idea?

      Hey, you're right! I can't believe nobody noticed it. You know what else I learned today? That it turns out that the word gullible is not actually in the dictionary!

    15. Re:ring ring by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Dammit, warn somebody before posting a link like that, won't you? :-O

    16. Re:ring ring by Phantasmagoria2007 · · Score: 1

      plokaxhqflrvybn@zethus.cs.arizona.edu me too :)

    17. Re:ring ring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to 4chan and get v&

    18. Re:ring ring by PhoenixAtlantios · · Score: 1

      You've never seen Lemonparty before? Welcome to the Internet mate! :)

      P.S: If you happen to locate any links that have the words tubgirl, goatse or meatspin in them you may want to avoid them also. Unless you're into that kind of thing.

    19. Re:ring ring by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      He probably has 20 or 30 HD Camcorders lying around unused, and thought, hey - I can edit HD movies.

      Because you sure as shit can't do that on XP. I never knew video editing/DVD making was easy until I got a Mac. I still laugh at co-workers telling me about their day long experiences ripping a tape to DVD. I tell them I just push a button and they get all bittered up.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    20. Re:ring ring by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 5, Funny

      I really don't want to know what's on those tapes.

      If we're talking typical nerd sexual activity, it'll be hours and hours of Melinda saying "no".

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  2. Be careful what you wish for, Bill. by mmell · · Score: 1
    I'd be willing to bet you're gonna get it!

    First Post! (?)

    1. Re:Be careful what you wish for, Bill. by el+americano · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If he's referring to the Month of Apple bugs, then the premise an outright lie in the first place. Most of those are denial of service, priviledge escalation, arbitrary code with non-root permission, potential exploits, etc. On top of that, they've thrown in 3rd party apps to fill out the month. I'm not saying the MOAB people are doing a bad job, but it's a shame to see them being used in this way, because MS shills they are not.

      As for getting what he wishes for, he already does - on a scale that OSX will never see. People measure the cost of the MS disasters in the billions of dollars. Way to miss the point Microsoft.

      --
      Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
    2. Re:Be careful what you wish for, Bill. by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying the MOAB people are doing a bad job, but it's a shame to see them being used in this way, because MS shills they are not.

      Don't feel too bad for Apple. We're about to see 5 years of daily Windows bugs. I'm sure Apple will find something to throw back at MS.

    3. Re:Be careful what you wish for, Bill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates begging people to bust Vista, is a bit like George W. Bush standing on the aircraft carrier all comfy cozy and uttering 'BRING IT ON!' Yep! They did! The war in I-rak was not done yet, not by a long shot (nor a close shot, nor a really long sniper shot from 200 yards). Bill taunting people to break Vista, will have them doing just that. Bring on the exploits baby! OwN3D!

    4. Re:Be careful what you wish for, Bill. by skeeterbug · · Score: 1

      Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.
      bill is exactly right. NOBODY can exploit a vista box. not. ever. bill, "no, you can't have the power chord, i NEVER said you could use the power chord."
    5. Re:Be careful what you wish for, Bill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Encourage hackers to find as many exploits in Vista as possible.
      2) Fix said exploits.
      3) Sell more copies now that Vista is really secure.
      4) Profit!

  3. Well, of course he's saying that. by AltGrendel · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    He needs to keep the boxes moving out the door. It's all promo anyway. I haven't heard about all those Mac exploits he's referring to, have you?

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > I haven't heard about all those Mac exploits he's referring to, have you?

      I have. They exist. (Most of) The exploits themselves would take a phenomenal amount of knowledge about the entire underlying OS to turn them into a full-fledged rootkit installation exploit but they do exist.

      > When somebody comes to us [after discovering a vulnerability] we've got [a fix] before there is any exploit

      Bill. I thought you were an uber-hacker. You should know better. This is only true if they come to you with the vulnerability before they've written the full-fledged exploit.

      > The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.

      This statement is borderline libelous. Just the facts, please.

      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    2. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by GogglesPisano · · Score: 3, Informative

      I assume he's referring to the Month of Apple Bugs

    3. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by VValdo · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard about all those Mac exploits he's referring to, have you?

      He's referring to the Month of Apple Bugs. As I understand it, however, many of those bugs are not in Apple products and do not necessarily compromise the entire system.

      W

      --
      -------------------
      This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by rudegeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      He needs to keep the boxes moving out the door. It's all promo anyway. Well, MS will "sell" Vista thanks to Dell, HP and other OEMs.

      I haven't heard about all those Mac exploits he's referring to, have you? OSX ships with a dozen of thord part apps like PHP, Apache and Ruby (IIRC, my experience with OSX is very limited) and I've seen some security alerts regarding all of them since last release of OSX. I bet you could find some local exploits in them. Anyway, MS talking about exploits is a "pot calling kettle black". But no, I haven't hear about some nasty, transforming-to-botnets viruses for OSX.
      --
      Rocksteady, are you ready to ska?
    5. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically he was right (if he said this in January)...

      http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/

    6. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by IcyNeko · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Aside from Gates doing it for a promo, it is true that the Mac Ads are inaccurate. Some of the people who testified on the past mac commercials were complete tools. Their kids should be ashamed of them. I'm talk about Bill Swan. Mister "I had to dig cards out of my daughter's comptuer to make the printer work".

      The new mac ads aren't much better. The whole photo album vs GUI programming guide makes Mac users look like elementary school retards and PC users like real coders. :)

      Don't get me wrong. I love ibooks. I just think that people who write these ads need to be shot.

      Twice.

    7. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      Bill. I thought you were an uber-hacker.

      He hacked on one machine 30 years ago. On the hacker scale he rates nowhere near uber.

    8. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought he played with some code, made a mess out of it, bought someone else's code, then licensed yet another third party to replace his original attempt at coding?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Bill. I thought you were an uber-hacker."

      Ha, after watching these DOJ testimony tapes of Bill Gates, you could conclude he doesn't know a thing about what his company was doing, what e-mail was sent to him or what the definition of an operating system is to name a few. Watch Bill dance around even the most simplest questions trying to spin his company in a favorable light.

    10. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by uradu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What hasn't sunk in with Bill and probably never will is that most Windows users are pragmatists and not fanboys. There simply isn't much in the OS to incite rabid love and loyalty, just the sober realization and acceptance that it's an OS with the widest hardware support, the most available software, and which runs on a cheaper and more open hardware platform. Other than that, there are plenty of more elegant and emotionally engaging operating systems out there.

    11. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Ucklak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Which also means physical access to the machine.

      Hell, I can just yell "Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all" and hose a Vista machine.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    12. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Divebus · · Score: 1

      Mac ads are as inaccurate as Microsoft ads showing beautiful integration, ease of use, truly empowering the worker; People_Ready. If you leave out the way the OS jumps in your way all the time, turns you into a spam generator or the fact you have to reboot the servers once a week because they slow down, it's closer to true. We have two Windows 2003 servers that get rebooted at least every two weeks because they slow down.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    13. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      The guy with the dictionary was a tard.

    14. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Funny

      > The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.

      This statement is borderline libelous. Just the facts, please. Well, in a lawyer-logic kinda way, he's right. Apple has done NONE of the exact things Microsoft has done to their OS.
      Like, if Microsoft fixes a flaw in their security that doesn't exist on a Mac, then obviously Apple has not, nor will it ever take that step. Can't you see how risky it is to pick a Mac, which didn't benefit from years and years of exploit expertise?
      Would you want to risk getting infected on a machine without any known exploits? You should really pick the one with a lot of known exploits... better go with the devil you know!

      [end lawyer logic]

      I'd rather pick the one where holes are patched before they're exploited, but that's just me.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    15. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Divebus · · Score: 1

      I've read all those as they came out and shook my head. They may as well have added the serious flaw that an administrator can launch terminal and sudo rm -rf /Users/<username>. Half of the exploits required the administrator sitting at the keyboard. Others needed to trick the user into doing something dumb. The rest were holes in applications. Those were a far cry from the fun available in Windows World.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    16. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by rbanffy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Paul Allen was the brilliant programmer. Gates was the mediocre one.

    17. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My guess is that he is reasonably aware of the hundreds of millions of people who barely notice that their os is some version of Windows. It isn't real surprising that many people who have switched away from Windows, when you ask them, actually have a reason...and further it isn't that surprising that they feel the need to be 'emotionally engaged' by their computer.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    18. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Jord · · Score: 1

      FYI, all of those are turned off by default. Ruby, and PHP are not even active in the httpd.conf file in case you wanted to turn Apache on.

      Hell, even SSH is installed by default but it also is turned off by default.

    19. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It ships with a lot of stuff, but very little of it is turned on by default, and most users will never change that. I don't even think that OS X ships with sshd running by default. It's a very minimalist configuration, in terms of enabled services.

      It's not a totally fair comparison; saying that some of the installed software on Mac OS X has vulnerabilities, is like saying, if you turn off Windows' firewall, and run these services, you can get rooted. Well, duh, in both cases. What's really important is the default configuration, (or the 'minimal configuration necessary to get real work done') because that's what 90% of users will ever have running.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    20. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 1

      still, it sounds to me like the ads are beginning to have an impact...

    21. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Funny

      this is late to the party but: the LAST piece of actual code that I knwo of that Bill wrote was the port of Microsoft Basic to the Tandy Model 100 Portable, and, I also knwo the 2 glaring bugs he left in it.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    22. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe you should get someone that knows what they are doing to set the servers up?

    23. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Caffeinate · · Score: 1

      I think the real reason there isn't fanboy-ism among Windows users is due to how ubiquitous the OS has become. Anything that is used as often as a computer soon loses its "ooh, shiny!" effect and simply becomes a tool.

      --
      Godless heathen.
    24. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by 47Ronin · · Score: 4, Informative

      It ships with a lot of stuff, but very little of it is turned on by default

      Actually, NONE of it is turned on by default.

      --
      Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
    25. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Divebus · · Score: 1

      We must have missed the "Don't Slow Down" checkbox somewhere. There's nothing much to set up - Citrix and a published application on one server, SQL Server on the other - gigabit network and only 35 users. Aside from that, we're restarting print cues every other day. People_Ready? I'm ready to launch the whole rig into the parking lot.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    26. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      To knwo, knwo, knwo them, is to loev, loev, loev them.

      (my apologies if you are actually dyslexic)

    27. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard about all those Mac exploits he's referring to, have you? It's a thing called the Month of Apple Bugs (MOAB). Some guy found thirty places in software that comes with MacOS X (some of it is just application software) that has is suseptible to buffer overruns and the like. He's releasing it one bug at a time for thirty days. So far, most of the bugs are getting patched within a day or two of them being publicized.

      These aren't exploits in the wild - they are researcher type stuff.

      However, I think it is strange that Bill Gates has heard of MOAB, but hasn't seen Apple's television ads (but still comments on the television ads.) That seems weird. I think it would have gone over better if he had said something along the lines of "Of course I saw them. John Hodgeman is great and people like him better than the Mac guy." At least he would have come off more sympathetically.

      I really think Microsoft has a corporate culture based around lying (including lying to themselves) and tackiness which comes straight from Gates and Ballmer.

      Also, I think he is setting himself up to look stupid by daring people to find exploits in Windows.
      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    28. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Daemonstar · · Score: 1

      There must be other issues because I put in a SBS 2003 server last November that only reboots when critical updates tell it to (on Saturday mornings if required). The local newspaper has a 2003 Server (receives print queues for an imagesetter) that hasn't had to be rebooted in months as well as 2 NT4 servers. The older Mac that's hooked to the WIR service also hasn't had to be rebooted in months. Actually, the last time they were rebooted was when the power went out and the batteries ran out of juice (Linux server shows 88 days uptime).

      Most of the time I've found it to be either hardware issues, or a poorly written application or driver that screwes up the OS (any OS). I've had a Linux machine up and running over a year without rebooting, and I've had Linux and OpenBSD machines that had to be rebooted every other day (motherboard or RAM issues). My work computer (XPSP2) is normally pretty stable, until I ether install some poorly written application (we have a program called MultiView 2000 that tends to take over 100% cpu sometimes; it's a terminal program with host support that the staff use to connect to our main COBOL-written program that's been around forever, ick) or install some driver that XP doesn't like.

      --
      I don't reply to Anonymous posts; if you have something to say to me, identify yourself or I won't reply.
    29. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Trillan · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought he played with some code, made a mess out of it, bought someone else's code, then licensed yet another third party to replace his original attempt at coding? But he did pick the box color.
    30. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...the fact you have to reboot the servers once a week because they slow down, it's closer to true...We have two Windows 2003 servers that get rebooted at least every two weeks because they slow down." The uptime of our most heavily used Win2k3/IIS6 web server is 126 days. If it weren't for a nasty power outage in July, the availability of the server would fall well into the five nines range.

      Instead of taking the easy way out, blaming the OS and blindly rebooting your servers, perhaps you should take a closer look at why your servers are slowing down.

      I suspect a badly coded app that could just as easily be reloaded.
    31. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Moofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Mac ads are as inaccurate as Microsoft ads"

      Lemme fix that for you.

      "Ads are inaccurate."

      By definition.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    32. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This statement is borderline libelous. Just the facts, please.

      It's not libel - it's slander because Bill spoke it (he didn't put it in print unless this was an email exchange rather than an interview).

    33. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by nsayer · · Score: 5, Funny
      sober realization and acceptance

      Mind you, that's after all of the denial, anger, bargaining and depression.

    34. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by D4rkn1ght · · Score: 1
      Wow!

      Here I am looking at one of my old Macs with OS9 that haven't been rebooted in six months and still going strong.

    35. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I haven't heard about all those Mac exploits he's referring to, have you?

      I have. They exist. (Most of) The exploits themselves would take a phenomenal amount of knowledge about the entire underlying OS to turn them into a full-fledged rootkit installation exploit but they do exist. An exploit is, by definition, a working example of a way to defeat some security measure - not just a recipe for doing so. Therefore, the original poster was correct and you're statement above is contradictory - if exploits exist, then no real knowledge about anything is needed other than knowing how to execute the exploit.
    36. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't call people retards when you can barely string an English sentence together. "Let he who casts the first stone be without sin"

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    37. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anything that is used as often as a computer soon loses its "ooh, shiny!" effect and simply becomes a tool.

      And? Good craftspeople are often fanatical about their tools, and very devoted. Mac fans aren't Mac fans because it's shiny - they are fans because Macs are great tools. great tools truly make life a breeze. What's not to love? Quality tools are highly satisfying.

      The problem with Windows is that it is a very poor tool, and frequently gets in the way of doing the job.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    38. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      John Hodgeman is great and people like him better than the Mac guy." At least he would have come off more sympathetically.

      Speaking of Hodgeman and sympathy, did you see Gates on The Daily Show? The instant the interview was over, Gates did an about-face and high-tailed it out of there. Didn't even sit down and do the faux-chat thing during the transition to the commercial break. The guy couldn't generate sympathy if he tried, he has no social graces at all. He didn't even use any humor during the interview - he spoke like it was a advertisement for laundry detergent, not an interview with Jon Stewart.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    39. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      I have. They exist. (Most of) The exploits themselves would take a phenomenal amount of knowledge about the entire underlying OS to turn them into a full-fledged rootkit installation exploit but they do exist. They do exist, but is it true that they come up with one per day while Windows has one per month? One per month? That is an out-and-out lie.
    40. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....Apple hasn't done any of those things......

      That is because they have not needed to. It isn't the number of theoretical possible exploits, but the percentage of the installed base of computers that have gotten hosed by some of the huge variety of malware actually circulating on the net. By that measure, the number of Macs thus affected is next to nothing. No OS and no other human creation is perfect, but thus far at least, from a practical perspective, Macs have no problem with malware and Mac users don't have to spend unneeded time and money for installing and maintaining special anti-virus programs. Mac computers also don't have to phone home to get their software registered and authorized. When we decided to double the RAM and HD space on a XP box, it had to call home for new 'activation'. Doing the same thing to an old Mac did not need such crappy exercises. From my readings, VISTA is even worse than XP in this regard. When you have a Windows computer, especially VISTA, it seems that you don't really own it, but it is controlled by someone else. First Microsoft and for millions of unwitting users, by one or more 'botherders' and spyware outfits. Why should even ONE Mac user care WHY there isn't the flood of malware attacking their computer? Who cares WHAT the reason is! Maybe it IS the low market share. So WHAT! It is the bottom line: Macs and their OSX are MUCH more secure that Windows PCs. Apple can truthfully advertise that fact.

      --
      All theory is gray
    41. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by !Freeky2BGeeky · · Score: 1
      Well, yes and no. Yes it's become a tool, but even tools have "fan-boy" bases. I've friends who swear by DeWalt over Craftsman or Delta for power tools.

      As to why Windows doesn't seem to have a "fan-boy" set of users is that they all run the OS with the knowledge that they will sometime soon experience the BSOD.

      Living under a precariously perched boulder does not make for restful sleep.

      --

      Visualize Whirled Peas

    42. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....elementary school retards and PC users like real coders.......

      That's exactly the problem. Most adult computer users know about as much or less about computers that an elementary school kid. To get good use out of a PC you have to be a "real coder" or at least an elementary school kid. However, even computer retards can get useful work done on a Mac in a relatively short time.

      --
      All theory is gray
    43. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Gherald · · Score: 1

      Sure, ads may be inaccurate almost by definition, but that doesn't mean a particular ad or company's series of ads can't be more, less, or roughly equally as inaccurate as some other one(s).

    44. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Aokubidaikon · · Score: 1

      Yup. Quite a few novices who I've asked what OS they were running responded with "Word".

    45. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by soft_guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      John Hodgeman is great and people like him better than the Mac guy." At least he would have come off more sympathetically.

      Speaking of Hodgeman and sympathy, did you see Gates on The Daily Show? The instant the interview was over, Gates did an about-face and high-tailed it out of there. Didn't even sit down and do the faux-chat thing during the transition to the commercial break. The guy couldn't generate sympathy if he tried, he has no social graces at all. He didn't even use any humor during the interview - he spoke like it was a advertisement for laundry detergent, not an interview with Jon Stewart.

      I agree. A couple of years ago I heard him speak in person at WinHeck. At the beginning of the speech he did sort of a "light introduction" (for a normal person I would say "joke" but for Gates that would be aiming too high) where he talked about the story of him saying that people didn't need more than 64K. (Or was it 640K, I don't remember.) And basically I was waiting for the punch line - there wasn't one. He basically just said "I never said that". And the whole thing was so completely irrelevant that it was just stupid.

      And then his keynote was so boring that I actually fell asleep.

      I've been to WWDC several times and seen Steve Jobs speak and I have never fallen asleep. Steve Jobs may not be the best jokester in the world, but he is a very good communicator. In fact, I can't picture him going on Jon Steward's show because: Jobs isn't funny enough to do the show well, he doesn't do self deprecating humor well, AND he is smart enough to already be aware that he couldn't pull it off. Gates is the sort of nerd who just doesn't know/care that he is not funny or interesting or tasteful.
      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    46. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Determining which ads are more or less deceptive seems to me to be a bullshit-eating contest. Some people might dig that, but I'll pass. I prefer to ignore all advertisements as much as I possibly can.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    47. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by chemaja · · Score: 1

      hehehe was pretty funny to read about that vista voice control exploit at work this week :D me? yea i run xp pro at work, but i'm actively (albeit slowly) migtrating my work setup to what will be some form of GNU OS ;) gotta love the gnu.

    48. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by angulion · · Score: 1

      Acctually he dumpster dived someone else's code.

    49. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by pilgrim23 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am. but it is still funny ;)

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    50. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      do you have any sources for that? I'd love to have even more dirt on BG, most overated subhuman ever.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    51. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by PostPhil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate it when people make foolish claims like this. NO, ads are not inaccurate "by definition". People, quit using phrases like "by definition" and "literally" etc. with such carelessness. If ads are inaccurate, it is a *tendency* and nothing more. Inaccuracy is an accidental property, not essential property. For example, if I show a commercial saying, "Battle-of-The-Bands event at City Expo Center, 9:00pm on Saturday. Tickets for $20" ...there is nothing inaccurate or deceitful about that. Simply because (especially in America) businesses believe that profit is justification for any action, especially immoral ones that will convince customers to buy, doesn't mean that advertising *must* be inherently designed to misinform. That is a cultural practice due to a (non)value system that doesn't even understand why ethics and morality are worthwhile.

    52. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by uradu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      LOL, well said. I went through that a decade and a half ago when I switched from the moribund Amiga. If you think Windows isn't thrilling today, you haven't switched from a multitasking OS to Windows 3.1-on-DOS.

    53. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by uradu · · Score: 1

      > Mac fans aren't Mac fans because it's shiny

      Actually, most I know ARE. Everything else they own is also shiny. Very few Mac fans I know like it for the "right" reasons, but because it's shiny. When OS X first came out, it was Aqua-this and Aqua-that all day long.

    54. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      No. Advertisements are designed to appeal not to intellect, but to emotion. They are designed to mislead.

      "if I show a commercial saying, "Battle-of-The-Bands event at City Expo Center, 9:00pm on Saturday. Tickets for $20""

      But you don't see ads like that. You see ads screaming at you about SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY YOU BUY THE WHOLE SEAT BUT YOU'LL ONLY NEED THE EDGE!

      "That is a cultural practice due to a...blah"

      You're splitting hairs, and ignoring the fact that the more deceptive and misleading advertising is, the more it is percieved to be effective by the unethical persons who buy ads.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    55. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      "just the sober realization and acceptance that it's an OS with the widest hardware support"

      Apparently Vista doesn't have wide hardware support quite yet:

          http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/ 03/0110248

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    56. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, if I show a commercial saying, "Battle-of-The-Bands event at City Expo Center, 9:00pm on Saturday. Tickets for $20" ...there is nothing inaccurate or deceitful about that.

      Says you. I went to one of these so-called "Battle-of-the-Bands" and I saw no armies, no weapons, no dead bodies, or even so much as a dismembered limb. Some "battle"...deceitful *and* inaccurate, I say.

    57. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Uncle+Rummy · · Score: 1

      Ditto for Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, respectively...

    58. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by dangitman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, most I know ARE. Everything else they own is also shiny. Very few Mac fans I know like it for the "right" reasons, but because it's shiny.

      I've never met one of these mythical "I like Macs because they are shiny" people. Perhaps you live in a very strange neck of the woods, like Beverly Hills or something?

      The vast majority of Mac users I know are people who like them because they make a lot of money out of them - in areas like publishing, music, photography and video. Macs have only become "shiny" recently. They used to be beige, just like PCs. So why did people buy them then? Why did so many Mac users switch to Mac clones that were boring and fairly ugly, when Apple licensed the OS?

      Remember the world before Photoshop, the laser printer, and Desktop Publishing? You could only get Photoshop for the Mac. Apple brought the Postscript laser printer to the masses, and revolutionized the publishing industry. Same with music. For a long time, Pro Tools on a Mac was the only thing worth using for professional-grade digital recording. And today Apple has powerful and easy-to-use video editing software. Most Mac users are users first - they care more about their field of work (often a creative field) than they do about the Mac itself. It's just the Mac makes otherwise complex things very easy, so you can focus on the work, and not "operating a computer." There's a whole generation of filmmakers who are growing up on Final Cut Pro right now, because they want to make films, not because they want a shiny computer.

      I think most likely it is you who has the superficial tastes, and are projecting your own interpretation onto people, rather than trying to understand their true motivations. Sure, users might appreciate the looks as well, they might like the Aqua interface. That doesn't mean they bought it because it is pretty. I doubt they wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't a great system as well as being pretty.

      In fact, that pretty much sums up how Microsoft thinks, and how a lot of Windows users think. They think if they copy the "look" of the Mac, then they can have the Mac's appeal. But that's just superficial, "skin deep" beauty - the Mac offers form and function together. I'm reminded of when the original iMac was a huge hit, and other companies thought they could capture market-share by adding colored panels to their machines, while maintaining the same clunky form-factor and Windows OS. Notice how you didn't see Mac users buying those machines based on appearance, and they ultimately failed to interest anyone?

      As an example of this in user-space, why do so many Windows users use absurd animated cursors, or elaborate screen-savers, or "skins" on applications? Why do so many Windows gamers "pimp" their PC with neon and case-mods? Those trends never caught on in the Mac world - especially the "skinning" thing. So, what explains the desire of Windows users to change the surface appearance of their system, without improving the functionality? Often these appearance mods actually get in the way of usability, let alone enhance it.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    59. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by dogfriend · · Score: 1
      You know, I used to work with a guy who actually believed that. He claimed that eventually Windows would be the most secure OS because of all the experience MS was getting at fixing security holes.

      I don't agree. I think it will continue to get exploited as long as it has a 1) Registry that can be modified by third party programs and 2) has Active X controls

    60. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Appealing to emotions - which not all ads do, anyway, and they certainly don't do it "by definition" - is not the same thing as being deceptive or misleading. If a child is standing in the road, I may yell at him "get the hell out of there! You'll get killed!" I really am appealing to his emotions (through my own), but I'm not misleading. The truth content is orthogonal to the affective content.

    61. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      and which runs on a cheaper and more open hardware platform
      Fortunately, thanks to Vista, the PC will soon be neither cheap nor open.
    62. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by sincewhen · · Score: 2, Funny

      > The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.
      This statement is borderline libelous. Just the facts, please.

      No, it's true! Apple hasn't edited a single line of Windows code to improve security.
      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    63. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by CrossChris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought he played with some code, made a mess out of it, bought someone else's code, then licensed yet another third party to replace his original attempt at coding?

      Not quite - he copied and stole code. He broke it, got some financing from his Father to hire someone to fix his breakages. He stole more code, got lucky with the IBM deal, and persisted in stealing code into the '90s. By this time, his company was rich enough that they didn't need to steal code any more - they just bought the companies that owned what they wanted!

      MS still has stolen code in their products...

    64. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Stevecrox · · Score: 1

      Thats a lovely speech there but my expearence is people buy Mac's because their 'shiny'. Sure pople in industry buy them to aid in business, thats called using the right tool for the job. But most the public I've met are shiny motivated I've been browsing in PC stores and heard people buy them because they were 'cool and looked pwetty', Mac's are currently riding the Ipod cool wave. Your really over estimating the rational behavoir of the general public, if Joe consumer is looking for laptops, look and reputation are key. Apple has been building a reputation of being for fun (I disagree here there aren't many Mac games) and something simple that never breaks. If you compare a Mac PC style with a standard windows PC case then a Mac looks much better. Try working in a shop for a while its scary, you and me might go out and look at what we need and choose the best, but what do those technical specifications mean to the average user?

      Its actually why Aero is going to make Vista a sucess in the home market, look at it from your normal users point of view, two machines look equally pretty on screen but one means you have to change a ton of stuff (acording to that nice sales guy) so what do you do?

    65. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Ditto for Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, respectively...

      No, Steve Wozniak is an accomplished design engineer and Steve Jobs is an accomplished product designer. They are both successful separately from their business concerns such as being founders or CEO. If Steve Jobs didn't want to be any kind of business man he could still work at Apple on their product design team. Similarly at Google you find the CEO is a technologist, not a sales guy. This is how it's supposed to work in Silicon Valley.

      Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are sales guys. They design pyramid schemes, not products. Their innovations are in software licensing, pricing, marketing. One of the big things they innovated was putting a disk in a big empty box and selling it for a lot of money to people who had never before paid for software. Another innovation was taking the cost and responsibility of system integration away from "system integrators" and putting it onto the consumer. Instead of buying a personal computer that just worked, you bought computer "hardware" and computer "software" and you "installed Windows" and you began troubleshooting. If it doesn't work it is the consumer's fault. If they complain to Dell it is Microsoft's fault ... if they complain to Microsoft it is Dell's fault, but ultimately it is the consumer holding the legal and technical responsibility. That's a really big moneymaker there, because you're taking retail money from the consumer but you're only shipping them wholesale parts.

    66. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by dangitman · · Score: 1
      But the implication of the other poster was that it is Mac users specifically who like shiny things, and they make irrational decisions because of it. Again, if that's the case, then what explains the "skinning" and "case mods" in the Windows scene?

      Actually, the post I was replying to was specifically addressing Mac "fanatics." Those people browsing in stores probably aren't huge Mac fans, probably aren't even Mac users yet. At best they would be casual users. If you focus in on the real fan base, the people who love their Macs, it's all about the software first and foremost. The iPod gawkers and the "Mac faithful" are very different crowds, and the serious fans aren't as swayed by the bling. In fact, many Mac fans have a growing distaste for the iPod's popularity because of the focus on fashion.

      Your really over estimating the rational behavoir of the general public,

      Since when were the general public considered "Mac fans"? After all, that was the topic of discussion.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    67. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Wow.. watching this was kinda sad :/

    68. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      > Mac users don't have to spend unneeded time and money for installing and maintaining special anti-virus programs.

      I remember a couple of years ago reading an interview with the Intel CEO and he said he personally spent two hours every weekend removing malware from his daughter's PC. You never, ever see this with a Mac.

      I bet she has a Mac by now after the Intel switch.

      > Maybe it IS the low market share. So WHAT! It is the bottom line: Macs and their OSX are MUCH more secure that
      > Windows PCs. Apple can truthfully advertise that fact.

      I don't think it is market-share related, because at any one time there are enough Macs to do damage, especially if they are as easy to "own" as Bill Gates says. I think it has to do with the fact that Mac OS X has always been a moving target.

      From the very first Mac OS X v10.0 (and even before in Mac OS 9) there has been a feature called Software Update. Every Mac checks a server at Apple for important security updates, as well as regular maintenance updates for the OS. It is a well-designed system and easy to use and so people really do use it, and as a result the entire Mac user base quietly movies from 10.4.0 to 10.4.1 to 10.4.2 to 10.4.3 and so on. Tiger is over a year old now, but we are all running the 9th version of it. If you created an exploit that ran on 10.4.2 but was fixed in 10.4.3 then you only had a month or two to use it. Every Mac OS X machine out there typically replaces its own kernel every couple of months. This is in addition to security updates.

      On the other hand, if we go to any random XP machine from the last five years, it will either be either 5.1 or 5.1 SP2. That PC may be running the same OS for many years, even its whole life. Even if Windows had industry-standard UNIX security and networking, sitting still for that long is just asking for it. And to make it worse, XP has no security, and Microsoft doesn't play well with others and they have executive felons and monopolistic practices and lie all the time.

      Mac OS X v10.5.0 "Leopard" will be the around the 45th shipping version of Mac OS X ... during that time we've had Windows 5.1, 5.1 SP2, and 6.0 ... three versions. Going back further you have 5.0 (2000) and 4.1 (98) and then 4.0 (95) which predates Internet Explorer and did not have a built-in TCP/IP stack. That is too fucking slow for the Internet.

    69. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I first saw these new Mac vs PC ads I was very disappointed that Apple was doing the whole "Mac vs PC" thing. That felt tired and still does.

      However they have steadily won me over because they are communicating some really important technical stuff in a non-technical way. I know many of us here would rather see a 5 minute video where user A upgrades Tiger to Leopard and DONE! and user B gets started upgrading XP to Vista, he is still typing in a product code and user A is making a movie already. What they have done instead is anthropomorphize the computers themselves and therefore Mac goes "upgrade? isn't it just straightforward?" and PC goes "oh, no, you've got to do this and that and this and that" and he is in a hospital gown and scared about losing functionality. That's the actual fears of Windows users who are thinking of upgrading to Vista, and that is actually something that Apple should be telling its customers about its competitors' products. You have this guy George Ou who is an IT writer who knocks the Mac in a ridiculously inaccurate way, and he got Vista recently, and after a week of not being able to install it, he gave up and put XP back on his machine and put Vista on the shelf and this guy is an IT writer with a name-brand 2006 PC. You just don't have that on a Mac ... you don't ever upgrade a Mac and lose your audio.

    70. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      The whole entire point of Mac OS X is that you get both the shiny and the strength. Before Mac OS X if you wanted shiny you had to get Mac OS 9 and if you wanted strength you had to get UNIX. Now you get both in one and it feels fucking awesome.

    71. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      > The vast majority of Mac users I know are people who like them because they make a lot of money out of them
      > - in areas like publishing, music, photography and video.

      Yeah, that is me.

      I would definitely encourage all of my competitors in the multimedia arts to please buy Vista immediately and spend at least the first three weeks installing and troubleshooting it. After that, you can continue shipping out your usual shoddy workmanship, bad file formats, and virus-laden files as before, driving your clients into my much more productive arms.

      I have worked for clients who when the project is over they ask me "how come I got 10x the work out of you as out of the other guy?" and I'll look at the other guy's work and there is no sensible file structure, files are named "newphoto4.psd" and similarly useless names, and there are Word documents in it of all things and I'm like "I don't know" but it is just that the guy is using Windows and I'm using Photoshop. It's very different.

    72. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      > Some guy found thirty places in software that comes with MacOS X

      No, MOAB was 22 bugs, and it is not all software that comes with Mac OS X, but rather third-party software also. In other words, the 22 bugs are drawn not just from Mac OS X, not just from Apple software, but also from the 22,000 third-party Mac applications from developers large and small. Two developers I can think of off the top of my head were Panic and Unsanity, both shareware vendors whose only relationship with Apple is that they make software for Mac users. If you don't use Panic's FTP client or Unsanity's "Application Enhancer" then that brings MOAB down to 20 and there are many more questionable ones in there.

      In short, the month of Apple bugs revealed only a handful of actual Apple bugs, and only one was serious enough that Apple had to patch it, which they did on Jan 23, 2007.

    73. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by dascandy · · Score: 1

      Would you want to risk getting infected on a machine without any known exploits? You should really pick the one with a lot of known exploits... better go with the devil you know! That's actually why the IT department at work forbids using Firefox. It might have unknown exploits.
    74. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      When you see Jobs interviewed, he's stiffer than in his presentations, but he's not robotic and the thing with Jobs is that he always shows up with PRODUCT. That makes a really big difference. He is also passionate about all Apple products, or they don't ship it. He said a few times over the past few years that they've tried something and not been able to meet their own standards and he shelved it before it shipped. He isn't going to go out in public and sell stuff that's not great. He's a product guy, not a sales guy.

      Gates was on the Daily Show and they put a Windows Vista Ultimate box on the desk that Jon Stewart said "can I have this?" at one point, but what was it, really? A box. It has a disc in it. If it has the cure for aging in there it would still be hard to get people excited about it, because we all know that is only an ingredient. You have to install it and do some cooking before there will even be something to taste.

      If Jobs goes on the Daily Show on the day that Leopard is launched, wouldn't he at least have a MacBook out on the desk? Wouldn't he show off a new Leopard feature or two, and wouldn't the audience go "wow I've never seen a computer do that before"? Probably an iPhone also.

      In other words, it's not just personality or social skills, it's PRODUCT.

    75. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by minimunchkin · · Score: 1

      No, I love my mac because it's shiny.

    76. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by uradu · · Score: 1

      > Actually, the post I was replying to was specifically addressing Mac "fanatics."

      Of which you definitely are one, as your six paragraph reply to my two sentence response exemplifies. Fanboyism is nothing new--I was the most rabid Amiga devotee in its days, and we put you Mac drones to shame without question in that department.

      Your Beverly Hills comment is ironic given that it probably is one of the places with a high Mac penetration precisely for its usefulness as a powerful tool in niche industries like audio and video production. Around most of the rest of the world the Mac does indeed primarily appeal to human magpies, including around my neck of the woods. At my company of over 15,000 employees the number of Macs on the network can be counted on the fingers of one hand, even though we do a lot of the things Macs are considered great at.

      You can tell a magpie from the relatively shallow reasons for their liking of the Mac. If you dig deeper regarding why they like the Mac, the answers pretty much dry up after "ease of use" and "iPhoto" and tend to peter out in the "oooh, shiny" territory. I personally could and often do give them much better reasons for liking their Mac than they personally have, such as the solid underlying OS and its clean architecture (as opposed to the utter and total mess that were the pre-X versions), and its nice and seamless scriptability, amongst other things. But at this point I usually tend to lose them, since they usually have no clue what I'm talking about. I have a full appreciation of the modern Mac OS, I just happen to have zero confidence in Apple and its attitude towards its customers, and I certainly have no use for a single-source hardware platform that leads to monopolistic pricing. If the irrational rumors of a porting of the Mac OS to the generic x86 platform had been true, I would have very seriously considered adopting it.

      Regarding the question of why Mac users don't mod their machines as opposed to the apparently more shallow hordes of PC users who do, the answer is quite simple: the closed hardware platform makes it much harder. You can't simply go and buy a flashy case with windows and such, and the amount of pimped up hardware that will actually work in a Mac (internal crap with blue LEDs on it) is rather limited. You would have to be a true hardware hack to mod a Mac, and while there are indeed examples of impressively modded Macs out there, the pickings are slim.

    77. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by uradu · · Score: 1

      Could it also perhaps be that you're just better at what you than your local competition? Or are you telling me that if for some reason you were forced to work on the PC platform you would somehow experience an instant lobotomy that would lead to irrational file naming and general sloppiness? Give yourself a bit more credit than just the OS you use, otherwise you smack of the "no, but I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express" syndrome.

    78. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by uradu · · Score: 1

      Well said, and it's a switching reason I can respect, but alas it's not an answer heard too often from Mac fans, simply because most people don't understand much of the OS beyond the shiny.

    79. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      I'm sure a lot of people start out with Macs because they're shiny. Like my sister. She thought my eMac was shiny and pretty and nice, and got one herself. Three years later, though, my mom's Dell laptop and my brother's HP desktop have each gone through a couple viruses and several complete reformat/reinstalls. The eMac has never had an issue. Now she's a Mac fan because of that, and my mom is planning to get one too once her laptop bites the dust.


      (I know, my sig says I like Macs because they're cute & cuddly. But it's not the ONLY reason I like them. I started using them at work around OS 8, and really liked them. I was using Linux at home at that point, though, so I didn't own one til 10.2.)

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    80. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction, there are a couple of network-addressable ports open by default, one of them being Bonjour's service discovery protocol port. While Bonjour is designed only to work across a LAN, it is still a point that needs to be hardened against remote attack. Same goes for the NetInfo port (which may have been disabled recently).

    81. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by mr_sparc · · Score: 1

      This is exactly the way I look at Windows as an OS, I'm just going with the flow in having it on my home desktop. I use Sun Solaris all day at work, but it doesn't run the apps I want to run on my home desktop. Unix is vastly superior in areas such as security, but not all that useful at home.

    82. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Fanboyism is nothing new--I was the most rabid Amiga devotee in its days, and we put you Mac drones to shame without question in that department.

      I know. I was a rabid Amiga devotee too. In fact, you can't be the most rabid Amiga devotee, because I was.

      Anyway, seeing as I am a Mac fanatic, don't you think I'm a good person to give insight into how a Mac fanatic thinks? Of course there are people who like Macs for superficial appearance. But those people are not Mac fanatics, almost by definition. You don't become fanatical about a Mac, just because it looks good. There has to be something more there to cause these levels of devotion.

      Around most of the rest of the world the Mac does indeed primarily appeal to human magpies, including around my neck of the woods.

      I don't think so - the Mac would be dead if it weren't for professional users in graphics and publishing during the "dark days." And Macs weren't shiny then, they were beige.

      You can tell a magpie from the relatively shallow reasons for their liking of the Mac. If you dig deeper regarding why they like the Mac, the answers pretty much dry up after "ease of use" and "iPhoto" and tend to peter out in the "oooh, shiny" territory.

      That's funny. I speak to tons of different Mac users, and none have ever told me they bought it because of "shininess." And what's wrong with ease of use and iPhoto being your main reasons to like it? For many people, iPhoto is the most challenging thing they do with a machine. But that's just an ordinary user. A Mac fanatic would have a much longer list of reasons, especially of software applications.

      Regarding the question of why Mac users don't mod their machines as opposed to the apparently more shallow hordes of PC users who do, the answer is quite simple: the closed hardware platform makes it much harder.

      That's ridiculous. How is it any harder to use a screwdriver to take the parts out of a Mac and put them in another case? How is it difficult to stick neon lights in your Mac? The Powermac/Mac Pro even has a transparent side-panel that can be used instead of the aluminium to put all those lights on the inside. The closed platform of the iPod didn't stop the numerous casemods and "bedazzling" of it.

      I think the real reason comes from the PC users. They want to overcompensate for their crappy machines and dull OS by blinging it up. Just like somebody who blings up their Hyundai shitbox with flashing lights because they can't afford a better car.

      There is also OS skinning software available for the Mac, but it isn't popular. There's nothing to stop people from modding their Mac hardware or software, I think they are just too busy enjoying their OS, and don't need to compensate for it.

      There is one popular case-mod - turning old Macs into fishtanks and terrariums. But that's a bit different.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    83. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Ads are inaccurate and misleading in general - but I have fair less tolerance for ads that just slag off the competition in such a manner, rather than telling us the good points of their product.

    84. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by uradu · · Score: 1

      > You don't become fanatical about a Mac, just because it looks good. There has to be something more there to cause these levels of devotion.

      Well, I guess we disagree on the definition of a fanatic. I tend to associate it more with irrational support of something, and I like Winston Churchill's definition: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". The more you have well justified reasons for liking something, the less you are a fanatic in my mind. A fanboy would really be something different, more of a geek version of a rah-rah cheerleader with pom-poms and such, but I digress.

      > the Mac would be dead if it weren't for professional users in graphics and publishing during the "dark days."

      I would definitely have to disagree with that assessment, but there's really no way to prove or disprove things one way or the other. I'm just thinking that the Mac never really lost that professional base you speak of, even during the "dark days", and they still teetered on the brink. I have no doubt in my mind that they would have fallen in if Steve Jobs hadn't come back and put some shiny into the platform. I remember quite clearly when people considered it only a matter of time before Apple would be sold for peanuts. The thing is, there is no real money in the professional market, certainly not in the small numbers that use Macs. Just look at the PC market--despite a Windows box being on just about every corporate desktop in America, the consumer market still eclipses the corporate one in terms of numbers shipped and total revenue. There's power in the sheer number of consumers out there.

      > And Macs weren't shiny then, they were beige.

      Well, the OS was still shiny for the day--I clearly remember people waxing poetic over the elegance and simplicity of the Mac GUI, so that was the shiny of the day. And frankly, they were right, though only skin deep. From a developer point of view the Mac was a total mess and only got worse until OS X.

      > How is it any harder to use a screwdriver to take the parts out of a Mac and put them in another case?
      > How is it difficult to stick neon lights in your Mac? The Powermac/Mac Pro even has a transparent side-panel
      > that can be used instead of the aluminium to put all those lights on the inside.

      Oh come on, you're reaching now. Yeah, there's "A" Mac with transparent side panels--hold me back! Without that, internal modding is pretty useless. Compare that to the sheer endless modding cases you can buy for the PC, with ridiculous junk like blue LED RAM and windowed hard drives. Don't get me wrong, I consider that entire endeavor ludicrous, but OTOH many of its followers aren't of the ricer variety either. There are plenty of modders out there with great technical skills that choose the PC as their platform very deliberately. Besides, you can't really compare ricers to computer modders. While many of the Civic-with-an-RS-sticker crowd are indeed cheap bastards and wouldn't know good handling from a blowjob, PC modders tend to drop loads of cash on their hobby, so they're definitely the high end of the PC market.

    85. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by xbgo1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah you guy's are right. I guess thats why 90% of the world use Mac's and not windows machines.... MMmmmmm or have i got that the wrong way around way around

    86. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found the firewall was...

    87. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gregmac · · Score: 1

      From the very first Mac OS X v10.0 (and even before in Mac OS 9) there has been a feature called Software Update. Every Mac checks a server at Apple for important security updates, as well as regular maintenance updates for the OS. Yes, "Windows Update" existed in windows 2000 as well...

      Mac OS X v10.5.0 "Leopard" will be the around the 45th shipping version of Mac OS X ... during that time we've had Windows 5.1, 5.1 SP2, and 6.0 ... three versions. There was also 5.1 SP1, but besides that, there have also been numerous updates ("hotfixes") pushed down on a regular basis (I think it's called "patch tuesday"). If you count all those, theres probably been hundreds of versions. If I wanted to, I could get numerous updates to my Debian etch system pretty much every day - does updating each package count as a version number increment? Does that mean it's more secure, because there have been more versions pushed out?

      The point is, there is nothing conclusive that can be drawn from version numbers. Please don't confuse number of "releases" with security. This is the same kind of FUD Microsoft uses to show how they're more secure than Linux - "look, we released x number of security updates, in the same time period, linux (as if that refers to a product) only released y".

      Really, in something big like an "operating system", using version numbers drives me nuts. The kernel can have a version number. The shell/user interface can have a version number. The web browser, text editor, music player, mail program, archive program, calculator, screen magnifier, image viewer, chat client, solitare, disk defragmenter.... they can all have version numbers too. But does updating any one of those applications mean you've updated the operating system itself? How many updates do you need to do before you increment the OS version number? Do you wait until you get x packages that all have updates before you push out your "operating system update"? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to get updates out ASAP, especially if they're security fixes?

      Now, I think I have to go take a shower or something, how dare you make me defend Windows..

      --
      Speak before you think
    88. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      I agree, but I consider jobs the ultimate sale's man. nothing more. Gates is one of the great business men of our time.

      Jobs can say all he wants about shelving products because he didn't like them, but that gets done at every company. Its neither new nor unique in any way. Windows shelves stuff all the time, just unlike mac, they feel the need to do everything publicly so everyone can make fun of them for failing at it. This is why Gates isn't the ultimate business man. He hasn't realized people will now not wait for the greatest thing from Microsoft because in the end, it doesn't matter in daily use of the computer.

      Now why is Jobs the ultimate sales man? because he brings out a product like the iPhone which is far inferior many products out there and offers nothing new beyond a touch screen, and can make it sound like having a phone that also acts as an MP3 players nad can connect to the internet is the newest and greatest innovation ever. He is so good at it, I get to hear mac fans talk about the amazingly new features these are compared to everything and how great apple is. BTW, I just got a piss old version cell phone(it came for free if I was willing to subscribe for 1 month to some extra services that cost 10 bucks a month) that does every thing an iPhone does except the touch screen. Its an incredible skill when you can bring out nothing new and make it sound like greatest thing since sliced bread. I respect it just as much as the business prowess to steamroll hardware companies many times your own size to become the center of a universe.

    89. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Dilpo · · Score: 1

      http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2788 you can thank your bundled software for being vulnerable to these four http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2738 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2737 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2580 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2565 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/1186 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/1185 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3230 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3200 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3166 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3130 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3110 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3077 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3072 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3064 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2700 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/1715 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/1712 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/1583 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/1545 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/799 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/770 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/759 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/758 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/391 I didnt look at the dates on the other ones, but I did notice all of these came out in the last month http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3219 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3181 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3173 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3167 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3151 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3136 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3130 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3110 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3088 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/3087 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2464 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2463 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2111 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2108 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2107 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/2106 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/1973 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/1962 http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/1519 http://www.

    90. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by ego093 · · Score: 1

      I work professionally in both the design and music fields and can tell you that everything for Mac exists and has existed on the Windows platform since the early 90s. For quite a long time through the late 90s Apple had a real problem courting developers to their oft-delayed and buggy platform and so both industries went to Windows. So these days, not only does everything work on Windows, but in the case of plugins for Photoshop or VSTs for DAWs, Windows users continue to have more available. I know - this works against the whole "Macs are for creative professionals" idea, but that idea has been wrong since 1996.

      Of course, I amazed at what's available on Linux these days. I actually have decent (though not perfect) multi-track recording on my Ubuntu box and am able to do most of my day-to-day design work using Inkscape, Scribus and GIMP. We live in incredible times.

    91. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Landak · · Score: 1

      "...Remember the world before Photoshop, the laser printer, and Desktop Publishing?..."

      I was born in 1989 you insensitive clod!

      --
      My UID is prime. Is yours?
    92. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by FeTrut · · Score: 1

      I think the real reason comes from the PC users. They want to overcompensate for their crappy machines and dull OS by blinging it up. Just like somebody who blings up their Hyundai shitbox with flashing lights because they can't afford a better car.
      I think if you randomly picked any given "case modder" you'd find on average the he (yes, he) is a teenager, an avid gamer, and generally has a lot of time on his hands to pursue hobbies like this.

      The fact that there's virtually no gaming community on the mac is probably the biggest reason you don't see mac pros with neon lights. That and the average teenager is probably not going to be able to justify the money spent on a mac when he can get a PC for a hell of a lot cheaper *and* have more fun fiddling with it.

      I use a mac now but i used to use PCs when i was younger and enjoyed the hell out of building my own system from parts, tweaking it, overclocking it, wringing the most possible performance out of it at the cheapest possible price. Now my job requires that i use a mac and even if it didn't, i'd still use one over a PC, but were i 10 years younger, i would definitely still be using a PC.
    93. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      I have met the guys from Unsanity. They are very nice, smart guys, but I was quite aware that APE opens security holes well before MOAB and this is one of two reasons I avoid things that do system-level patching on OS X (the other one being stability.)

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    94. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 1

      Remember the world before Photoshop, the laser printer, and Desktop Publishing? You could only get Photoshop for the Mac.
      "Apple: Our systems are so cutting edge, you can run software that doesn't exist yet!"
    95. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      > There was also 5.1 SP1, but besides that, there have also been numerous updates ("hotfixes") pushed down on a regular basis
      > (I think it's called "patch tuesday"). If you count all those, theres probably been hundreds of versions.

      Hundreds of nearly-random untested, insecure configurations isn't the same thing as a well designed, modern system being iterated on regularly in response to changing security concerns. Also, the fact that Software Update actually WORKS means that the community can move together off of 10.4.0 or some other ".0" which is the most untested version. When you install Mac OS X the first thing it does is just update itself (after asking for go ahead) and it doesn't need any activation or fucking around to do it, so it actually happens. You go up to systems "in the wild" and you find that they're running 10.4.8 not 10.4.0 or 10.4.3, and they have all the security updates. That's without any IT ... these are systems that are being taken care of by plain users and they're patched and up-to-date and running a stable tested configuration.

      I have Windows XP Home SP1 with Explorer 6 running in a window on a Mac for Web site testing and I wanted to update to Explorer 7 on a duplicate of that disk, again for testing. The Windows Update site is a disaster ... in installs ActiveX controls and then even after that it never knows who you are, what you're doing, what your system is or what it's doing. It takes forever to come up with updates, and then it installed 60 updates and after a restart I thought I would be running SP2 and Explorer 7 but it was still SP1 and Explorer 6. So I went back to Windows Update where it took an hour to tell me it can't figure out what updates I need so I should open a support incident. This is a couple of hours of this thing chugging away and I can't get Explorer 7 it is a disaster.

      At this point, you ought to be able to point a Windows XP Home SP1 computer with Explorer 6 at update.microsoft.com and in less than three steps you should be running SP2 and Explorer 7 and all the security updates. You can install Panther on a system right now and the first thing you'll see on the Desktop will be a little Software Update window with 23 things in there (from the whole life of Panther) and if you say go within a short time you'll be running the very best Panther configuration possible. Windows users are BEGGING for that.

    96. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      > PHP, Apache and Ruby (IIRC, my experience with OSX is very limited) and I've seen some security alerts regarding all of them
      > since last release of OSX. I bet you could find some local exploits in them

      Apple doesn't write their own PHP or Apache from scratch. They are the same tools you find on other Unix systems. They are open source and well-supported and mature and when a flaw is found in them, Apple patches it the same as other Unix vendors. One of Apple's security updates over the past 5 years was only to patch SFTP or maybe it was curl. But what you see is that as the system moves from 10.4.3 to 10.4.4 and 10.4.5 they will update the Unix tools to keep them current.

    97. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      Most of my competition in graphics and publishing here in the San Francisco Bay Area is using Macs and we're all getting a shitload done compared to the Windows people ... that's my point. The Windows people are already sticking out for their funky decision to do art with a typewriter and then they turn in stuff that you would just never do on a Mac where you can see the file system, where you have AppleScript to easily automate repetitive stuff, and where a color management system is built into the OS. It is hard to explain the difference, but you see the work and you just know. It is like you have to do archaeology to get the juice out.

      I've had Windows users ask me at Photoshop conferences: "what image editor do you use when you're not running Photoshop?" and I'm like "why would I not be running Photoshop?" and they tell me "system resources" and I say "I got 2+ GB RAM since 1999, that's enough to run Photoshop 24/7 365 as nature intended" and they are FLOORED that you would do such a thing. I am FLOORED that someone with Photoshop skills would ever Quit Photoshop and then they want to open images in something else? Same goes for when somebody talks about "Photoshop startup times" and I'm like "it is in my login items I am getting a coffee while that stuff happens ... how long does it take?" there is a distinct lack of focus on Photoshop amongst Photoshop-Windows users. It's almost like their computers are interrupting them all the time or something, breaking their concentration.

    98. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      > You can tell a magpie from the relatively shallow reasons for their liking of the Mac. If you dig deeper regarding why they
      > like the Mac, the answers pretty much dry up after "ease of use" and "iPhoto" and tend to peter out in the "oooh, shiny"
      > territory. I personally could and often do give them much better reasons for liking their Mac than they personally have,
      > such as the solid underlying OS and its clean architecture (as opposed to the utter and total mess that were the pre-X versions),
      > and its nice and seamless scriptability, amongst other things.

      If you asked my brother, who is a Nurse, why he likes his Mac, he can't tell you any technical reason at all. He isn't a computer geek in the slightest. He doesn't know about the Unix, he doesn't script so he doesn't care about that, and he struggles to use iPhoto sometimes. However he can see the SYMBOL of the inner technical excellence of the Mac in the fit and finish of the whole product, in the ports that are all in one place with no pieces hanging out, and in the shiny parts also. If you ask him why he likes his Mac he'll run his fingers over it lovingly and tell you about the light-up keys and you'll call him a "magpie."

      However the real reason he uses a Mac is because he struggled so much with a PC, just trying to do college work with it, that finally I sent him an iMac just so I wouldn't have to hear him read another Windows error to me over the phone. Since then he loves computing and he doesn't dread doing online learning or having to produce a paper or a presentation for work. But he doesn't think in IT terms of productivity and whatnot. If you ask him about his Mac he'll tell you it's slick and he loves it and you'll think it's because it's shiny but what you really should notice is that A NON-TECHNICAL USER LOVES THEIR COMPUTER and gets stuff done with it. He can't tell you why it's stable, but the fact that it doesn't crash makes him trust it and admire it as a useful tool.

      Similarly, I remember when Scot Hacker, a tech writer who wrote about BeOS back in the day, switched to Mac OS X and at some point while "moving in" to his Mac, he decided to move all of his MP3's to another location in the file system. Then when he launched iTunes, he expected iTunes to go "hey, where's the music?" but instead iTunes knew where it was because Mac apps typically track files both by name and by a file system ID number, so even though the entire music library now had a different name and was in a different file location, iTunes knew those were the same files because they all have unique ID's. He thought this was some slick iTunes programming, but what he had really hit on was a secret feature of the Mac that causes a lot of stuff to "just work" on the Mac that doesn't elsewhere. You can move stuff around a Mac disk all day and not break anything. You can move a running application to another file system location, you can move files that you're editing in an application, you can rename files you have open in an application and go back to that app and the renamed file is still open. All of these things sound like absolutely MAD things to do to COMPUTER NERDS but that is the shit that users are doing with their systems and that's why many users love their Macs but they can't explain this to you other than to say "it just works". These users sit down at Windows and move a file that they have open in an application and error, error, error and then they call a geek and the geek goes "WTF were you doing?" and can't imagine why you wouldn't have KNOWN that you have to close a file before you rename it and move it somewhere else.

      Bill Gates doesn't get any of this, of course.

    99. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      > the Mac would be dead if it weren't for professional users in graphics and publishing during the "dark days."

      Duh the PC would be dead if it weren't for professional business users and hobbyists.

      Nokia would be dead if it weren't for cell phone users.

      The Mac is not popular in graphics and publishing or music and audio because it is pretty. In fact in the "dark days" it was as ugly as anything else. It's because the system is designed for the needs of graphics and publishing and music and audio. There is a full-scale digital audio mixer in the core of Mac OS X (CoreAudio) and a full-scale color management system built-in and running so all you have to do is install Photoshop and you're seeing your documents in the right color space. Adding this stuff to Windows is expensive when it's even possible. Configuring it is hard whereas in so many cases on the Mac, Apple has already done that for you.

    100. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      > John Hodgeman is great and people like him better than the Mac guy.

      Bill Gates is too down about being beat to see that Hodgeman is stealing the show. It's weird when people knock the Mac guy for being smug or something because he is eminently modest. The PC is not getting mocked or torn down by the Mac ... the PC is just struggling to get by in a technological world for which he is unprepared. If you are a Mac user you feel sympathy for poor PC but if you are Bill Gates you are like "stop pointing out reality, I'm trying to be delusional here."

    101. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      > I agree, but I consider jobs the ultimate sale's man. nothing more. Gates is one of the great business men of our time.

      Yes, Gates is one of the great business men of our time. He signed a killer contract with IBM at one point and the rest is history. He went from rich kid to rich man overnight.

      You are wrong about Steve Jobs, though, he is an awful salesman. He is a terrible, terrible salesman. A good salesman can sell anything, be it life insurance or kitchen appliances or what-have-you. If you ask them why they sell stuff they will look at you like why do you breathe? But the only things Steve Jobs can sell are things he's passionate about, and the only things he's passionate about are things that are well-designed through and through. If he weren't Apple CEO, if he had never founded Apple, it's easy to imagine him designing beautiful products at company A for a decent salary rather than selling shitty products for company B and making huge amounts of money. He's the most designery Silicon Valley guy, not the most salesy.

    102. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by gig · · Score: 1

      That only goes to show what a low-quality "Apple Bug" a bug in Unsanity APE is for the MOAB guys. The number of copies of APE that are running in enterprise or production environments is probably 1 and that guy deserves what he gets.

      Unsanity is the furthest thing from where MOAB should have been ... it is not made by Apple, it is not bundled with Macs, it is not a tool but rather an interface hack, it uses non-standard API's, and it is not even particularly popular. The idea that the bugs in APE have anything to do with the Mac platform or fitness of same for any kind of purpose is absurd.

    103. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by angulion · · Score: 1

      Sorry for very late reply..
      Something relevant I found googling..

      http://www.dynamicobjects.com/d2r/archives/002646. html

      You can probably find more by googling..

    104. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by just_forget_it · · Score: 1

      If he is, then how does he explain the DOWB (Decade of Windows Bugs)?

    105. Re:Well, of course he's saying that. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Many thanks! (And props to /.'s message system!!!)

      That's awesome. I'd heard a rumor or two about that, so even the only thing I gave him credit for writing (however badly) turns out to be nothing more than more stolen code.

      He really is the most over-rated person on the planet. (That was not a popular opinion in 91, nor in 97, when I was tasked with architecting a rather largish NT/Exchange rollout despite my misgivings about using either.)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  4. Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    'I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.'

    oh don't worry Mr Gates, we will.

    1. Re:Truth or Dare? by Fyre2012 · · Score: 1

      yah, i mean what a comment... is this guy new? Somewhat reminds me of the South Park episode where gates gets lynched for touting the benefits of windows 98 (or was it 95?)
      But either way, there are new exploits for windows every day... i want some of whatever the heck he's smoking.

      --
      This is not the greatest .sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    2. Re:Truth or Dare? by Divebus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lets see: 140,000 known Windows exploits, most of them surfacing in the last 12 years makes that at least one exploit released every 45 minutes - or there abouts. Hell, Vista has an installed base smaller than BeOS right now and it has more exploits already.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    3. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      I think Gates meant:

      I dare anybody to do that only once a month on the Windows machine.
    4. Re:Truth or Dare? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Hell, Vista has an installed base smaller than BeOS right now and it has more exploits already.

      Care you cite some examples?

    5. Re:Truth or Dare? by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...checks calendar... Yep, only 4 days until patch Tuesday. Gonna have my Word patches ready this month, Bill?

      --
      What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
    6. Re:Truth or Dare? by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny

      It wasn't a double-dog dare, so he's not serious.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    7. Re:Truth or Dare? by Dark+Kenshin · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... and next we will play spin-the-bottle.

      --
      "I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
    8. Re:Truth or Dare? by rudegeek · · Score: 1

      South Park episode where gates gets lynched for touting the benefits of windows 98 "Well, it's over five million times.." -- BAM! He was killed in "SP: The Movie" because of Windows 98 breakdown.
      --
      Rocksteady, are you ready to ska?
    9. Re:Truth or Dare? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

      Care you cite some examples?

      Sure. No problem. Will this one work for you?

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    10. Re:Truth or Dare? by alexhs · · Score: 1

      _Download http colon slash slash trojan dot com slash trojan dot exe
      _Yes
      _Run trojan dot exe
      _Yes

      Done !

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    11. Re:Truth or Dare? by jbeaupre · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's following etiquette and not jumping straight to triple dog dare.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    12. Re:Truth or Dare? by skinfitz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So you can't cite any Vista examples. How many of those '140,000 known Windows exploits' work on Vista? Do you at least know that? Or should we count exploits that only work on Windows 95 against Vista?

      We could always do the old Mac Zealot trick of redefining what an 'exploit' is rather than admit there are any problems with a platform - for example where they will redefine the meaning of 'virus' or deny that a proof of concept counts as a 'problem' because it 'doesnt do any damage', in which case I could probably get that '140,000' figure down to about 6.

    13. Re:Truth or Dare? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, see, he's being very precise here. When he says "I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine", he means no less than once a month, and no more than once a month. Indeed, this is a great challenge.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Truth or Dare? by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

      I could probably get that '140,000' figure down to about 6
      Sweet, when can you get started? I'm sure you'll have a significant impact on those Windows zombie squads who have been spamming my inbox for months now.
    15. Re:Truth or Dare? by Divebus · · Score: 1

      ARS Technica doesn't buy it either but The New York Times cited six major issues with Vista mostly dug out by a security firm. They've since taken the reference to the article away so you'll need to dig it out if you're curious.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    16. Re:Truth or Dare? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Sweet, when can you get started? Just as soon as you cite some Vista examples.

    17. Re:Truth or Dare? by norite · · Score: 1
      It's in the South Park Movie, where the general's computer crashes.

      General: AArgh! Fucking Windows 98! Get Bill Gates in here now!

      {Billy G is dragged in by a couple of soldiers}

      General: 'You told us Windows 98 would be faster, and more efficient with better access to the internet!'

      Billy G: 'It IS faster; over five million...'

      {General: Takes a gun and blows Billy G's head off before he finishes the sentence, to wide cheering and applause heard in the background}

      An absolutely classic moment... :)

      --
      -- Fuck Beta
    18. Re:Truth or Dare? by alexhs · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I think Gates meant: I dare anybody to do that only once a month on the Windows machine. Almost. See how month is italicized in TFA. So he implicitly means that normal rate should be once a... week ? day ? hour ? :)

      The interview has a lot of funny quotes...

      I don't think the over 90 percent of the [population] who use Windows PCs think of themselves as dullards, or the kind of klutzes that somebody is trying to say they are. Of course, they're dinosaurs !

      _Does the entire tenor of that campaign bother you, that Mac is the cool guy and PC--
      _That's for my customers to decide. So please vote if you want Bill to be bothered or not about the entire tenor of that campaign.
      Erm sorry. You're probably not a customer, you're an end-user...

      If you're interested, [Vista development chief] Jim Allchin will be glad to educate you feature by feature what the truth is. /me thinking about rats and room 101...

      So you feel in 2010-2011 Microsoft will be back with the next big one?
      Absolutely. We'll tell you how Vista just wasn't good enough, and we'll know why, too. We need to wait and hear what consumers have to tell us. We don't know that, otherwise, of course, we would have done it this time. That explains all those features removed from V... erm... Longhorn ?

      So can you give us an indication of what the next Windows will be like?
      Well, it will be more user-centric.

      What does that mean? Bill then goes on explaining .Mac and and other Tiger mobility features

      we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things. No comment.
      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    19. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To all those evildoers out there, let me just say BRING IT ON.

    20. Re:Truth or Dare? by pestilence669 · · Score: 5, Informative

      When I used to be employed to write adware, we did this at least once a day. I shit you not.

      You just can't hide running processes as well as you can on Windows. No other operating system offers so many diverse methods to run executable code as a privileged user. Believe me when I say: Exploiting Windows is like stealing candy from a baby.

    21. Re:Truth or Dare? by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      For Vista? Yes.

      However, a lot of the Vista advantage seems to stem from the inclusion of MS IE 7.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    22. Re:Truth or Dare? by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's 11 days. Patch Tuesday is always the second Tuesday of the month, and that's not until the 13th.

    23. Re:Truth or Dare? by advocate_one · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you do realise that as far as Bill's concerned, those 140,000 exploits don't exist anymore... When they put Vista out the door, they got to "reset" the Windows Exploit Counter... as of 30th Jan 2007, XP is no longer Windows... Vista is Windows

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    24. Re:Truth or Dare? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I am actually thinking it is more on the level of several hundred, per day; But who is counting?

    25. Re:Truth or Dare? by toadlife · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lets see: 140,000 known Windows exploits, most of them surfacing in the last 12 years makes that at least one exploit released every 45 minutes Malware != Vulnerability

      Those 140,000 "exploits" are largely redundant and exploit a small number of actual vulnerabilities - most of them being the user.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    26. Re:Truth or Dare? by 7zark7 · · Score: 1

      -- Exploiting Windows is like stealing candy from a baby.

      Looks like you have never tried to take candy from a baby.

    27. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When I used to be employed to write adware

      Please proceed to the nearest bridge and fling yourself off of it. There is no amount of "it's just a job", or "gotta feed my family somehow" that can save you from being a fucking tool.

      I'd rather clean sewers than write malicious code for a living. Hell, I'd rather starve than be responsible for creating ad/spyware.

    28. Re:Truth or Dare? by Andrewlightstar · · Score: 1

      Mr. Gates has just set up every computer running Vista up as a Hunny pot, I have my Linux destro. CD in my backpack, maybe I should move over to linux right now.... Today...

    29. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No other operating system offers so many diverse methods to run executable code as a privileged user. "

      Everyone on Windows already runs as administrator.

      Slime ball.

    30. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does the DMCA say about them hacking OS X?

    31. Re:Truth or Dare? by misterhypno · · Score: 1

      Too late.

      They already have.

      For over fifteen YEARS.

      On something more like a WEEKLY basis.

      Sometimes DAILY.

    32. Re:Truth or Dare? by vic-traill · · Score: 1

      Hell, Vista has an installed base smaller than BeOS right now and it has more exploits already.

      Care you cite some examples?


      Well, I guess we're going to be hearing about 'em Real Soon Now:

      http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2073611,00.as p

      Certainly it is unfair to laden Vista with all the bugs/exploits associated with previous versions of Windows. However, it does speak to track record - I don't think making the change to Predominately Good Code from Holy Shit Handles! code is like hitting an On/Off switch.

      Some folks might argue that that's why it took Vista so long to complete (and yes, I know that it really isn't complete, they just scaled back the feature set); being careful and considered takes time.

      You might also argue that Vista, as a bottom-up re-write, is divorced from what we've seen previously, and that it shouldn't be painted with the 85/98/2k/xp bug brush. But this arguement cuts both ways - as a new codebase, we may be starting from the ground with a whole new bug/exploit set. But I don't have any visibility into the extent to which the 'brand new codebase' schtick is true, anyway.

      At the end of the day, I'll believe that Vista is a different experience from a bug/exploit perspective when I see it - Bill's word just isn't worth shit on this topic.

      --
      [17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
    33. Re:Truth or Dare? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Ha! I triple black dog dare him!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    34. Re:Truth or Dare? by vic-traill · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd rather clean sewers than write malicious code for a living

      No job at Microsoft in your future then?

      /humour

      --
      [17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
    35. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's very noble of you. Do you have have the same objection to paying taxes to kill thousands in Iraq or to support tin pot dictators? Even if you don't live in the US, some of your money goes to the war. So when does the hunger strike start Mr. Gandhi?

    36. Re:Truth or Dare? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Those 140,000 "exploits" are largely redundant and exploit a small number of actual vulnerabilities - most of them being the user.

      That may be ... but if so the number of vulnerabilities is in the hundreds of millions.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    37. Re:Truth or Dare? by suffe · · Score: 1

      Sure you would.

      --

      Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)
    38. Re:Truth or Dare? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      What does your remark have to do with anything? There are ethical forms of employment, and others that are less so. In any event, the OP chose to write malware for a living: presumably he had other options available. Consequently, criticism of that personal decision is perfectly legitimate, however much it offends you. On the other hand, none of us have a choice about where our respective government(s) decide to throw our tax dollars.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    39. Re:Truth or Dare? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ....Those 140,000 "exploits" are largely redundant.....

      Indeed they are very redundant, running on millions of Windows zombie machines clogging the Internet and filling everyone's email boxes with with terabytes of SPAM and other digital trash every day.

      --
      All theory is gray
    40. Re:Truth or Dare? by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Those 140,000 "exploits" are largely redundant and exploit a small number of actual vulnerabilities - most of them being the user.

      That may be ... but if so the number of vulnerabilities is in the hundreds of millions. Careful there. With that logic you're heading down the slipperly slope towards the "The Large install base plays a major role in Windows security" argument which will get you flamed/modded down.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    41. Re:Truth or Dare? by zsau · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do not understand what sort of mind encourages one to tell a person to kill someone, just because of a job they've aided trespass. He's never killed anyone, whereas you could easily have just made yourself morally, and potentially legally,[*] responsible in any right-thinking person's mind for his suicide. If you do not think so, you are much, much worse than him and should look at yourself before criticising others.

      [*]: Where I come frome, it is quite rightly illegal to encourage or help someone to kill themselves.

      --
      Look out!
    42. Re:Truth or Dare? by ikarys · · Score: 3, Funny

      Believe me when I say: Exploiting Windows is like stealing candy from a baby.

      It gives you a deep sense of satisfaction?

    43. Re:Truth or Dare? by chemaja · · Score: 1

      lolz

      yea it's a must watch

      For another well-travelled classic, see Steve the Super Villain * :-)

      ==
      * actual title does vary

    44. Re:Truth or Dare? by snarfbot · · Score: 0

      oh please, pedantic bullshit, waa waa waa. nobody is going to kill themselves because some shithead on a forum told them to, even when the source is as credible as an anonymous coward.

      GET REAL!

      ps. i was going to tell you to kill yourself, but tragically, you most likely would. you see where i come from, people like you are considered a jackass.

    45. Re:Truth or Dare? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to be logical I was trying to be funny.

      I guess I'll have to work harder next time.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    46. Re:Truth or Dare? by toadlife · · Score: 1

      No, I got that. I was just doing a bit trolling.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    47. Re:Truth or Dare? by kcbrown · · Score: 1

      Those 140,000 "exploits" are largely redundant and exploit a small number of actual vulnerabilities - most of them being the user.

      Hmm...well, there are what, several hundred million users? So that means there are several hundred million vulnerabilities!

      So instead of one exploit every 45 minutes, it's actually one exploit every second!

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    48. Re:Truth or Dare? by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      you have the choice of giving them money or not. (ahrd , but feasible)

    49. Re:Truth or Dare? by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      And I could learn to type, spell and use the preview button.

    50. Re:Truth or Dare? by pestilence669 · · Score: 1

      Several years ago, I took the information that I learned from working in the industry and went white-hat. I've worked on several high-profile (and well known) security projects that leverage the lessons I learned from writing ad-ware. You cannot understand this industry from the outside looking in.

      Your computer is more secure, in part, because of me. I shit you not. ...And what's so malicious about replacing your search results with pr0n advertisements? Isn't that what everyone is searching for anyway?

      As each new hole is exploited, Microsoft will eventually work to close them. Even indirectly, ad-ware IMPROVES security against truly malicious behavior like identity theft. Like your immune system, the only way to strengthen a complex system is to attack it... constantly. Without real attacks, Microsoft will never issue a patch. This is fact. It's a cost thing.

    51. Re:Truth or Dare? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      How long has Vista been out? Are you willing to put money on the number of exploits?

    52. Re:Truth or Dare? by GTMoogle · · Score: 2, Funny

      So as soon as Windows has no more users, we'll all be safe?

    53. Re:Truth or Dare? by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      I don't suppose you've heard the term "democracy" have you?
      Probably not, I'm guessing you're american.

      But not only can you vote out your government for where they spend taxes, you can also actively campaign to get others to vote them out too. You can even, if you've got the balls for it (and don't have a family etc.) choose to refuse payment of said taxes, and maybe even go to jail for not giving the government taxes you believe will be spent wrongly.
      You can even, if you've got a huge pair of swingers, attempt to overthrow your government if you think them really really bad.
      I believe in the USA, it's an enshrined principle of government that sometimes this might be necessary. Something about militia's being organised and the right of citizens to hold arms.
      There's always another choice.

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    54. Re:Truth or Dare? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      I'd put money on that there are not 140,000 working exploits for Vista - yes.

    55. Re:Truth or Dare? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Apples to oranges. You chose to make this an anti-American rant, consequently I've lost interest in the thread. Good day.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    56. Re:Truth or Dare? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Funny

      I guess, but I really wanted an example of a BeOs user.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    57. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >He's never killed anyone,

      No, he just writes software specifically for people who usually do (ie: The Mafia). I guess that's ok, if you believe making drugs and selling them to pimps so they can keep their whores hooked is ok, too.

    58. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several years ago, I used to throw bricks through store windows. I took the things I learned doing this, and now sell lexan glass to people so their windows don't get smashed. Without real vandalism, nobody would care about putting in lexan glass. It's a cost thing. What's so bad about bricks through windows? Isn't that how they're going to end up anyways?

      I think I really have found a new level of scum below tow operators and lawyers. Incredible. You sound like that woman on this week's trading spouses.

    59. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once a month? When's the last time there was a "Patch Tuesday" with no update? Bill, pull that foot out from between your teeth!

    60. Re:Truth or Dare? by scotch · · Score: 1

      He said "140,000 windows exploits", not Vista exploits. So that might include windows everything from windows 1.0 to Vista. Not that he has a source, but he's probably right.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    61. Re:Truth or Dare? by scotch · · Score: 3, Funny

      Babies don't even like candy. And there grip is really weak if they do choose to hold on to some candy. What are you, some kind of pansy?

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    62. Re:Truth or Dare? by Divebus · · Score: 1

      The 140,000 exploit number was buried on the Symantec site (along with 40 exploits for the old MacOS and Zero for OS X). Granted, it was two years ago and I can't find it any more but I've seen it quoted several times from different sources not related to me, so they saw it too.

      Most of the exploits use exactly the same mechanism and most Microsoft "patches" do nothing but disallow a specific signature of an incoming exploit while doing nothing to fix the underlying problems.

      The outright hubris displayed by Bill Gates is evidence of Microsoft's future death warrant. It's not just him, the whole culture is in denial except the ones "leaving to explore other opportunities". Yes, it is a train coming.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    63. Re:Truth or Dare? by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Or you can just move to another country...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    64. Re:Truth or Dare? by zizdodrian · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It is always covered in saliva.

    65. Re:Truth or Dare? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      I'm not disputing that there may be 140,000 Windows exploits if we cover all versions of Windows, but he said and I quote:

      Lets see: 140,000 known Windows exploits, most of them surfacing in the last 12 years makes that at least one exploit released every 45 minutes - or there abouts. Hell, Vista has an installed base smaller than BeOS right now and it has more exploits already.

      Presumably he meant Vista has more exploits than BeOS (that nobody uses relatively speaking)...yet when asked to cite some examples, simply referred me to that statement again, and was unable to provide a straight answer, or a single Vista exploit example. So I ask for an example, and am referred to the statement 'there are 140,000 Windows exploits'. As we are talking about Vista, then why mention old Windows at all (or should I start listing OS9 viruses as a problem for OSX?).

    66. Re:Truth or Dare? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Nobody is disputing the number of exploits for all versions of Windows, but:

      (along with 40 exploits for the old MacOS and Zero for OS X)

      I see when talking about MacOS, suddenly you make a distinction between the old OS, and OSX. In your logic and wording, there are '40 exploits for MacOS'. There are a lot more than 'zero for OSX' actually if we look at MOAB, but that's beside the point. You can't sensibly include an exploit that only works on an OS that is 12 years old simply because it has the same name as the current version. Should we include AppleII 'exploits' against OSX and say 'Apple has xxxx exploits' when talking about OSX? It gets ridiculous.

    67. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exploiting Windows is like stealing candy from a baby.
      Ok, armed with that old saying ("It's as easy as stealing candy from a baby!"), I walked up to the closest baby, with candy, I could find -- and snatched the goodies. Yeah -- it sure was easy. But no one informed me about angry parents! The father was twice my size, much stronger and much faster than me. The mother was also much stronger than me. Let's not get into details here, but I'm pretty sure that an angry mob chimed in the beating just before I passed out from the ruthless "me to bloody pulp" conversion process.

      When I woke up from my coma in an hospital two week later, my first thought was "These idiots have never actually *tried* to steal candy from a baby.".

      Seriously... Has anyone ever tried? I doubt it is that easy. My morals stop me from trying, but someone should. In the name of science.

      Yes, yes.. I know: (Score: -1, Offtpic/Redundant/Troll/Idiot/Whatever).
    68. Re:Truth or Dare? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Vista Exploit Surfaces on Russian Hacker Site: The Microsoft confirmation comes hard on the heels of a claim by anti-virus vendor Trend Micro that underground hackers are selling zero-day exploits for Windows Vista at $50,000 a pop.

      Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches: A Microsoft spokesperson told eWEEK that the Vista patches address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month.

      There you go, Vista exploits, even acknowledged (and patched) by MS. I have no idea if there are actually more than on BeOS.

      As for why to mention old windows exploits, it seemed to be the point was to show how ludicrous Bill's challenge was. Try to get one a month? 140,000 in the last 12 years averages over 10,000 a month. Are we to beleive that Vista is so much better that this number will drop to less than 1/month? This does not seem likely to me at all.

    69. Re:Truth or Dare? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the latter patch was for Beta 1; the exploit isn't present in the RTM.

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    70. Re:Truth or Dare? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      and the exploits being sold? No, I don't know either, but if they're going for amounts like $50,000, my guess is that they are current, effective and soon to be widespread. In any case http://apcmag.com/5098/microsoft_kick_starts_vista _sp1 vista has "high impact issues" including security issues according to Microsoft.

    71. Re:Truth or Dare? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      the exploits being sold That was the former example. My post was regarding the latter.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    72. Re:Truth or Dare? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      I am aware of the first one there, and the second only works in beta so we have one. (I'm not denying nor would I ever deny that no exploits for Vista exist - only that past exploits for an OS that is 12 years old cannot sensibly be included against Vista - that is ridiculous).

      I can't help rendering the issue through the Mac Zealot logic apology process:

      "Initial indications are that in order for the attack to be successful, the attacker must already have authenticated access to the target system.

      In Zealot logic, that would not count because the user would have to be authenticated, in other words, would have to have an account on the box and be able to log in, therefore the 'exploit' is a non issue and so does not exist. To the sensible people, clearly it is a serious issue but you get the idea.

      As for x per month, OSX just had one a day for a month so Vista is already ahead of the game. Based on past experience this of course will not last, but the point is there are exploits for OSX, even if we only count the current version. Anyone going around saying that 'there are zero exploits for OSX' is either ignorant, delusional or in denial.

    73. Re:Truth or Dare? by gig · · Score: 1

      The reason you separate Mac OS and Mac OS X is that Mac OS X is a complete rewrite. It is a different GUI on top of a different core OS, and now runs on different CPU architecture also. The API's are also different ... on Mac OS it is "Mac Toolbox" aka Classic and on Mac OS X you have Carbon, Cocoa, BSD. Apple very specifically left the past behind and so have third-party developers and users. If we examine the code on a 2001 Mac versus 2006 Mac it is radically different.

      However on Windows 2001 and 2006 are the same fucking year. Windows XP came out only 5 years after Windows 95, and we all know how little Microsoft can get done in 5 years. Windows 95 did not have a TCP/IP stack or a Web browser, and Internet Explorer had not been developed yet, let alone released. Windows 95 also introduced the Win32 application platform, still in use five years later on Windows XP and then for five years after that on Windows XP and now on Windows Vista. Where is the rewrite? It is the same API and the same GUI and the same DOS/NT mix under there.

    74. Re:Truth or Dare? by gig · · Score: 1

      > Certainly it is unfair to laden Vista with all the bugs/exploits associated with previous versions of Windows

      The original poster did not put all Windows bugs on Vista. The point was that Bill Gates essentially dared the world to find one serious flaw in Windows Vista every month, so it is informative to look back on the history of Windows and ask ourselves how many bugs per month one would find in previous versions of Windows. In other words, what happens if you apply "The Vista Bug Standard" to previous versions of Windows ... you find many more than one per month. That is informative. Notice I'm not saying compare Vista to previous versions of Office or something unrelated, but the previous versions of the Windows software product. Just because they renamed it "Vista" does not mean it's not Windows. It is built on, contains, and deserves the reputation of past Windows. I truly hope it is as secure as a Mac because that's what every user needs, but you have to be an idiot or insane to trust Microsoft when they say they fixed something in Windows because they say that every time and it is always still broken.

      Further, the metafile bug that was found recently was in all versions of Windows. It was in the Vista beta and in XP and XP2 and Windows 2000 which are all on NT, and it was in 98 and Me which are on DOS.

      > You might also argue that Vista, as a bottom-up re-write

      NO, Vista is not a rewrite. Neither was XP, although it was also sold as "a rewrite". Windows is known to have such poor quality that it is always a selling feature to tell people it has been scrapped and rebuilt anew. However, they never actually do that. Even moving from a DOS to NT core OS, they managed to do that so slowly and in such a commingled way that they never left the past behind.

      In 2001, Apple released a "bottom-up re-write" of their OS. Not only did they change the core OS from Mac to UNIX, they also changed the GUI from Platinum to Aqua, and changed the API from Classic to Carbon/Cocoa/BSD, and recently, as a result of that rewrite, they changed the processor architecture from PowerPC to Intel. They changed the Mac so much in the past five years that people started debating the ethics of head transplants ... once you replace the head is it still the same person? We are having an identity crisis in the Mac community over how much change happened. But in Vista we have the same core OS as XP and Windows 2000, the same old GUI from 95 forward is there along with a new one that requires 256MB of video RAM to run (Quartz runs in 32MB, but can run a bit slower in 16MB and a lot slower in 8MB), and the API is Win32, same as XP, same as Windows 2000/Me/98/95. Where is the rewrite?

      I will bet you that fileman.exe (the file manager from Windows 3) is somewhere in Vista.

    75. Re:Truth or Dare? by gig · · Score: 1

      > If you're interested, [Vista development chief] Jim Allchin will be glad to educate you feature by feature what the truth is.

      Isn't that the guy who said "if I didn't work for Microsoft right now, I'd buy a Mac" about a year ago?

    76. Re:Truth or Dare? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you noticed the word and at the beginning of my post, indicating that I did realise that the example in my question was different from the one in your post. Look for definition 7 on the reference, if that will help.

      To make it easy for you: To be fair, the latter patch was for Beta 1; the exploit isn't present in the RTM, and the exploits being sold? They are apparently current, and the service pack acknowledges current issues as well. Happy now?

    77. Re:Truth or Dare? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Of the two examples in your post, one was accurate and illustrative, the other was highly misleading. I had no issue with the former one; the only example I took exception to was the one I indicated. I do not see what is so hard to understand about this.

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    78. Re:Truth or Dare? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      I am aware of the first one there, and the second only works in beta so we have one.

      I thought this quote: "The Microsoft confirmation comes hard on the heels of a claim by anti-virus vendor Trend Micro that underground hackers are selling zero-day exploits for Windows Vista at $50,000 a pop." would have been enough to make it clear. If you'd followed the link in the story, you would have found this: "The Windows Vista exploit--which has not been independently verified--was just one of many zero-days available for sale at an auction-style marketplace infiltrated by the Tokyo-based anti-virus vendor." Well, they haven't been independently verified, but you wouldn't expect that with illegal code being sold for tens of thousands of dollars. One of many.

      (I'm not denying nor would I ever deny that no exploits for Vista exist - only that past exploits for an OS that is 12 years old cannot sensibly be included against Vista - that is ridiculous).

      I repeat: "As for why to mention old windows exploits, it seemed to be the point was to show how ludicrous Bill's challenge was. Try to get one a month? 140,000 in the last 12 years averages over 10,000 a month. Are we to beleive that Vista is so much better that this number will drop to less than 1/month? This does not seem likely to me at all."

      It's not saying that the 140,000 exploits will work on Vista. It's saying "You've averaged about 10,000 a month for the last 12 years, it's a joke that you think you can get that to less than one a month with this release." Bill's challenge is marketting speak, nothing more. Nobody is claiming that there are 140,000 exploits current for Vista right now.

    79. Re:Truth or Dare? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      So now I understand, you think I was misleading. Well, since I acknowledged in my original post that it was already patched, and the download page at Microsoft is titled "Security Update for Windows Vista December CTP (KB912919)" I hardly think I was misleading about it. If Microsoft says it's a security update for Vista, I believe them.

    80. Re:Truth or Dare? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      So now I understand, you think I was misleading. Well, since I acknowledged in my original post that it was already patched, and the download page at Microsoft is titled "Security Update for Windows Vista December CTP (KB912919)" I hardly think I was misleading about it. If Microsoft says it's a security update for Vista, I believe them. It wasn't a security update for the release version of Vista; it was a security update for Beta 1 and the December 2005 CTP (Community Technology Preview). Not 2006, 2005.

      If presenting a bug from an early beta version of an OS (from over a year before it was released) as a security exploit in the release version of Vista isn't misleading, I don't know what is.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    81. Re:Truth or Dare? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft says it's a security update for Vista, you say it's not. I didn't claim it was current, I linked to an article about the patch. I'll leave it at that.

    82. Re:Truth or Dare? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Microsoft says it's a security update for Vista, you say it's not Both Microsoft and I are in complete agreement that it is a security update to the Vista December 2005 CTP and Beta 1.

      I didn't claim it was current The text you used to link to it -- "Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches" -- implied it was current. Your posts since make it clear that you indeed realise that it only applied to beta versions from over a year ago, which means by posting it in the way you did (implying that it was a security flaw with the release version of Vista) you were being deliberately misleading. Which was why I called you up on it.

      I still do not see what is so hard to understand about this.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    83. Re:Truth or Dare? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      I still do not see what is so hard to understand about this.

      Because I stated in my original that it's a patched vulerabilitiy. Patched is not current. Got that? Patched is not current, and I clearly stated it was patched. If you don't get that because it's in bold, perhaps I should type it slowly for you.

      I did not specify a release, just Vista, as the parent poster had. We were discussing vulnerabilities over time. The parent asked for references to exploits for Vista. I provided two links. One of them is not current. This was perfectly clear to anyone who read my post. The other link is to exploits being sold less than two months ago. Both the linked articles have dates on them. I used the article headline as text to link to it. I didn't realise there were any morons reading my post that wouldn't realise that patched=not current. If I was trying to mislead someone, I wouldn't give them a link to accurate information. Indeed, you have not needed to link to another site to make your point (unless you include definitions of former and latter), everything you've said about it was information that was prominent at the page I linked to and/or my post.

      In addition to that, my point has not been changed or refuted in the least part by the fact that one of the exploits was not current. The only claim I made was that there were Vista exploits, one of which had been already patched. The links I gave were entirely consistent with what I wrote and the point I made.

    84. Re:Truth or Dare? by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Not everyone. Many of us were searching for the instructions or tools to delete the crap you were writing.

      It's a pity that Tony "The Ant" Spilatro got done some years back, or I'd encourage you to go ask him to demonstrate his vice-grip to the head negotiation technique. Unless you joined that job intending to go white-hat, then you really should do something to atone for that job.

      Your argument is similar to when Dow Chemical argued that it was patriotic for them to produce napalm, as anyone else would cost more and do a worse job, thereby screwing the taxpayer.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    85. Re:Truth or Dare? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Because I stated in my original that it's a patched vulerabilitiy. Patched is not current. Got that? Patched is not current, and I clearly stated it was patched. If you don't get that because it's in bold, perhaps I should type it slowly for you. OK, you appear to have been missing the point. The difference is not between something that has been patched and something that has not, it is between a bug in an unreleased, beta version of a product and one in the final release. Obviously a beta product is going to have bugs, some of which will be security related. That's why it's still in beta. If it didn't have any, it wouldn't need to be a beta. This should not be news.

      I did not specify a release, just Vista Yes. I know. That, in fact, WAS MY POINT. By not specifying a release, the implication is that you are talking about the final code. If this is not obvious to you, please think about it for a second: how could any rational discussion of security take place if everyone cited flaws in non-released beta, alpha, and pre-alpha products without making it clear that they were doing so? You could point to hundreds of security problems in Vista pre-alphas before any of the security features were implemented or even written; doesn't mean you'd have a valid argument against the final release code.

      ...One of them is not current. This was perfectly clear to anyone who read my post. I've just reread your point, and no, it isn't perfectly clear; rather the opposite. Here is the paragraph, copied directly from your post: "Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches [eweek.com]: A Microsoft spokesperson told eWEEK that the Vista patches address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month." The only reference to time in there was the timing of the Microsoft spokespersons explanation; "earlier this month". This is deliberately misleading on your part, since the "earlier this month" was from the point of view of the article -- i.e. over a year ago. There was no indication that the vulnerable version was an early beta.

      And no, the fact that "both the linked articles have dates on them" is no excuse; if you are linking to and summarising an article, I do not expect that I should have to carefully scritinise the article to check that you are not being misleading in your summary. Having to do so rather takes the point away from summarising it, no?

      I didn't realise there were any morons reading my post that wouldn't realise that patched=not current. Patched is not a synonym for not current. Something can be patched but still current --for example, if it was applicable to the latest (release) code, only discovered last week, and patched yesterday.

      If I was trying to mislead someone, I wouldn't give them a link to accurate information. The article was perfectly accurate. Your summary of it was not. See above.

      In addition to that, my point has not been changed or refuted in the least part by the fact that one of the exploits was not current. The only claim I made was that there were Vista exploits, one of which had been already patched. The links I gave were entirely consistent with what I wrote and the point I made. See first and second paragraphs.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    86. Re:Truth or Dare? by Divebus · · Score: 1

      The thing lacking in OS X and Linux which currently owns millions of Windows machines is the scripting host which has admin access and can run unauthenticated through many entry points like Windows Messenger, Outlook, DirectX, on the tail of a buffer overflow, through Explorer (use VBS to do system calls right through Explorer). That horribly insecure scripting host has survived update after update of Windows. What makes anyone think they've fixed it now? I really hope Microsoft has fixed it in Vista because I'm sick of all the Windows driven spam I get every day.

      What gets ridiculous is Windows fans proclaiming the first REAL OS X exploit will negate all 100,000 Windows exploits and make the Mac OS X platform "just as insecure". The Schadenfreude approach to security never helped anyone. If I can plug an out of the box OS X machine into the internet and anyone can plant a worm or start making Viagra popups on my desktop within 20 minutes, only then is OS X just as insecure as Windows. My OS X box at home hasn't done that in the last 5 years.

      I get your point that Vista is a completely different animal than previous Windows, just as the old MacOS and OS X are. Out of the 30-ish MOAB exploits, most are quite a stretch, some will just create a hang, some require the administrator to install it, many revolve around 3rd party applications - those are just grasping at straws. If that's all they can shake out of a 6 year old OS, that's pretty good. I also cite the Microsoft track record of covering real problems with marketing, like Jedi Mind Tricks. Hundreds of thousands of bugs were fixed in Windows while all the while Microsoft told everyone just how wonderful it is. I'm just damn glad I was running Sybase on an Xserve when the SQL Slammer Worm came around. This is certainly a "wait and see" development with Vista but I wouldn't take Microsoft's word on how wonderful it is. If I had the money, I can apparently buy customized Zero Day Exploits for Vista right now. Vista could be NT/2000 in a colorful clown suit just like XP was. Ask me again in a year if Vista is secure.

      Of course, you can trick any computer user into performing a self inflicted insecurity. "Click here to see the dancing monkeys". If you're a malicious person sitting at the keyboard with the administrator password, you can also inflict security issues. Those aren't nearly as dangerous as the simple act of plugging a [classic] Windows machine into the cable modem. Maybe Vista as well. We're already seeing serious security buzz about the month-old Vista and I'd class it as only slightly worse than the six-year-old (in March) Mac OS X. Color me skeptical.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    87. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you, some kind of pansy? No Marv, that was just to warm up the chair.

      Why, yes, thank you, this is a nice coat.
    88. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (Disclaimer, part of my job is tracking vulnerabilities in software my employer uses and advising on patches or other mitigating methods we can deploy.)

      You may be interested to know that we're now up to five unpatched Word vulnerabilities in use in the wild. That's "in use" as in "in use to compromise computers, steal valuable corporate data, search for passwords and financially sensitive data (account details in particular, of course), install keyloggers to enable the attacker to empty the victim's bank account"... oh yes, and to send a few hundred thousand more spams swirling into the septic tank of the internet. So even if the initial two or three Word vulnerabilities dating from November 2006 are fixed on Tuesday, the chances are very low that all five will be fixed.

    89. Re:Truth or Dare? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      So by your logic there are 140,000 Windows exploits which will all work on Vista because it's no different from Windows 95, including having the same GUI.

    90. Re:Truth or Dare? by zsau · · Score: 1

      I guess that's ok

      I do not agree with what he has done. Strangely, I can vehemently disagree with someone or what they've done without wanting their death.

      --
      Look out!
    91. Re:Truth or Dare? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      The WMF vulnerability was published and widely known. If someone didn't realize that, they could see the date at the top of the page. You're an idiot if you think that's misleading. Seeing the date at the top of an article is hardly having to carefully scrutinise it. There are current bugs being sold apparently. My point stands. If you weren't awake enough to hear when the WMF exploit came out, it not my fault. If you consider reading a date at the top of an article to be greuling research, it's not my fault. If you think that one of the bugs I pointed out being for the beta product negates the fact that Vista vulnerabilities are (apparently) being sold for tens of thousands of dollars, then you need your head examined. If one of the examples I gave doesn't qualify as a Vista bug in your mind in no way negates or changes that there are exploits for Vista, nor does it justify your accusation against me. The fact that MS is already preparing service pack 1 for Vista should tip you off.

      If I had linked to the service pack instead of the WMF exploit, it would have in no way changed my point, and it would have been current, you're critisism would have been invalid. If I chose a link that wasn't the best one available to make my point, that doesn't make me deceptive. Was it the best thing to link to? Probably not. Was my conclusion that Vista has exploits accurate? Yes, therefore, by definition I was not misleading. You cannot mislead someone to an accurate conclusion. To demonstrate that I was misleading you need to show that Vista doesn't have exploits. Good luck.

    92. Re:Truth or Dare? by pestilence669 · · Score: 1
      "Your argument is similar to when Dow Chemical argued that it was patriotic for them to produce napalm..."

      Not so much. Ad-ware isn't an implement of death, last I checked, and it's easily avoided. Few would have to uninstall ad-ware if they'd refrain from installing crap like Bonsai Buddy. People should consider actually reading EULAs since most ad-ware doesn't install itself. What you're getting yourself into is often right there in plain english. If you don't have the time, then you're lazy. If you can't understand the wording, then you're stupid. If you can't read the EULA, for any reason, you shouldn't install the software. It's a binding agreement.

      Don't appreciate the occasional drive-by download? First, don't use Internet Explorer. Everybody knows Internet Explorer is inherently insecure, yet people still use it, then bitch & whine when it allows something insecure to happen. Imagine the odds of that. Who knew? (other than everybody). Any other browser written by any other entity will offer better protection. Nothing's perfect, but everything is better than IE in this respect.

      As a user of the world's most insecure operating system, a firewall and virus scanner are necessities, but so is some discretion. You can't hang out on warez & porn sites with an insecure browser and O/S. Software pirates and pornographers, while they might seem trust worthy, often are not. You don't get ad-ware from surfing CNN and you don't get it checking your email.

      Ad-ware is a self-inflicted condition, while things like SPAM, Internet worms, and napalm are not.

    93. Re:Truth or Dare? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      That isn't what I asked.

    94. Re:Truth or Dare? by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? Where was I anti-american. Apart from a slightly barbed comment regarding the education standard of many americans (which is sad but nonetheless true), I was actually praising the american constitution with it's recognition of the fundamental predisposition that many governments have of grabbing power, and the need for them sometimes to be forcefully removed from said power. I wish my nation had such safeguards and recognised the dangers inherent in giving people power and asking them for it back a few years later when they've gotten accustomed to it.

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    95. Re:Truth or Dare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he was talking about 1 person finding 30 exploits in a month, not 30 persons finding an exploit each.

    96. Re:Truth or Dare? by gig · · Score: 1

      > Both Microsoft and I are in complete agreement that it is a security update to the Vista December 2005 CTP and Beta 1.

      You're killing me ... what you're implying is that because Vista is now out of beta it is also bug-free. When has that every been true about any product, let alone a Microsoft one?

      Bill Gates says here that the security in Vista is so comprehensive that it took Microsoft the same amount of time to make it as it took Apple to copy all of Vista's other features. He says he dares the world to crack The Windows Machine even once a month.

      And yet they had to ship a Security Update to Vista Beta 1. How did a bug so serious that it required a BETA NON-PRODUCTION OS be patched in the field get through this 5 year Security Development LifeCycle?

      And if one bug can get through and require patching in Beta 1, surely there's one for the release right? Maybe one waiting in there that won't be found until SP1, or SP2?

      I mean, they never ran out of bugs for us before. Why now?

      On the very day that Windows was released, known Windows-apologist and IT turnip George Ou managed to cause a Vista machine to trash a folder and then empty the trash by recording the voice commands for that into an MP3 and putting it into a Web page. Why isn't this possible on Mac OS X, which has had voice commands since Mac OS 9? Because in Apple's version of that feature, you have a password that you have to say to activate the commands. So if your Mac is named "Bruce" you set that word to "Bruce" and then you go "Bruce, empty the Trash" and the trash is emptied, but if you go "empty the trash" nothing happens. If you download an audio file or go to a Web page with Flash audio and it says "empty the trash" your trash doesn't empty. Not so on Windows Vista. If you turn on the voice commands then it is all fair game. If somebody walks by behind you while you're working and goes "empty the trash!" then your trash will empty.

      Microsoft already said they're not going to fix this.

    97. Re:Truth or Dare? by gig · · Score: 1

      > Based on past experience this of course will not last, but the point is there are exploits for OSX, even if we only count the
      > current version. Anyone going around saying that 'there are zero exploits for OSX' is either ignorant, delusional or in denial.

      First of all, you need to look up the word "exploit" ... I do not think it means what you think it means.

      How you can imply that a Mac user might be "ignorant, delusional, or in denial" about security when BILL FUCKING GATES HIMSELF IN THE VERY ATTACHED ARTICLE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING GOES OFF THE RAILS COMPLETELY ABOUT WINDOW SECURITY.

    98. Re:Truth or Dare? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      You're killing me ... what you're implying is that because Vista is now out of beta it is also bug-free. When has that every been true about any product, let alone a Microsoft one?
      What are you on about? Of course Vista is not bug-free, nor have I said anything even remotely implying such a thing.

      One of the examples rohan972 used to support his argument was flawed, which is what I was pointing out; but that does not say anything, positive or negative, about the conclusion. Have a look at Wikipedia on Argumentum ad Logicam: Just because an argument is fallacious, does not mean its conclusion is false (or true).
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    99. Re:Truth or Dare? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      The WMF vulnerability was published and widely known. If someone didn't realize that, they could see the date at the top of the page. You're an idiot if you think that's misleading. You're right, the page isn't misleading. it is your summary of the page, not the page itself, that was misleading; since it implied that it was a vulnerability in the final product (albeit a patched one): the only reference to time in your summary was the a mention of timing of the Microsoft spokespersons explanation as "earlier this month"; misleading, since the "earlier this month" was from the point of view of the article -- i.e. over a year ago.

      Seeing the date at the top of an article is hardly having to carefully scrutinise it Summarising in a way that is misleading unless you follow the link and read the article anyway (even if the clarifying information is at the top of the page) rather takes the point away from summarising at all.

      There are current bugs being sold apparently. Yes. As I said several posts ago, I have no issue with that example. It was only the other one I took exception to.

      If you think that one of the bugs I pointed out being for the beta product negates the fact that Vista vulnerabilities are (apparently) being sold for tens of thousands of dollars, then you need your head examined. Where have I said anything even remotely resembling that the flaw in one of your examples somehow negates the other? As I said, it was only one of your examples that I took exception to; I have no issues with the other one.

      If one of the examples I gave doesn't qualify as a Vista bug in your mind in no way negates or changes that there are exploits for Vista Correct.

      ...nor does it justify your accusation against me. If one of your examples was misleading, that doesn't justify an accusation that one of your examples was misleading? ...Right.

      If I had linked to the service pack instead of the WMF exploit, it would have in no way changed my point, and it would have been current, you're critisism would have been invalid. Was my conclusion that Vista has exploits accurate? Yes, therefore, by definition I was not misleading. You cannot mislead someone to an accurate conclusion. To the first point: Correct! My criticism would have been invalid. I was not criticising your conclusion, I was criticising one of the examples you used to support it, which was misleading. Just because your conclusion is accurate, that does not mean that you were not being misleading in the examples you cited to support it. Example: Just because Fermat's Last Theorem is true does not make Miyaoka's proof any less flawed. You can certainly mislead someone to an accurate conclusion.

      To demonstrate that I was misleading you need to show that Vista doesn't have exploits. Good luck. Quite apart from the fact that I was never claiming that Vista doesn't have exploits -- e.g. I had no problem with your first example -- If you seriously believe that in order to show you were being misleading I would need to show that Vista doesn't have exploits, you need some serious lessons in logic. Start with this.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    100. Re:Truth or Dare? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the arguement from ignorance doesn't fit at all. You need some lessons on logic yourself. The post I originally replied to was arguement from ignorance, ie: Vista doesn't have exploits because I haven't been given a link to any.

      When I wrote that post, I did two quick searches. "Vista exploit" and "Vista patch" if I remember correctly. Then I posted links to a first page result from both searches. It's a slashdot post, not a thesis, not a research paper, not professional journalism.

      http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=41 034 This article (January 18, 2006) it titled "Microsoft Issues First Vista OS Patch" the article in my original post http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1911406,00.as p says "Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches" and says "A Microsoft spokesperson told eWEEK that the Vista patches address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month." (emphasis mine)

      Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant with Sophos, calls it a patch for Vista. The unnamed Microsoft spokesman call it a patch for Vista. You think I'm misleading to call it a patch for Vista. Go figure. I think you need a reality check. If two (presumably) professional journalists can report it as a Vista patch and not be called to account, if the Microsoft spokesman called it a Vista patch and hasn't issued a retraction, then I can call it a Vista patch in a slashdot post without accepting your assertion that I was misleading.

      Since Vista (then Longhorn) was supposed to be RTM in 2005 http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_prev iew_2003.asp then a December 2005 patch is relevant to the topic. It's a Vista patch.

    101. Re:Truth or Dare? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      You need some lessons on logic yourself. To quote from your post: "To demonstrate that I was misleading you need to show that Vista doesn't have exploits. Good luck." You're right, the argument from ignorance doesn't fit exactly: your statement actually has two seperate logical flaws. To enumerate:
      1. You equated the assertion "You were being misleading" with "Vista doesn't have flaws", implying that by asserting the former I was also claiming the latter. The two statements are in no way equivalent, and the former in no way implies the latter.
      2. That given, your statement simplifies to: You cannot prove {not A}, therefore {A}. This argument is certainly commonly used (for instance, by religious fundamentalists: "You can't prove God doesn't exist; therefore God exists", but that doesn't make it any less flawed.

      When I wrote that post, I did two quick searches "Vista exploit" and "Vista patch" if I remember correctly. Then I posted links to a first page result from both searches. It's a slashdot post, not a thesis, not a research paper, not professional journalism. You're right. Since this is not professional journalism, mistakes and misleading statements are probably inevitable; hence why comments and corrections are prolofic, informative, and useful. Which is why I replied to your post in the first place.

      Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant with Sophos, calls it a patch for Vista. The unnamed Microsoft spokesman call it a patch for Vista. You think I'm misleading to call it a patch for Vista. Go figure. I think you need a reality check. If two (presumably) professional journalists can report it as a Vista patch and not be called to account, if the Microsoft spokesman called it a Vista patch and hasn't issued a retraction, then I can call it a Vista patch in a slashdot post without accepting your assertion that I was misleading. The entire point is the timing. The spokesperson, tech consultant etc. called it a patch for Vista alsmot a year ago, when 'Vista' was an early beta. They weren't "called to account" back then because, back then, they were correct. Now, however, 'Vista' is a released OS, and the assumption is that people referring to Vista are referring to this.

      Let me try to use a car analogy to make it clearer. If I were to post a statement to the effect that you shouldn't buy a Ford Focus because they have a habit of bursting into flames, and quoted a spokesman as saying that "Last month, it was revealed that all Focuses have a habit of bursting into flames" -- and then, if you happened to read the article, you discovered that it was from over a year before the Focus started being manufactured and referred to not-for-production "concept" cars produced by Ford, and the exploding vulnerability was not present in and unrelated to any Ford Focus you could actually buy; would you not accuse me of being misleading?

      As with this, the Ford spokesperson and the journalist would have been perfectly accurate when they wrote the story, because at the time, the Focus *was* only a concept, and was not in production. Doesn't mean I would not be misleading by selectively quoting them today.

      Since Vista (then Longhorn) was supposed to be RTM in 2005 http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_prev iew_2003.asp then a December 2005 patch is relevant to the topic. Oh, come on. Are you serious? You can't argue based on the assumption that a possible alternative history that didn't happen, did happen.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    102. Re:Truth or Dare? by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know it's self inflicted, but despite my best attempts trying to avoid it (I speak Solaris and program in Fortran, I cannot fix your laptop), I ended up spending hours cleaning up grad-student, post-doc, and faculty laptops afterwards. The worst were the ones who allowed their teenage kids to use the machines while waiting for them. As for user education, you notice that you got paid, and are still being paid by the other side. This implies that when it comes to user education, Windows users can be amazingly... dense. Kind of like dogs that don't learn after the first porcupine. You did that, you got stuck. Are you going to do it again?

      So, while the Dow analogy is over the top (but we didn't have to invoke Godwin's law here), the justification for your doing that job still isn't sitting well from at least one of us who used to be the computer-everything for a group. (big Solaris machines down to why laptops made grinding sounds after being dropped)

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    103. Re:Truth or Dare? by loqi · · Score: 1

      [*]: Where I come frome, it is quite rightly illegal to encourage or help someone to kill themselves.

      Sounds like a pretty stupid place.

      --
      If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
  5. 4 TEH WIN! by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

    Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.
    Looks like he lost his temper (and his sense) again. His personality's a lot like Ballmer's, he just can't fling chairs as far.
    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:4 TEH WIN! by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

      I wonder how many new crackers he just inspired with the comment lol. Not that they already weren't looking before, but now maybe they'll drink that one more dew and work a little longer :p

    2. Re:4 TEH WIN! by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Funny

      Looks like he lost his temper (and his sense) again. His personality's a lot like Ballmer's, he just can't fling chairs as far.

      What many people do not realize is that Ballmer is actually a costume for Gates, who wears it when he feels he is exceptionally out of control. Any time you see the two of them together, Ballmer or Gates is actually a puppet designed by the Henson Co.

      Jim Henson actually was assassinated when he threatened to reveal these secrets. True story.

    3. Re:4 TEH WIN! by dontknowdidley · · Score: 1

      ...he just can't fling chairs as far.

      He's not as sweaty either

    4. Re:4 TEH WIN! by bonch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bill's claim about the File-Edit-View-Window-Help menu is even weirder. Bill Atkinson did that at Apple. What is Bill Gates smoking? Apple even invented the phrase "cut and paste." And before the "Apple stole from Xerox" comments start, they actually hired a bunch of the Xerox folks who then went to work on the Mac.

      I haven't seen Gates make comments like this in a long time. I'm glad the public finally gets to see what an asshole he is. Seriously, he's known for cussing and swearing in meetings, and he even once said he'd rather "piss on" OpenStep back in the 90s. In the early 90s, he told his wife he had more power than the President (she kicked him in the leg for it). A very arrogant guy.

      Jobs is arrogant and defensive too, but at least you can understand why given what happened between Apple and Microsoft in the 80s.

    5. Re:4 TEH WIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jobs is arrogant and defensive too, but at least you can understand why given what happened between Apple and Microsoft in the 80s.

      Shaft enough people, lack enough morales and you reach the top in business... and then you start believing you are God and start thinking Ayn Rand knew what she was talking about.

    6. Re:4 TEH WIN! by dotoole · · Score: 1

      Nah you've got it wrong - they're twin bothers. When one is gates the other is dressed up as Ballmer! Sort of explains why they're so incoherant - the're in two minds.

      Now where's my Tesla designed cloning machine?

    7. Re:4 TEH WIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a hoax. In fact they are both cyborgs controlled by the same brain.

    8. Re:4 TEH WIN! by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1, Informative

      And before the "Apple stole from Xerox" comments start, they actually hired a bunch of the Xerox folks who then went to work on the Mac.

      So you are saying that Apple stole the people with the ideas instead of just the ideas?

      According to the infallible wikipedia Xerox actually sued Apple over the UI design. The case was thrown out due to the statute of limitations having expired, so legally we will never know.

    9. Re:4 TEH WIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      FTA you quoted:

      "In retrospect, this turned out to be a good idea, for around 1974, PARC was able to raid the nearby Augmentation Research Center (founded by Douglas Engelbart) for some of its most talented personnel. It also helped that Engelbart's funding from DARPA, NASA, and the U.S. Air Force was drying up around the same time."

      So I wouldn't exactly give Xerox the moral/suing high ground here.

    10. Re:4 TEH WIN! by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Vista includes built-in perspiration capabilities, so I'm sure he can overcome that hurdle.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    11. Re:4 TEH WIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Here's what Bruce Horn, who designed and implemented the original Finder, wrote regarding the accusation that the Macintosh UI came from Xerox:

      The Lisa group invented some fundamental concepts as well: pull down menus, the imaging and windowing models based on QuickDraw, the clipboard, and cleanly internationalizable software.

      Smalltalk had a three-button mouse and pop-up menus, in contrast to the Mac's menu bar and one-button mouse. Smalltalk didn't even have self-repairing windows -- you had to click in them to get them to repaint, and programs couldn't draw into partially obscured windows.
      In other words, the File, Edit, and View menus came from Apple.
      http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/lies_damned_lies _and_bill_gates
    12. Re:4 TEH WIN! by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 0

      Yeah - that was a weird suit. I believe it occured during the Scully years, and is odd considering the XEROX INVESTED in Apple specifically on terms that Apple get a glimpse "under PARC's skirt". The fact that there were two demos to the Mac team were specifically because Apple complained that XEROX was getting 14 million pre-public offering shares and they were getting the short shift demonstration.

      XEROX cleaned up a tidy penny on this exchange, made billions from the laser publishing tech they invented, and yet they still sued. Very weird.

    13. Re:4 TEH WIN! by icepick72 · · Score: 1

      In the early 90s, he told his wife he had more power than the President (she kicked him in the leg for it).

      Got any references for that info (citation needed), or were you sitting at the table with Bill and his wife at the time? ;)

    14. Re:4 TEH WIN! by gig · · Score: 5, Informative

      It was weird he went all Xerox PARC when the question with Vista is the skin. The Windows logo has been ensconced in glassy bubble that is such a Mac OS X wannabe that it's a self-parody ... the very Windows logo has been made to look Mac-like. The swoopy desktop pictures are too much just by themselves, although I heard them defend that by saying that they got all the desktop pictures from third-parties ... so it is not actually Microsoft that did the off ripping. And the "parental controls" feature he keeps saying is a first is in Tiger, released in 2005. It is really weird to hear him say they are first with these things when they are clearly not.

      Apple not only hired people from PARC and gave them a chance to make real products out of their ideas, Apple also paid Xerox with pre-IPO Apple stock. When Apple went public, Xerox made millions and millions and that was what Xerox wanted. The very reason they had the CEO of Apple and his computer design team touring around the Palo Alto Research Center was because they didn't know how to make any money from the stuff they had there. They were like a motorcycle company who came up with a cool concept car and didn't know what to do so they called the local car company CEO to come down and see if they couldn't get him to take the car project forward. He said, yeah, I like this, I'll hire the team and compensate you with stock and everybody was happy.

      When you read the list of GUI features that were developed AFTER that, solely by Apple, at Apple, and for Apple products, it is embarrassing to think about anyone trying to take Apple down a notch with the Xerox PARC story. Just in the 1980's Apple invented and shipped drag and drop, the clipboard cut/copy/paste, the double-click, the pull-down menu, overlapping windows, marquee selections (marching ants), the little box of painting tools like you see in Photoshop, files-and-folders, proportional fonts, WYSIWYG, the Trash, keyboard shortcuts for menus, File-Edit-View, a system menu full of shortcuts (Apple menu/Start menu), little hardware controls in the corner of the screen. The other day I saw a screenshot of System 6 and I was stunned at how much like Mac OS X it looked.

      The only stuff I know that Microsoft has contributed to GUI science is the little curly arrow they put on shortcuts, which is a classic innovation in that you see that on every system now ... the soft links or aliases or shortcuts have the little curly arrow. Also, using a modifier key plus Tab to cycle through running applications started on Windows and is everywhere else now. That's not much for 20 years of MS Windows.

  6. Too easy... by jeppster · · Score: 1

    So, the updates I see twice a week fixing bugs that allow remote execution on my machine are just there for kicks and giggles?

    1. Re:Too easy... by TheRealFixer · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, see, you're just confused. Hackers don't find one exploit in Windows every week. They find 4 the day after Patch Tuesday, then take the rest of the month off.

  7. Wake up Bill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just how delusional can he be? How many Zero-day exploits has Windows had in the last 6 months?

    1. Re:Wake up Bill! by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      For Vista? It's only been out a month.

    2. Re:Wake up Bill! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It's only really been out a couple of days.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:Wake up Bill! by zxnos · · Score: 1

      technically correct but, RC1 has been out since september 06. 'vista' debuted 2005-05-05. longhorn since november 2002. i think this gave plenty of time to look for holes.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    4. Re:Wake up Bill! by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      It's only really been out a couple of days.

      To the public; we business customers got Vista Business back in December.

      I went back to XP after two weeks - it's simply not 'there' yet.

    5. Re:Wake up Bill! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      But are you sure you got what was released? After all, the specs hanged hugely since 05.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:Wake up Bill! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Did you expect differently? After all, SP1's release date was announced prior to the official "consumer" release date, and possibly prior to the "biz" release date (I admit I wasn't quite following the news releases with baited breath, so...)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:Wake up Bill! by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      I wasn't sure what to expect to be honest but I, like a number of people was simply curious.

  8. I'd still rather have a Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So the highly trained security experts break OS X every day huh? Even if that had the SLIGHTEST bit of truth to it I STILL wouldn't buy Windows. Why? Cuz legions of Coke-swilling KIDS break windows all the time. Yeah I know which one I feel more secure with...

  9. From the article by MyNameIsEarl · · Score: 1

    I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

    I would stay away from Vista for a good while now while the hackers have a go at Vista's security. I'm not sure how good of an idea daring people to hack Windows is.
    1. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have missed the earlier 20 articles posted on here where microsoft not only dared the hackers to do it, but offered them $$$$ as a reward.

    2. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, it worked for GW daring the terrorists to fight in Iraq.

    3. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more money in exploiting vulnerabilities later.

  10. WTF by n1hilist · · Score: 5, Funny

    "He makes the claim that 'security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.'"

    It's almost like virgins talking about sex, I'd question if he actually *uses* his own O/S.

    1. Re:WTF by Life2Short · · Score: 1

      Sounds like he's been drinking his own Kool-Aid (I know, I know, it was really Flavor-Aid at Jonestown).

    2. Re:WTF by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

      I wonder about this too. Would he really bother using such an insecure OS? Does he get home at night and run through the day's virus patches before he does a bit of surfing? Has he got a patch monkey that does it all for him? Who knows?

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    3. Re:WTF by taustin · · Score: 1

      It's almost like virgins talking about sex, I'd question if he actually *uses* his own O/S.

      Given how often he's blue screened at public demos, can you blame him?

    4. Re:WTF by wiz31337 · · Score: 1

      I completely agree, if he would actually use his own sys ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!11
      [no carrier]

      --
      /whisper/ Thanks for the candy!
    5. Re:WTF by n1hilist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, except it doesn't taste like real Kool Aid since it's watered so heavily down with DRM.

    6. Re:WTF by Clever7Devil · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I wonder if he does use Windows at home. An exploit for Bill's personal home computer posted to the net would be the comedy event of the year.

      --
      "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
    7. Re:WTF by Hymer · · Score: 1

      He can't do... He got the same problem as IRS: it just can't handle calculations on so big numbers.

    8. Re:WTF by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to deny that Macs aren't completely taken over every day, just because I've never seen it, but come on! Does anyone have any proof/link/reference, hell, I'll accept anecdotal evidence, that OS X has ever been hijacked even once, let alone "ever day"?

  11. Exploits on Vista? by soapbox · · Score: 5, Informative

    I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.'

    Yeah, there's one this month.

    also here.

    1. Re:Exploits on Vista? by udderly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's some pretty big talk for a company with Microsoft's record, isn't it? Especially compared to Mac.

    2. Re:Exploits on Vista? by plastic.person · · Score: 0

      Yea... read out your bytecode one byte at a time using WAV files on a webpage. That's a real plausable hack there..

    3. Re:Exploits on Vista? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gates was comparing the 30 remote code execution bugs from MOAB to these, which inlude a possible (unconfirmed) local escalation of privledge and the ability for a trickster to do something innocuous like start up Word on your system if you play a custom-made sound file while having speech recognition turned on while having the volume on your speakers loud enough so that the microphone can hear it.

    4. Re:Exploits on Vista? by xero314 · · Score: 1

      This hack does not require any bytecode to be spoken. Simply put, through voice commands (and they don't even have to be understand by a human listener as voice commands, they just need to meet the required wave form signature) you can easily download and install a file from a web site. So a web site that starts up a sound file on page load could hide those commands in music to download and install a trojan, root kit or other software. Since vista does not require any authentication to install software this is a potential exploit. I don't know that it is what I would call a serious exploit, nor do I think it only effects vista, since Apples have voice command capability as well, but that does not make it any less an potential exploit.

    5. Re:Exploits on Vista? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be nitpicky, but those two Vista exploits were discovered almost two months apart.

    6. Re:Exploits on Vista? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Did you even bother to read anything about this exploit, or was it too dark to read with your nose up Billy's ass?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:Exploits on Vista? by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 0

      My eyebrows raised on that too. Almost as bad as "develop for NeXT - I'd sooner piss on it". 10 fucking years later, what OS with NeXT underpinnings is Microsoft developing for?

      I'd go hyper negative, but considering the fiscal buffet the planet just got from him and Warren Buffet (ha!) he gets a (few) free "be weird today" cards.

    8. Re:Exploits on Vista? by gig · · Score: 1

      > Gates was comparing the 30 remote code execution bugs from MOAB to these

      MOAB was 22 bugs, and none of them involved remote code execution. At least half of them you had to be sitting at the computer logged in as an administrator. At least a quarter of them were in third-party software that is not even included with a Mac.

      The net result of MOAB was it back-fired. The guys who did it said they were going to do it to teach the Mac community that they were not invulnerable but only one of the bugs was serious and Apple patched it before the month was out. The total pickings of 22 bugs are so slim and drawn from the entire platform of 22,000 applications that it has actually caused Mac users to feel MORE SAFE with their choice of Mac as their personal computer. Even if you happened to use all of the third-party shareware featured in MOAB then you were still so much better off than any Windows user that it is like MOAB said "Congratulations on your Mac purchase."

  12. upgrading by dcskier · · Score: 1, Troll

    Are you bugged by the Apple commercial where John Hodgman is the PC, and he has to undergo surgery to get Vista?

    With windows yeah you may have to upgrade your video card, install new drivers, make config changes, etc. But apple made upgrading so much easier. You can't, so you just throw it away and buy another! Now that's simple!

    1. Re:upgrading by ender-iii · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you ever seen a how a Mac desktop case opens? How all the cables are out of the way for easy upgrading? Seriously... what are you talking about?

      --
      ender-iii
    2. Re:upgrading by fohat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, you can upgrade most if not all the non integrated componants in the new intel Macs. Even the CPU on the new Minis can be upgraded, whereas before it was soldered iirc.

      --
      Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
    3. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      odd then how my wife's 8-year-old iBook runs the latest version of OS X.

    4. Re:upgrading by kebes · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the point is that to upgrade a Mac to the latest version of Mac OS X doesn't require rebuilding the computer (nor buying a new one). In fact each version of OS X is a little more efficient and streamlined, so that older hardware may actually run *faster* with the new OS.

      (I'm not saying I particularly approve of the Apple ads, but I don't think your comments about having to throw out apple hardware are particularly fair.)

    5. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I use OS X (10.3.9) on a 5 year old clamshell. And it runs pretty well.

      If I had _the next revision_ that has firewire, I could use Tiger (or I could hack it).

      Now, I know that OS X (10.1) is as old as XP, but OS X Panther can be compared with ease to Vista.

    6. Re:upgrading by qwertphobia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm running 10.5 on a 7-year-old G4, among other systems. It is in the same configuration as when it was purchased (dual-500 g4's, 1 GB Ram) except that the hard drive has been replaced (40 GB -> 60 GB).

      It might have been a large machine when it was purchased, but it wasn't all that unusual for a Mac. It might not be the fastest computer but it will run the OS faster than it ran the OS it came with (or any other since).

      Let's see you run Vista on a 7-year-old Dell.

      --
      Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
    7. Re:upgrading by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I think he is talking about a situation similar to what I went through:
      I purchased an old 300 Mhz G3 (Beige and White) off of ebay many moons ago. It was capable of running OSX. However, when OSX.2 (or some other upgraded came out... Panther, Puma, Pershing, Lyger... I don't recall) that allowed for the 3D accelerated desktop, my system would not run it. The blue and whites could, but not the beige. There was absolutely nothing I could do to make the system run it. Oh sure, the system could be upgraded with a new processor, memory, hard drive or whatever, but no upgrade would allow for this functionality. My options were to either do without or buy a new Mac.

      (BTW, I chose option 3 and installed Linux on it.)

      Again, this was a long time ago. Maybe things have changed since then.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    8. Re:upgrading by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      Let's see, for the price you paid for your Mac, you could have purchased a Dell PowerEdge 2400 Dual P-III running at 800MHz to 1GHz with 4 GB of RAM. Yeah, that would run Vista. You won't see the fancy 3D interface, but it will run the OS.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    9. Re:upgrading by badasscat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the point is that to upgrade a Mac to the latest version of Mac OS X doesn't require rebuilding the computer (nor buying a new one). In fact each version of OS X is a little more efficient and streamlined, so that older hardware may actually run *faster* with the new OS.

      Tell that to anyone who's been running an OS9-based G4, who then upgrades to the latest version of OSX.

      You're comparing OSX to itself. It's like saying Windows XP SP2 is faster than Windows XP SP1. That's not what we're talking about; we're talking about major OS upgrades. The Mac OS existed before OSX, and it wasn't very long ago in the grand scheme of things. The last version of OS9 was released in December of 2001. I don't know about you, but I've got two separate PC's that were originally built long before 2002, and my wife's laptop dates to about that period also.

      Upgrading from OS9 to any version of OSX can be *painful* unless you have upgraded your computer. OSX is notoriously memory-hungry (as is Vista), and it requires a graphics card with decent 3D capabilities to really shine (also like Vista).

      I think the point made was valid - Apple themselves seem to be assuming that all of their customers bought OSX-based Macs, which means they either tossed out their old Macs or they're n00bs. Otherwise, they couldn't *possibly* expect anyone to update from OS9 to OSX without at least a RAM upgrade, probably a video card upgrade and probably a hard drive upgrade. So it's a little disingenuous of them to suggest that this is unique to the PC world.

      You try running OSX with 256MB of RAM, which was a high-end machine back in 2001.

    10. Re:upgrading by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

      You should've tried XPostFacto.

    11. Re:upgrading by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      It ran OSX, just not the latest of the day. Frankly, as poorly as this system ran OSX, there was no way I was going to try to force anything else on it. This thing strained to display graphics in Safari. YellowDog Linux provided a better solution for me anyway, although I found it odd that I had to boot halfway into OS9 before I could select YD Linux.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    12. Re:upgrading by ndpatel · · Score: 1

      So your complaint is that you bought a used machine that you couldn't upgrade to the latest PCI spec that would enable support for a graphics feature in an OS released 5 years after the computer? I mean, barring a total mobo replacement, what were you expecting?

      --
      london is drowning and i live by river
    13. Re:upgrading by qwertphobia · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep... mine was used as a server when it was purchased. It's still aa server, but just for a test environment.

      You may have found different information, but the first search I came across listed the PowerEdge 2400 at a price of $8,994 in June of 2001. This G4 was $3199 in July of 2000 from what I could find.

      Your comparison is not quite equivalent, but I wasn't comparing price in my comments, just timeframes of technology.

      --
      Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
    14. Re:upgrading by be-fan · · Score: 5, Informative

      When OS X 10.3 (Panther) discontinued support for the Beige G3s, the line was six years old and had been discontinued for four. It makes sense that Apple chose to abandon support for a line of machines that wouldn't have run the new OS acceptably anyway.

      Linux can get away with supporting ancient hardware because, well, because they don't actually have to support it. Nobody calls up the GNOME foundation complaining that 2.16 crawls on their PIII-450 with 256MB of RAM. In comparison, Apple actually has to live up to the specifications they outline on the box.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    15. Re:upgrading by larkost · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That particular case was when 10.3 came out and allowed accelerated graphics to be used on computers that had AGP slots in them (since AGP allowed for enough bandwidth for this feature to be useful). Some people did find the trick to enable it on PCI-only machines (like yours), and found that because of the lack of bandwidth between memory and the graphics card it was actually slower.

      So... is your argument is that Apple should have made your computer slower, or that Apple should have somehow caused your PCI clot to become a AGP slot using software only?

      And since then there have been a number of changes in this sub-system. Each time Apple has allowed older computers to continue running they way they were, and allowed newer computers to be faster with a very few extra eye-candy touches (like a rotating cube). They have not created distinctly different functionality (yet). Vista does go a little further down this road, and there is a chance that 10.5 will too with CoreAnimation (I have no non-public information on this: pure speculation).

    16. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the latest released version 10.4..?

    17. Re:upgrading by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was absolutely nothing I could do to make the system run it. Oh sure, the system could be upgraded with a new processor, memory, hard drive or whatever, but no upgrade would allow [my beige G3 Mac to run OS X 10.2].

      I feel ya, brother. I mean, I'm trying to get Vista Home Edition to run on my 486DX2/66, and it just won't, no matter which components I upgrade!

    18. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps the parent poster is a developer...
      does the Apple NDA forbid you from saying you use NDA software?

    19. Re:upgrading by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Seven year old dell.. well I've got one and I can guarantee it won't run vista. Its a PowerEdge 550Mhz Xeon P3 with 512MB RAM, Ati onboard rage graphics, two scsi 18GB hard drives and a scsi cdrom. It will run Windows 2003 Server and MidnightBSD just fine. The problem with using PowerEdge systems is that its not a fair comparison. Apple did sell PowerMacs configured as servers, but vista is a client OS so you should use the dell Precision line. A 7 year old precision may or may not run vista. I know my ~4 year old Precision could not run Vista beta2 due to lack of drivers for the LSI scsi controller. That's a dual Xeon 2Ghz Precision 650 workstation.

      Old Macs also do not have the accelerated APIs but the interface looks mostly the same in Mac OS X. My wife's original iBook can run 10.3 but does not have the disk space for 10.4. I doubt it has enough ram to run mail.app for my email account (160MB) without it crashing. It runs OpenBSD perfectly though.

      I guess I don't see the point to all this. We know windows releases are important to generate new hardware sales and therefore require semi-recent computers. This will make intel and amd a lot of money. We benefit as geeks because we get new stuff to play with. Hardware vendors innovate when they actually can sell hardware. All our friends and relatives give us old PCs and Macs as they upgrade. Just enjoy the vista launch. My mother is already asking me about vista. I told her games don't work and its overrated. She still think it sounds good because Bill Gates said so. So I'll probably load it up for her. She can see how "right" Mr. Gates is for herself.

    20. Re:upgrading by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      So your complaint is that you bought a used machine that you couldn't upgrade to the latest PCI spec that would enable support for a graphics feature in an OS released 5 years after the computer? I mean, barring a total mobo replacement, what were you expecting?

      Nothing. I was happy with my purchase. I posted the comment because someone mentioned that Macs were completely upgradeable in response to a post stating that you may have to throw away your Mac to run the latest OSX.

      And to the best of my knowledge, there was no mobo replacement available for the beige case, meaning that the best I could do was to buy a new (or at least newer) Mac.
      To contrast my Mac with my PC: I am running XP on a system that has had the motherboard upgraded twice, the processor upgraded once, the video card upgraded at least four times and I won't even guess as to how many hard drives have been in the system. Not forced upgrades, but just little piecemeal, one part at a time upgrades to keep my system current. What started out as an AMD Athlon XP 2000 with a nVidia 4200 became an Athlon64 3000 with a nVidia 6600GT and is now an Opteron 175 dual core with an nVidia 7800GS. The case, RAM, DVDROM, power supply, TV card and sound card are all original.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    21. Re:upgrading by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      I originally miscounted my processor, and MB upgrades... it's been through three processors and motherboards. (Note, that I could have also kept the original video card, but chose to upgrade that along with everything else)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    22. Re:upgrading by klubar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's like saying it ran windows, just not the latest version. Microsoft hasn't been charging $100 for each service pack... on the otherhand upgrading to the new OS is about $150. Apple is pretty pricy about charging for each bug fix/release.... and they stop supporting old releases after a year or so... Microsoft still supports many of its old releases even after 5 years....

      Anyone have a daylight saving fix for OS 9? 10.0? 10.1? 10.2? How about OS 8?

    23. Re:upgrading by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Tell that to anyone who's been running an OS9-based G4, who then upgrades to the latest version of OSX. You're comparing OSX to itself. It's like saying Windows XP SP2 is faster than Windows XP SP1.

      Not really. There is no one to one comparison, but each shift from 10.0 to 10.1 to 10.2 etc. was a lot more significant that the shift from Win XP SP1 to WinXP SP2. Real new features were added with each release and new APIs as well. In fact, if you look at the feature set from 10.0 to 10.4, there are a lot more features and underlying changes than in the shift from Win NT to Vista.

      What really matters in this case is the longevity of the machines in question. My middle of the road seven year old dual 533 G4 still runs the latest and greatest OS X just fine. The middle of the road PC tower I bought at the same time for slightly more is useless junk and people won't take it off my hands for free. It sure won't run Vista and is not to fast at running XP.

      Upgrading from OS9 to any version of OSX can be *painful* unless you have upgraded your computer.

      The same goes for that old Win 98 machine you bought, what's your point? When you move to a system with 300% the functionality, you pay for it in resources. Run FreeBSD if you want to run ancient hardware with minimal specs.

    24. Re:upgrading by mkiwi · · Score: 5, Funny
      Let's see you run Vista on a 7-year-old Dell.

      I tried, unfortunately he did not make it through surgery. He did give me his peripherals, though.

    25. Re:upgrading by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      You know... I have a G3 iMac that runs 10.4 just fine, if an order of magnitude slower that the x86 based one. The only upgrades it has seen were memory and a hard disk - because the original one died. Apple made upgrading not necessary.

      You just can't make Vista fit into a 1998 PC. You can barely make XP run on a Pentium II and those were the computers I used when I bought that Mac.

      When compared to Apple, Microsoft is grossly incompetent. Just face it.

    26. Re:upgrading by LanMan04 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You won't see the fancy 3D interface, but it will run the OS. And that's different from running XP.....how? ;)
      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    27. Re:upgrading by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      If your wife's iBook really is 8 years old, it doesn't have Firewire or a DVD drive, which means 10.4 installations's unsupported by Apple. You can't even get it on the thing without ordering an extra copy on CDs direct from Apple, and you still need hack software to even get it to install.

      I bet you can actually run Vista Basic on a machine lower than the system Reqs, which are 800Mhz with 512Megs of RAM. It might be really slow, but I've run OS X 10.3 on a Power Mac G3 400, and it was slow as crap. Your iBook has a 300Mhz CPU and the RAM tops out at 512M, the minimum for OS X non-suckage. I can only imagine the torture it must be to use that thing. On top of that 10.4 is slower than 10.3, the first time an OS X upgrade by Apple wasn't faster than the last. You cannot be using Spotlight on the thing, and it's not even possible to run Quartz Extreme with the video CPU in the laptop if 3D was supported on the Rage Mobility, which I'm not sure if it even is (Mac users had to fight to get acceleration for Rage II.)

      So basically you've hack installed OS X to badly run on an 8 year old computer without any fancy features or graphics effects. I'm pretty sure somebody could do that with Vista too, but why? You were forced to upgrade to 10.4 because you wanted to run the latest software, but there'd be no point to upgrade a 1999 PC to Vista because Windows 2000 can pretty much run whatever Windows software you've wanted since 2000, likely even for a few more years. This is ignoring DirectX10 exclusive games which would run like crap on an 8 year computer anyway.

      How does this all tie back to the original point? Two ways. Firstly you aren't meeting Apple's minimum requirements but are still running it, I'm pretty sure I could do that with Vista too; second, The argument over upgrading hardware is moot because you basically HAD to upgrade the OS to run stuff, whereas a 1999 PC running a Windows OS that came out in 2000 doesn't need to upgrade to Vista to run new software at all, negating the alleged need for a hardware upgrade in the first place.

      *sidenote, what I mean about "forced" upgrade is look at how much OS X software requires 10.4. A LOT.

    28. Re:upgrading by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      The case, RAM, DVDROM, power supply, TV card and sound card are all original.
      So, in other words, you replaced it, one component at a time instead of all at once. IMHO, if you replace the motherboard, you have replaced the computer.

      What you did is like replacing the block, pistons, pumps, and belts on an engine but claiming it's only an upgrade because you kept the spark plugs and radiator.
      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    29. Re:upgrading by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      That's like saying it ran windows, just not the latest version. Microsoft hasn't been charging $100 for each service pack...
      Neither has Apple, as each major version is far, far more than a mere "service pack," especially Tiger.

      on the otherhand upgrading to the new OS is about $150.
      Actually, it's $120. Hell, getting a functional version of Vista is at least $200. $400 if you want all the Ultimate features...at that point, you could just throw in another hundred and get a Mac mini.
      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    30. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am. It's a Pentium 3 1Ghz with 1GB of RAM and an nVidia video card. It is above Vista's minimum requirements and it runs Vista fairly well.

      Did you have a point again?

    31. Re:upgrading by Fahrenheit+450 · · Score: 1

      Anyone have a daylight saving fix for OS 9? 10.0? 10.1? 10.2? How about OS 8?

      I'd guess that this procedure should work for any version of OS X.

      --
      -30-
    32. Re:upgrading by meme+lies · · Score: 1

      I'm running 10.5 on a 7-year-old G4, among other systems. It is in the same configuration as when it was purchased (dual-500 g4's, 1 GB Ram) except that the hard drive has been replaced (40 GB -> 60 GB).

      Assuming you bought it the day it came out, the computer is more like six and a half years old (http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g4mp.html)

      And you're running 10.4, unless you're an Apple developer. 10.5 isn't available to the consumer until Spring 2007.

      It might have been a large machine when it was purchased, but it wasn't all that unusual for a Mac. It might not be the fastest computer but it will run the OS faster than it ran the OS it came with (or any other since).

      This was the most powerful Powermac you could buy at the time, retailing at $3500. I'd say it's a very unusual machine.

      Let's see you run Vista on a 7-year-old Dell.

      Let's see you run 10.5 on a typical machine from 2000-- a 400mhz imac g3 (http://www.lowendmac.com/imacs/400.shtml), a 500mhz Pismo Powerbook (http://www.lowendmac.com/pb2/pismo.shtml), or even single processor G4. Only the Powermac G4 will even be supported (meaning you can install without a third-party hack like XPostFacto) and regardless it will be too sluggish for most users, to say the least.

      Additionally I'd argue the switch to Vista is about as substantial as the switch to OSX. 10.2/Jaguar (which most would say was the first version of OSX that was useful enough to run without dual booting into OS 9) certainly did not support computers with less than a G3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.2), and the earliest G3 dates back to November 1997 (http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g3.shtml.)

      That's about four and a half years of legacy support. If that, I'm being generous as even the first versions of OS X required a G3 and 10.2 itself really required something beyond a beige-box 233/266 G3. This is pretty par for the course for Apple, five years or so is about average with higher end machines surviving longer (for example they seem to be dropping all G3 support with Leopard.) Yes, some machines will be able to be updated longer but others will be obselete in just four years-- for example, a G3 ibook purchased in 2003 will likely not be able to run Leopard at all.

      So, basically, I'm saying you're using a very extreme and certainly a very unusual example. Meanwhile XP's range is just as good if not better, Vista will run on a six-and-a-half year old Dell if it was likely the Ferrari of its day and Linux beats them both.

    33. Re:upgrading by ObiWanKenblowme · · Score: 1

      You mean, tell that to anyone like me? I'm running 10.4 on a 400mhz G4 which I bought in '98, 768MB ram, which originally came with OS 8 (8.6 I believe?). 10.1 was moderately sluggish at times. Each new version since has brought noticeable speed improvements. Upgrading from OS 9 to any version of OS X other than 10.1 isn't "painful" as you describe, and with recent releases is actually plenty fast enough for home use*.

      * If you're doing processing-intensive work, you'll of course want to get a newer machine than mine.

      --
      Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
    34. Re:upgrading by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

      Tell that to anyone who's been running an OS9-based G4, who then upgrades to the latest version of OSX.
      I just did this on a friend's Dual 500MHz G4, taking it from OS9 to 10.4.8. This machine had as you mentioned, 256MB of RAM. My friend was very happy with the speed - 16MB VRAM in this guy, 1024x768, it worked fine, eyecandy included.

      I think your statement WOULD have been true up until 10.4 - on that release, even my kids' old 400MHz G3 iMac DV was seeing an improvement over OS 9 (subjectively - life's too rich to muck about with benchmarks on 6-year-old machines).

      sloth jr
    35. Re:upgrading by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with people being able to treat their computers like appliances? Techno-nerds have forced people to deal with computer innards for far too long.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    36. Re:upgrading by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      You may have found different information, but the first search I came across listed the PowerEdge 2400 at a price of $8,994 in June of 2001. This G4 was $3199 in July of 2000 from what I could find.
      I stand corrected. I was actually thinking of 2002 prices.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    37. Re:upgrading by bitbucketeer · · Score: 1

      Send it to me and I'll try it on my i486DX4/100 with 32M of ECC memory. If it won't work, I know I can just reload Debian 3.1 on it just fine.

    38. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, how much did a PowerEdge 2400 cost with 4 GB of RAM in 2002?

    39. Re:upgrading by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The minimum requirements for Vista list the processor at 800MHZ. The PIII 800 was released in Q1 2000, meaning that Vista, minus the bells and whistles will run on a PC released seven years ago (although, I don't know why you'd want to!) Unlike my 300MHz Beige Mac that was sold from 1997 to 1999, would not run the latest OSX 10.2 released in 2002. (Old example, I know, but that's the only Mac I ever owned)

      The original point was that Macs could not be upgraded. While this is not true, eventually you will have to purchase a whole new Mac in order to run the latest OS release. I was pointing out that you can upgrade a PC almost indefinitely to run the latest OS (Windows specifically, even more so with Linux) without ever having to purchase a whole new system. Granted, it won't be too long before every component in the case is replaced, but if I could have done that with my Beige G3, I would still be using that Mac today!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    40. Re:upgrading by Gropo · · Score: 1

      Tell that to anyone who's been running an OS9-based G4, who then upgrades to the latest version of OSX.
      Thinking back to my legacy Mac OS days, counting all the time waiting for reboots, 30 second system hangs due to pre-emptive threads, time spent futzing about with the extensions build... All that indubitably needs to be factored in to the total. But you're obviously talking about "teh snappy", and only that perceived measure of 'fastness'. As others have mentioned, UI responsiveness improved on each incremental release of OS X.

      I would venture a guess that replacing 9.2 with 10.3 or 10.4 on a 2000-era G4 with 256MB of RAM would not result in the average cave-dwelling user remarking "AGH WHY IS THIS SO SLOW" but rather "HOLY CRAP I CAN DRAG THE WINDOWS AROUND" and perhaps "LOOK THINGS ARE HAPPENING EVEN WHEN I HOLD THE MOUSE BUTTON DOWN." I think there's a great degree of relativity involved in the 'user experience'.

      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
    41. Re:upgrading by WMD_88 · · Score: 1

      The problem with using PowerEdge systems is that its not a fair comparison. Apple did sell PowerMacs configured as servers, but vista is a client OS so you should use the dell Precision line. A 7 year old precision may or may not run vista. I know my ~4 year old Precision could not run Vista beta2 due to lack of drivers for the LSI scsi controller. That's a dual Xeon 2Ghz Precision 650 workstation.

      Going by this page, I doubt a 7-year-old Precision could run Vista. It supported up to a 700MHz P3 and 1GB RAM, and AGP 2x. It might install and run, but slowly at best.
    42. Re:upgrading by Gropo · · Score: 1

      on that release, even my kids' old 400MHz G3 iMac DV was seeing an improvement over OS 9
      Odd, I have that very machine on my desk next to my main display running Tygra... Had to disable Dashboard and Expose on it to make myself sane while using it. Perhaps the fact that I didn't have any experience with Jaguara or Panthro on it (and a nice dual 1.2 Ghz next door) contributes to the feelings.
      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
    43. Re:upgrading by Null+Nihils · · Score: 1

      Nobody calls up the GNOME foundation complaining that 2.16 crawls on their PIII-450 with 256MB of RAM
      Both the Ubuntu desktop and now, experimentally, the Kubuntu desktop, ran fine on my PIII-450 with 256MB (might even only have 128MB) of RAM. Admittedly, that old box is usually just used as a test server, but I've used the desktop on many occasions and it runs surprisingly smoothly. Windows XP crawled and chugged on the same hardware.

      If anything, in my experience with Linux desktops it almost seems that they don't adequately take advantage of faster hardware... on an Athlon XP box, a Linux desktop doesn't feel as snappy as Windows XP does on the same hardware. Although with the newfangled Beryl/Compiz and whatnot, I guess all desktops will soon be fully accelerated.
    44. Re:upgrading by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      you must be an apple developer since 10.5 is not out yet

    45. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When OS X 10.3 (Panther) discontinued support for the Beige G3s, the line was six years old and had been discontinued for four"

      Which is a grand improvement. Back in the day of excess LISA inventory they stuck Mac XL stickers on them, claimes the softeware worked knowing damn well it didn't and just wrote off the customers. Hell, at $5k/pop what's a few thousand customers when ou've got a warehouse full of bad eggs.

      Want to see a killer company. If ALL the Linux contributors got together and defined a limited scope hardware spec, the package would be better than macos-x on a mac in under a year...

    46. Re:upgrading by edwardpickman · · Score: 1
      I feel ya, brother. I mean, I'm trying to get Vista Home Edition to run on my 486DX2/66, and it just won't, no matter which components I upgrade!

      No problem. Just bypass the power supply and hook it up directly to 3 phase power then over clock to 5 gig. Make sure you increase the flow of liquid nitrogen in your cooling system to compensation for the slight increase in heat generated. If you black out the neighborhood try backing it off the overclock to 4.9 gig but back it off slowly. You'll need to write some custom drivers and it may not be that stable, also it'll set you back a few grand for the extra hardware, but the point is to avoid buying a new machine when you have a perfectly good machine capible of displaying a 64,000 colors on a 14" monitor. Oh, you might want to keep a fire extinguisher handy. If the Nitrogen runs out they tend to go up like a low grade nuke.

    47. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding it was a long fucking time ago. Christ, what a stupid example. You found a computer worth about 5 bucks and then complain you can't instal 100 bucks worth of OS onto it. Does that strike anyone else as slightly insane? Yep, you need a new world Mac to run the latest OS. Big fucking deal, they can be had for peanuts - I've got two Macs here that I got for FREE (a 500Mhz B&W G3 and a 733Mhz VGer G4) that run OSX 10.4.8 perfectly well, and a LOT better than they run Linux.

    48. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to upgrade the CPU, RAM, hard disk, CD drive, motherboard, graphics card, sound card, network card, case, keyboard, mouse and monitor. It'll run Vista with no problems!

    49. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that your "whole new Mac" can actually be a whole OLD Mac worth about 50 bucks. Doesn't quite seem so onerous now, does it?

    50. Re:upgrading by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Tell that to anyone who's been running an OS9-based G4, who then upgrades to the latest version of OSX.

      Like me, for example? 10.0 and 10.1 were a little sluggish, but not too bad. But the reason I was still running OS9 was application support. By the time 10.2 and 10.3 came around, my G4 was so much nicer to use on OS X rather than OS 9. With 10.4 it flies. No hardware upgrades.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    51. Re:upgrading by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Don't start the Macs can't be upgraded FUD. There are websites reporting that you can put quad core chips in the Mac Pros. My wife has a PowerMac Dual 867MHz G4 which shipped with 256MB RAM, a Geforce 4 MX 32mb AGP video card, 60GB HDD, and a Combo drive. We've upgraded it to 1.75GB RAM, added a second 160GB hard drive (primary boot volume now), a second optical drive (dvd burner bought for $32 on newegg), and at one time it had a Radeon 9800 aftermarket card. I even had a second NIC in it for a bit when my old router failed. The system shipped with 10.2. Its been upgraded to 10.3 and 10.4. It will most likely run 10.5 perfectly. My wife wants a new machine to improve her WoW experience and I figure we'll end up getting her a Mac Pro in the next year or so.

      Another example is my old iMac. It was an iMac DV 400mhz G3 which came with a 10GB hard drive and 64MB ram with OS 9. I bought it in august of 2000. I upgraded the ram to 512MB and replaced the hard drive with an 80GB seagate. I also put 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 on it before I sold it to a coworker. Her daughter is still using it with 10.3 quite happily.

      The beige to color transition was a problem for many people but since then many macs are upgradable. I've put a 60GB hard drive and 512MB ram into my iBook G4 as well. It wasn't fun to remove 52 screws to get to the hard drive, but I was able to do it.

      There are overdrive chips for machines up to late G4 models. You can get ATI video cards for many systems. The trick is to buy a PowerMac or now a Mac Pro.

      My G4 xserve at work just got a memory upgrade and runs 10.4 server with 2GB of ram and 3 hard drives. It has a radeon graphics card. My G5 xserve at work has an xserve raid attached with a fibre channel card, 5 GB of ram and 2 hard drives in internal modules. It also runs 10.4 server. Most of the iMacs (G4) got new optical drives put in last summer.

      Macs are upgradeable.

    52. Re:upgrading by Nanpa · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Project EUNUCH http://totl.net/Eunuch/index.html/

    53. Re:upgrading by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to anyone who's been running an OS9-based G4, who then upgrades to the latest version of OSX.
      Modern drawing engines require more horsepower. Deal with it.

      You're comparing OSX to itself. It's like saying Windows XP SP2 is faster than Windows XP SP1. That's not what we're talking about; we're talking about major OS upgrades. The Mac OS existed before OSX, and it wasn't very long ago in the grand scheme of things. The last version of OS9 was released in December of 2001. I don't know about you, but I've got two separate PC's that were originally built long before 2002, and my wife's laptop dates to about that period also.
      That's a load of bullshit. The differences between point releases of OS X vastly outstrip the differences between Windows XP service packs. Furthermore, you can't classify OS 9 and OS X as related in the same sense that Windows 98 and Windows XP/2000 are related. Windows 98/2000/XP all had an implementation of the Win32 API, so you could compile software on a Windows 98 box and still have it run on Windows 2000 or XP, even though the latter are built on top of a completely different kernel. With Mac OS X and OS 9, that relationship is strictly one-way. OS X implemented the Classic APIs on top of CoreFoundation so that OS 9 developers could recompile their software with very few (or no) required changes to source. They'd just have to link against Carbon.

      Even then, Mac OS X cannot run OS 9 binaries natively; it must boot up the Classic environment to do so. Even then, CFM (the component responsible for loading former Classic applications re-compiled for OS X) applications are not Mach-0 binaries. This is because OS X inherits from NeXT, not Mac OS 9. In many ways, Mac OS X is NeXTStep 6.0. It's a successor to the Mac OS name and brand, not an upgrade from its predecessor.

      The two operating systems are almost nothing alike, except for some user interface design decisions. Everything else under the hood is vastly different. And by the way, Vista and XP have far more in common than OS 9 and OS X. They share a kernel and some level of binary compatibility.

      I think the point made was valid - Apple themselves seem to be assuming that all of their customers bought OSX-based Macs, which means they either tossed out their old Macs or they're n00bs. Otherwise, they couldn't *possibly* expect anyone to update from OS9 to OSX without at least a RAM upgrade, probably a video card upgrade and probably a hard drive upgrade. So it's a little disingenuous of them to suggest that this is unique to the PC world.
      Why? They're not selling or supporting OS 9 anymore. It's dead. Steve Jobs had a funeral for it and everything. Your assertion that, because going from OS 9 to OS X is painful, it's equivalent to going from XP to Vista, is complete and utter nonsense. The OS X transition is over. The majority of Apple users are on OS X. All developer interest in the Mac platform is interest in Mac OS X, not Mac OS 9. All the Big Apps from OS 9 are now running natively on OS X. Users switching to the Mac are doing so because os OS X. OS X drives the iPhone. Apple's living and breathing OS X. No one cares about OS 9 anymore. The same cannot be said of XP.
    54. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which means you can upgrade the CPU in the Mini along with the memory and the harddrive and the.... Oh, I guess that's it. Still pretty restrictive.

    55. Re:upgrading by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Lastest versions of OSX does indeed cut out the older hardware. If you didn't have Firewire port on your motherboard the last time around, you didn't get 10.4. Likely, you will need atleast a G4 to get 10.5. Probably 10.6 or 10.7 will cut off the PPC machines entirely, etc.

      Also, latest versions of OSX have been getting more bloated with things like spotlight and the dashboard. Older machines are starting to feel the crunch.

    56. Re:upgrading by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Thanx for the info. I didn't know.

      Unfortunately, the only experience I've had with the Mac was the beige, so that's the story I told. You explained that the beige was unique case (or the last of its kind). It's good to hear that the upgrade path is much easier (possible) now.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    57. Re:upgrading by zizdodrian · · Score: 1

      The Beige G3 can run (without any 3rd party upgrades or utilities) Mac OS X 10.2.8, which has a 3D accelerated desktop. My Beige DT G3 266 (clocked to 366Mhz) runs 10.4 (installed very simply through XPostFacto) pretty smoothly with just 256Mb RAM. I could try running Vista on a computer from 1997, which is probably possible, but I would be waiting for days while the system booted up.

      However, I don't think using a Beige G3 to demonstrate the upgradeability of various computer models was a terribly useful example, (without wanting to criticise your insight) since it can support up to 768MB RAM, a 1Ghz G4 (Sonnet Encore), and 4x120GB hard disks (2 on the IDE chain, 2 on the SCSI chain) provided you can fit them in. Apple has made far less upgradeable PCs then the Beige.

      Nowadays, admittedly, it is hardly a powerful machine - it has trouble with pretty basic applications - but highly respectable in the era from which it came.

      I don't believe (again, this is just personal observation) that the average consumer even considers upgrading an option (through ignorance) - they only ever replace the entire system.

    58. Re:upgrading by j79zlr · · Score: 1

      Thats funny, I'm on a PII 400 running Gentoo and Gnome 2.16 just fine.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
    59. Re:upgrading by zizdodrian · · Score: 1

      You can't upgrade the motherboard, or graphics card, or add extra internal hardware. You can upgrade the hard disk, RAM, Optical Drive, and CPU, which isn't so bad.

      The difference is that the Mac Mini is essentially a thick, square, headless laptop, running laptop parts. I'll grant that having PCMCIA and a nicer graphics accelerator would be nice, but you make sacrifices getting the thing that small.

    60. Re:upgrading by SEMW · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windo ws_Vista

      (Sorry; I realise your post was tongue-in-cheek, but then you got an insightful mod, so I shouldn't really let it rest.)

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    61. Re:upgrading by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      His example isn't extreme, as I'm doing it with not one but TWO PowerMac G4 towers at home, (and my school has a handful of them as well). I bought the first one in August of 2000, so that makes it nearer to 7 years old, assuming I didn't pick it off of the conveyor belt. I just bought my friends G4 tower, which was the model before my AGP G4. That would make both of these towers "typical" machines from 2000 (or earlier). They both run 10.4, with 1gig of ram. The point remains, that they get faster with each OS upgrade, not slower like Windows upgrades. I seriously doubt that 10.5 won't work or will be too intensive for my old ass G4s.

    62. Re:upgrading by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      You couldn't be more right. Computing is the only field where the user is expected to fit the tools, rather than the other way around.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    63. Re:upgrading by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You can keep buying computers with the intent of upgrading internal components, like I did with my G4 7 years ago. Reality is, that motherboards, ram, video slots, etc. change so rapidly that by the time you want to upgrade your hunk of junk, you are investing in dead technologies. I built a PC a few years ago, with the benefit of being able to upgrade it forever...big mistake. It is cheaper just to go buy a new computer from Dell that has all the modern busses and video slots than it would be to keep upgrading my junker Athlon and board. In this arena, Macs win hands down.

    64. Re:upgrading by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well stated, but I still have to laugh that we are nitpicking the fact that 9 year-old beige G3s might be left out in the next round of OS X. I think we lost sight of the fact that even 2-year old PCs will struggle with Vista. And with OS X we are worried about decade old computers "probably" not working? I would hate to even think of what a 10 year old PC would do with XP, let alone Vista.

    65. Re:upgrading by iphayd · · Score: 1

      Well, you could upgrade the motherboard($145). Of course, this will require a new processor($177), graphics card($99), and RAM($90). Since you now have bluetooth, you may want to get a new keyboard ($110)and mouse($32). Also, you may feel the limitations of a 486 era hard drive($59) (if the mobo even supports the old one), so you probably want to upgrade it as well. My guess is that you'll want to upgrade your monitor as well ($149), because a CRT just doesn't cut it anymore.

      $145
      $177
      $ 99
      $ 90
      $110
      $ 32
      $ 59
      $149
      total $961
      Add the cost of OEM Vista - $119

      So, what did you get with your "upgrades"? A new computer in an old case for $1080. And you may need new fans and power supply as well.

      *all prices are the cheapest item that I could find that supports core2 on newegg

    66. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's bullsh*t!

      This year, I bought a 300 MHz Beige G3 (AUS$50!) and installed OS X 10.4.8 using the free XPostFacto http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/XPostFacto/.

      It's no speed deamon, but my daughter's happy with it for surfing (Firefox) Chatting (Microsoft Messenger) and homework (Word et al).

      All it takes is curiosity and Google - it's not rocket science!

      BTW, I also installed XP on a 300 MHz Pentium - it runs slower and is next to useless!

    67. Re:upgrading by gig · · Score: 1

      Ha Ha if Microsoft supports a system for 5 years it will still be the current system. Up until just a week ago XP was the current system and over 5 years old. One way to keep legacy support is to just not upgrade anything.

      > Apple is pretty pricy about charging for each bug fix

      BULLSHIT. You just look stupid saying such ridiculous stuff.

      OS X is free with your computer purchase. If you want to upgrade just the OS and not the computer later, then it costs $129 for a single license, or $199 for a 5-pack and there is no key, no authorization, no bullshit. It will never pop up and say "am I running on the right hardware, maybe I should go into reduced functionality mode?" It comes on a DVD and includes developer tools. It installs in only a few minutes and just works. Each new release is faster on the same hardware than the previous release. Each new release starts at 10.x.0 and is updated automatically for free every couple of months or so 10.x.1, 10.x.2, etc. until the next full release. There is no other way to pay for OS X. There are no paid bug fixes or anything like that. You get it with a system, or you get a newer version in a box. Software Update is an included feature and it runs automatically and during the life of your operating system it will probably download and install about 20-30 items, all for free.

      > Anyone have a daylight saving fix for OS 9? 10.0? 10.1? 10.2? How about OS 8?

      First of all, you are engaging in FUD because the bug you are talking about is man-made, government-created over just the last year or so, and it not only affects all operating systems but all digital devices, and there is no way for you to know whether these patches will be forthcoming from Apple or from a third-party. Either way, the possibility is more likely than Microsoft patches because with OS X the core OS is open source and not a black box. Also all but OS 8 have Software Update, so Apple could release a patch through there and patch every affected system overnight. Or, Apple could make an offer that any user who brings a computer running one of these systems into an Apple Store or authorized reseller can have a free copy of Leopard. Since we are talking about a minimum number of users that might be the best way.

      Second, you're assuming that anybody is actually using these old systems. The newest one you mention was replaced by 10.3 in the year 2003. That is about the time that Microsoft scrapped Longhorn and did a "reset" of the project based on Windows Server 2003. Just yesterday for Windows users, but an eternity in the Mac world.

      Third, you are assuming that there aren't any workarounds, when there clearly are.

      One fix is to turn on "set date and time automatically" which is always off by default because it "phones home" to Apple to get the right time off their time server. With this setting engaged (it is in the Date and Time System Preference) your Mac's clock will sync to Apple's time server and the time will be correct.

      Another fix is to use the International System Preference to disable Daylight Savings Time.

      Another fix is to set your location to somewhere that doesn't observe Daylight Savings Time, like Arizona.

      Another fix would be to install a third-party clock application that "knows" about this problem and can change the system time as appropriate to keep it right. It is just math ... it is a computer.

      It's worth noting that Windows is famous for fucking up DST. There is one big version of Windows that would "fall back" and then one hour later it would "fall back" again. I think it was Windows 98. My cell phone always fucks up DST also.

      Really, they should abolish DST it is a stupid anachronism and not worth the time we waste on it.

    68. Re:upgrading by gig · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X is free with a system purchase, and if you want to upgrade an old system, then it is $129 or a 5-pack is $199.

      Mac mini is $599 and includes all of the OS features of Windows Vista, plus THE HARDWARE. Not expensive to get Mac OS X.

      Try plugging a display and keyboard and mouse into a Windows Vista Ultimate box it is $399 just to get the DVD.

    69. Re:upgrading by gig · · Score: 1

      This upgrade discussion exposes a clear distinction between upgrade philosophies. Most people will never ever touch a PCI card even if there is a good reason. I work in music and audio and when FireWire pro audio came in suddenly everybody had a PowerBook and they didn't ever want to see a PCI card again.

      Also, when you can buy a Mac mini for $599 or Windows Vista Ultimate for $399 there is a pretty good argument for adding the Mac mini to your current XP setup with a KVM switch rather than paying $399 for Vista and using it to destroy your XP box.

      When I upgrade my computer, I unplug the cables from the back of the Mac, remove it from the desk, and replace it with another Mac. The computer is one independent device that I can pull and replace. The computer has Wi-Fi, Gigabit Ethernet, Bluetooth, FireWire, and USB so you don't need to put stuff inside of it. Also when my desktop was out for repair I put my notebook in its place and everything worked. The computer is swappable within the whole studio setup.

      About every three years AppleCare is up, so I pull the Mac, sell it on eBay for half of what I paid for it three years ago, then buy a new Mac, stick it on the desk and plug the same cables into it, install a few apps, and within a couple of hours I feel like I'm using the same old Mac only of course it is faster.

      I've been doing it this way for a while now and I'm down to just a few hours per year of IT work. Even installing my third-party applications is very fast and easy because only two of them have installers (Photoshop and Logic Pro) and the rest all just drag and drop into place. I only have three drivers and they each install in under a minute it is painless.

    70. Re:upgrading by gig · · Score: 1

      Mac mini has a very simple upgrade path: get a new Mac mini.

      Seriously, you pay $599 for a Mac mini right now and three years from now you pay $599 and Apple replaces every single component and gives you all new software also. That is less than $200 per year for a very respectable level of performance and best in class software. The features of a Mac mini read like Vista but with the computer included and the software is mature and tested.

      When you look at how hard it is to open a Mac mini (or any very small computer) you have to be independently wealthy or totally hopeless out of a job to have the time to pull a component and replace it with another. Even if you replace the CPU, are you really going to see such a whole new Mac mini afterwards that it was worth even the small chance that you drop a screw into something and short it and make a non-functional Mac mini?

      Where does it stop? When they put a whole Mac on one chip will you want to upgrade just some pins of that chip? Are you upgrading the Linux in your router? Mac mini is a little brick with ports running all around it so you can plug stuff into it. It's one thing.

    71. Re:upgrading by gig · · Score: 1

      Somewhere in the argument that you don't need Vista because Windows 2000 can run all of today's Windows apps is the fact that Windows is stuck at a standstill for the whole 21st century. Up until last week, the version that came out in 2001 was the current version. So the argument for saving money here is that there was nothing new to buy even if you wanted to.

      > what I mean about "forced" upgrade is look at how much OS X software requires 10.4. A LOT.

      Yeah, 10.4 has been out for almost 18 months. The people who pay for software are the ones who just bought computers. It is not surprising to see stuff wanting 10.4 right now.

      However every time I see an ad or an article about Windows anti-virus or anti-malware it is always more than I pay for Mac OS X, and it is always recommended if you want to have even a chance at privacy and security. So somebody running Windows 2000 for the last six years but updating his anti-virus every year can pay much more than a Mac user who just buys a new Mac every three years and never ever pays for OS X and doesn't ever need anti-malware stuff.

      Being forced to buy an OS update for an old machine so you can run the most current software doesn't feel nearly as bad to me as being forced to buy an anti-virus add-on for an old machine so you can patch gaping holes in its system software and keep running it for 5 years until there is finally a new revision.

    72. Re:upgrading by gig · · Score: 1

      > You're comparing OSX to itself

      Yes, and also comparing Windows to itself. Windows 6.0 (Vista) is not faster than the previous version, Windows 5.1 (XP) on the same hardware. Windows 5.1 (XP) is not faster than 5.0 (2000) on the same hardware. This covers 2000-2007 and includes only NT-based versions of MS Windows. How could that comparison be unfair in any way?

      If you bought a Mac in 2001 and religiously upgraded it to each new major version of Mac OS X, it would get faster with each upgrade. It would be faster now than it was in 2001. I know this for a fact because I did this with a Titanium PowerBook, purchased in 2001 and recently running Tiger before a hard disk crash.

      If you think there is some utility to talking about Mac OS 9 then I would encourage you to look up how many users there are. The last time I looked at stats was two years ago and the Mac OS 9 slice of the Mac community was less than 1% then. The transition to Mac OS X took place in 2001-2003. Since then the whole platform has switched processor architectures.

      > they couldn't *possibly* expect anyone to update from OS9 to OSX without at least a RAM upgrade,

      Actually, neither Apple nor anyone who has ever used a Mac expects anyone to upgrade any Mac OS 9 system to Leopard. If you have a Mac OS 9 system in the year 2006 it is very likely that Mac will die with OS 9 on it. The time and trouble to upgrade it would not be worth it. Why buy Leopard for $129 and install it on a 5+ year-old Mac when you can buy a Mac mini for $599 with Intel Core Duo in it and all the latest software? Why buy Leopard for $129 and install it on an old Mac when you can buy a used Tiger Mac mini with PowerPC in it for $300? It is 5x faster than your old OS 9 system anyway.

      Again, you are years behind what's going on in the Mac community.

      > You try running OSX with 256MB of RAM, which was a high-end machine back in 2001.

      OS X runs fine in 256MB of RAM. However, Apple has been shipping systems that take 1-2 GB of RAM since 1999. My PowerBook from 2001 had 1 GB of RAM its whole life. But as recently as 2004 you could buy a Mac with only 256 MB in it and it runs fine but you can only run a handful of apps before you see things slow a bit. The reason people say OS X is "RAM-hungry" is that you can just go ahead and launch your whole Dock and it will all run for months, so users are doing that.

      I just read a Vista review where the guy had 1 GB of RAM and said he could only run a few applications at a time.

    73. Re:upgrading by gig · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think he's talking about teh snappy.

      The thing is, the reason OS 9 feels snappy is that you are watching the video buffer on the screen, warts and all, and it is just overlapping itself again and again, replacing stuff, bam. It's fast like sketching, but it's also rough and dirty like sketching.

      On Mac OS X, you have double-buffered windows, so they are drawn off screen, composited with other windows, and then shown to the user. There is a little lag there if you are used to seeing stuff written right to the display in Mac OS 9 or Windows. However on the other hand, the objects on the screen are as real as a Pixar movie. You are obviously getting a greatly increased functionality. It is making a photorealistic painting for you instead of a sketch.

      Also, I recall that in the early days of Mac OS X the graphics hardware was all suited for Mac OS 9 and Windows style stuff, but not suited to what Mac OS X was doing in software, so at first all of the Mac OS X graphics were using the CPU a lot, so you upgraded from Mac OS 9 to X and your display stopped being able to use the GPU at the same time as it started doing so much more graphics work, and until they fixed this with newer graphics hardware and Quartz Extreme (creating the GUI in the GPU with OpenGL) there was definitely a penalty to Mac OS X graphics. However since Quartz Extreme it just gets faster and richer and more animated because the hardware and the science is catching up to the new way of doing graphics.

    74. Re:upgrading by gig · · Score: 1

      > You won't see the fancy 3D interface, but it will run the OS.

      Yeah, that's great and all, but you know that with Mac OS X you can see the fancy 3D interface at all times, even on systems from 2001? So he's saying "I can run the whole of Leopard on this machine just fine" and you're saying "hey, you could be running half of Vista on a Dell."

      Thank-you for proving the Mac side of the argument.

    75. Re:upgrading by gig · · Score: 1

      > 300MHz Beige Mac

      I haven't even heard the word "beige" and the word "Mac" in the same sentence for many years.

      It is telling that people in this discussion have to go that far back to find systems that won't run Mac OS X Tiger.

      The thing is, if you venture back before 2001 on the Mac platform you get funky really fast because in 2001 they released a complete rewrite of their OS that had been brewing for many years, there was built-up tension that got released there, and the whole platform shot forward like letting go of a rubber band. At this point, the platform is moving so fast that to Bill Gates, it looks like we are standing still.

      I don't think it's a coincidence that on this weird year where Microsoft is actually releasing a product, and in January, that Steve Jobs Macworld Keynote was almost completely devoid of Mac stuff. He didn't even release iLife '07 on schedule. Leopard is a huge release for Apple even separate from Vista, because it is the first resolution-independent Mac OS, it is the first that runs on multiple processor architectures (Tiger is two separate systems, one for PowerPC, one for Intel ... Leopard is just one system), it is the first that runs on non-Macs (a stripped-down Leopard is in three other Apple products: iPhone, AppleTV, and AirPort Extreme). In addition to that, Apple can release new surprise features in Leopard and Microsoft won't be able to even try to match them for 3-5 years. When you look at what Apple did against XP, and how weak Apple and Mac OS X were when XP came out, it is really something to imagine Leopard vs Vista.

      > eventually you will have to purchase a whole new Mac in order to run the latest OS release. I was pointing out that you can
      > upgrade a PC almost indefinitely to run the latest OS (Windows specifically, even more so with Linux) without ever having
      > to purchase a whole new system.

      Yeah, but you have to keep purchasing Windows, and it will also complain when you upgrade components, and your PC hardware will last as long or less than a Mac. Hard disks fail, etc. These days you are often better to buy a new system regularly than fuck around with an old one.

      Compare Windows Vista Ultimate at $399 and Mac mini at $599. With the Mac mini you bring your own display, keyboard, mouse. With Windows Vista you have to bring EVERYTHING. And you have to install it yourself at this point also. Yes, you can get an OEM version for cheaper, but you can get a used Mac mini for $300 also and again you've avoided the cardboard box with disk in it and got a real hardware device like an iPod or PS3 ... it does these 25 things well and you go to it.

    76. Re:upgrading by gig · · Score: 1

      Leopard went out to developers in June 2006, as usual. Developers always have an OS revision a year early so they can develop apps for it.

      Everything that is publicly known about Leopard was revealed at WWDC 2006, Steve Jobs showed off some features and gave out a beta to developers. All the Leopard sneak preview stuff on apple.com is from there.

      They also promised that there would be many major features held back from the beta so that they surprise Microsoft when Leopard ships. The biggest feature that is just a rumor is that the GUI will get a new graphic look. The reasons this is expected is that all the graphics have to be redone for "resolution independence" anyway, that that is a major feature that was in beta in Tiger but will ship with Leopard. For example, icons should be 512x512 in Leopard, not 128x128 like they were in Mac OS X v10.0 through v10.4. Interface elements such as buttons in apps have to be redone at much larger sizes or multiple sizes or done with vectors in PDF. Since it is being redone, and since Vista is already out and looks like Mac OS X, it is not hard to imagine Leopard getting a new skin.

    77. Re:upgrading by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Nah, that won't work because case design changed from AT to ATX somewhere between the two - and PSUs were also changed.

    78. Re:upgrading by gig · · Score: 1

      It is bullshit to compare Vista to the first versions of Mac OS X. Are you just spotting Apple 5 years without even a fight? I guess you think very little of XP.

      Windows XP was the Mac OS X -style Windows rewrite. IT WAS DONE FIVE YEARS AGO. Microsoft finally accomplished their long-talked-about goal of moving their user base off of DOS and onto NT. Similarly, with Mac OS X, Apple accomplished their long-talked-about goal of moving their user base off of Classic and onto X. Where do you think Microsoft got the idea? This has been going on since the late 1980's. When Steve Jobs left Apple he took a project with him called "Big Mac" which if you see a picture of it, it is a NeXT workstation prototype, big, black, running UNIX with a Mac GUI. Bill Gates criticized NeXT publicly and then started building what would become NT (you take the e and X out of NeXT, see?) Of course in 1996 Apple bought NeXT back to Apple where it became the future of the Mac again.

      In 2000 it was an interesting year for operating systems. You could go to Apple and buy either a Mac OS 9 system or a Mac OS X Server system. The Mac OS 9 system could run EVERYTHING, but it was also old and crufty, while the Mac OS X Server systems could run only a subset of the application platform, yet were newer and more stable, definitely the future. On the Microsoft side, you had exactly the same thing: if you wanted to run EVERYTHING, you bought a DOS Windows like 98 or ME, but if you could get by without a plain subset of apps, you could run Windows 2000 and get something newer and more stable than DOS.

      The worst part was when Microsoft renamed Windows 5.1 aka Windows 2001 to "Windows XP". At that point, the name "Mac OS X" was about two years old, and had already been used for a shipping product (Mac OS X Server in 1999). All people knew about Mac OS X at that point was that it was coming soon and would be a complete rewrite of the Mac OS on a new core operating system. Then Microsoft renamed its complete rewrite of DOS-Windows on a new core operating system "Windows X" (essentially) and it just felt awful because it was like the depths of un-originality.

      When Windows XP came out a little after Mac OS X in 2001, the big thing from Microsoft was how they were welcoming their users into a new world of modern operating system security and stability. They made a big deal about how you could even run games and such on your NT now, while on the Mac side, Mac OS X was pretty much limited to running old Mac apps in the Classic layer which was a lot like running them on Mac OS 9 only subtly crappier. Microsoft was clearly ahead of the game because you could buy Photoshop and run it on Windows XP and you were a truly modern man. Pity the Mac user, stupid and effete as he is, having purchased colorful hardware the best he can do is run that antique Photoshop in the Classic layer, with limited memory protection and co-operative multitasking. YOU FOOL! DON'T YOU KNOW BILL GATES JUST REWROTE WINDOWS AND NOW IT IS EXCELLENT?

      Remember in late 2001, Microsoft was seen as being WAY FAR AHEAD OF APPLE in operating systems. Only Apple thought differently. Microsoft's rewrite was so much further ahead of Apple's rewrite, how would Apple ever catch up? Would they even survive?

      Then Mac OS X turned out to be awesome and Windows XP sucked in a way that had never been previously imagined. Suddenly you start hearing how Longhorn was going to be out any moment and clean Apple's clock but good. Sure Mac OS X Panther looks like it may have some nice features, but nothing that's not coming in Longhorn. Longhorn is going to be a "complete rewrite" you know? It's going to be the best Windows ever. Phew, that makes me feel so much better about spending so much time fucking with Windows all these years.

      In short, the rewrites are already here for 5 years now. No "Longhorn Reset" or "Vista Rewrite" can change that. You can't make an excuse for XP and say, well that's the old generation, wait until Vista that is the real competitor for Mac OS X. No.

    79. Re:upgrading by be-fan · · Score: 1

      I ran GNOME (pre-Cairo slowdown even) on a PII-300. It crawled. I doubt it's much better with an extra 100 MHz.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    80. Re:upgrading by j79zlr · · Score: 1

      Its not setting any speed records, but it definitely usable.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
    81. Re:upgrading by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      . Nobody calls up the GNOME foundation complaining that 2.16 crawls on their PIII-450 with 256MB of RAM. In comparison, Apple actually has to live up to the specifications they outline on the box.

      Random data point: my main home system is a nine-year old Dell Dimension PII/233. Admittedly it's been pimped up with 324Mb RAM and an incredible 40G of disk space, but I use Google Maps and Gmail in Firefox on that system on a daily basis, and often have half a dozen or a dozen other tabs open at the same time. as wellI also ssh in remotely to use it for security testing. The secret is not to run KDE or Gnome. I'm using WindowMaker (aka GNU/Step, a Free WM that traces it's lineage back to Jobs' NeXTStep GUI from the late 80s); others I know of swear by Fluxbox or xfce. TBH I'm seriously thinking of ditching KDE on my main laptop for WindowMaker: not that it's short of cycles, per se, but I just like the clean minimalist look. Of course KDE/Gnome apps run perfectly well under WMaker, just as Konqueror runs under Gnome and so on.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    82. Re:upgrading by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      However every time I see an ad or an article about Windows anti-virus or anti-malware it is always more than I pay for Mac OS X, and it is always recommended if you want to have even a chance at privacy and security.

      Except you don't have to pay for that stuff. I'm running Windows 2000, and have got away fine with never having to pay for commercial software.

    83. Re:upgrading by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Similarly, with Mac OS X, Apple accomplished their long-talked-about goal of moving their user base off of Classic and onto X. Where do you think Microsoft got the idea?

      I doubt it - NT was released long before OS X was even thought of; it was pretty obvious that eventually they would want to move people to the more modern and stable OS, but they just had to keep 9x around for so long for backwards compatibility with DOS games.

      Indeed, it was Apple playing catchup here, trying for years to try to add basic features such as memory protection and preemptive multitasking to the then MacOS before they finally had to ditch it, and came up with OS X.

    84. Re:upgrading by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Clearly I would have liked Apple to let me CHOOSE. But I guess it's against their philosophy. This is not a theoretical question for me. I still got a G3 "Firewire" powerbook and it's serving me well. I'm not happy at all that Apple is dropping support for it with Leopard.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    85. Re:upgrading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hell I am running it on an Pismo with a 500 MHZ G3 and it is damn snappy

  13. It may be true but.. by madsheep · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He makes the claim that 'security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.' Well, he does have a bit of a point. These projects like MOAB, Month of Browser Bugs (did include IE), and although it was cancelled Oracle one go to show there are -tons- of problems in non M$ products. However, if researches all teamed up and held off for a few months. There could easily be a month of Microsoft bugs. I don't know that I would have "dared" anyone to do that regardless.
    1. Re:It may be true but.. by ktappe · · Score: 1

      Well, he does have a bit of a point.
      No, he really doesn't:

      1. Not every MOAB was a bug in the OS, or even in an Apple product. So "every single day" really means "every 2nd or 3rd day", if he was indeed referring to MOAB.

      2. I have strong doubts that MOAB could have been turned into YOAB--there would not be 365 bugs to find. Therefore Gates' claim badly needs a "for a month" qualifier to even come close to veracity.

      3. Even the worst OS-related MOAB findings did not demonstrate a Mac being "taken over totally". Removal of some files, or corruption of the OS to the point of requiring a reinstall, sure. But most were conceptual; they "may allow code execution", which is so vague it's unclear as to just how far any of them could have been taken. Therefore it's literally impossible for Gates to know that "taken over totally" was even a potential outcome.

      Let's be clear here: we welcome constructive, reasoned criticism. Gates' rant was anything but.

      Is it just me or does Gates seem to be turning into the Howard Hughes of our era? He doesn't have the beard or long fingernails yet, but he sure does have the disconnect from reality and the money to stay that way.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    2. Re:It may be true but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There could easily be a month of Microsoft bugs.
      They already have that - I believe it's held 12 months a year.
  14. You dare them? Really? by Mrs.+Grundy · · Score: 1
    I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine

    Considering the recent slashdot article stating that a quarter of all connected computers are part of a botnet, it seems people have already taken Bill up on his dare--those are all windows machines aren't they. In fact, it seems they preemptively took him up on his dare. At one a month it would take 12,500,000 years to infect all these computers. Microsoft would be lucky if they only had one labratory exploit a month rather than millions in the wild.

    1. Re:You dare them? Really? by SlashdotCrackPot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Considering the release date of Vista, I doubt that the stats you are talking about even have .0001 percent of the infected machines actually running Vista. Not that I work for BG's PR team, just a valid point.

      On the other hand, Bill just might as well s#@* in both of his hands because he's going to wish he didn't say that.

      640 kb to rule them all!!!!!!!!!!

    2. Re:You dare them? Really? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      640 kb to rule them all!!!!!!!!!!

      640 KB ???? Why would anyone need more than 512KB?

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    3. Re:You dare them? Really? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      .0001 percent of the infected machines actually running Vista. Not that I work for BG's PR team, just a valid point.

      How is it a valid point? Gates said "The Windows machine," not "The Vista machine."

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:You dare them? Really? by gig · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah, right ... Microsoft Vista v1.0 should not be confused with Microsoft XP v1.0 or Microsoft 2000 v1.0 or Microsoft 95 v1.0 or 98 v1.0 or Me v1.0. They are totally unrelated products that just happen to have been created so perfectly that they need never be iterated upon.

      One thing I've always liked about Windows 95 and 98 is that they have the Y2K bug right in their names.

  15. Bold statement with no backing by Dark+Kenshin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Marketing has a very close relation to the science/religion debate. Throw out a bunch of information, claiming they are facts, and don't provide any supporting information to prove your claims.

    Oh, and dare people to prove you wrong, that makes you sound even more right

    --
    "I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
  16. Truth....? He can't handle the truth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is rich coming from the founder of a corporation found guilty of anti-trust violations. I think he knows a thing or two about truthiness.

  17. ummmm by DigDuality · · Score: 1

    Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.'
    umm.. how about once every 5 minutes for the last 15 years?
  18. Bracket attack by honkycat · · Score: 5, Funny

    [Bill] Gates [responded to] questions in an [unusually] candid [interview]. For [some reason] most [of] his [words] were [interjected] by the editor. This [seemed] somewhat [odd and] excessive [to me]. Did [anyone else] notice [this]? [I] mean, a[n occasional] edit for [clarity] is pretty [normal], but it [seemed] like [every other] word was [inserted later].

    1. Re:Bracket attack by Divebus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Steven Levy needed to fill in the dead spaces in Bill's output - like this:

      Yes, although security is a [The process could not access the file because it is being used by another process]. You're [Overflow at 0x0b26f033: WKSSVC.DLL has stopped responding.] the fact that there have been some security updates already for Windows Vista. This is exactly the way it should work. When somebody comes to us [A Runtime Error has occured. Would you like to debug? Line: 29 Error: Object Expected] we've got [The Program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down] before there is any exploit.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    2. Re:Bracket attack by neoform · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You did notice who published this interview right? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16934083/site/newsweek /

      Allow me to highlight the notable characters in the domain name: www.msnbc.msn.com

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    3. Re:Bracket attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone also needs to tell the writer that [] doesn't mean what they think it means. Interjections are for clarification, but the sentence should make sense w/o them (they are often used to clarify pronouns).

      Good example:
      "If you're interested, [Vista development chief] Jim Allchin will be glad to educate you feature by feature what the truth is. "

      See, that was useful. Not everyone knows who Jim Allchin is.

      Bad example:
      "When somebody comes to us [after discovering a vulnerability] we've got [a fix] before there is any exploit.

      "When somebody comes to us we've got before there is any exploit.".. well I guess if Bill actually talks like that it would need clarification.

    4. Re:Bracket attack by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of a quest-giving NPC in EverQuest.

      Klugley says, "what responded to?"

    5. Re:Bracket attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My personal favorite:

      Yes, although security is a [complicated concept].
      What Bill really said:

      Yes, although security is a motherfucker.
    6. Re:Bracket attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I've seen a huge number of "articles" at MSNBC about Vista recently. None of them have been labeled as paid advertising. Clearly NBC News can be bought.

    7. Re:Bracket attack by toadlife · · Score: 1

      I was leaning more towards "bitch", but that works too. ;)

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  19. Gruber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Great write up at Daring Fireball already: http://daringfireball.net/2007/02/lies_damned_lies _and_bill_gates

  20. Bragging? by udderly · · Score: 1

    Admitedly, everything Bill says in that interview is a load of crap, but does that really excuse that bias-laden headline? For God's sake, can we at least pretend that there is a shred of credibility here?

    1. Re:Bragging? by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > For God's sake, can we at least pretend that there is a shred of credibility here?

      You're new here, aren't you?

      I come for the community. I doubt even a quarter of us actually respect the editors.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    2. Re:Bragging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously didn't RTFA. It _is_ bragging.

    3. Re:Bragging? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      ---I come for the community

      Nice to know im loved.

      wait... (looks at freak list). Guess not.

      NEXT

      --
    4. Re:Bragging? by udderly · · Score: 1

      But if it would have been Jobs talking about Mac, or Linus talking about Linux it would have been "Steve Jobs/Linus Torvalds Extols Virtues of Mac/Linux, Totally Demolishes Microsoft's Pathetic Ads."

      See the qualitative difference?

    5. Re:Bragging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not only it is bragging, but there are some troubling passages, like this, where he's paraphrasing D. Rumsfeld:

      So you feel in 2010-2011 Microsoft will be back with the next big one?

      Absolutely. We'll tell you how Vista just wasn't good enough, and we'll know why, too. We need to wait and hear what consumers have to tell us. We don't know that, otherwise, of course, we would have done it this time.

    6. Re:Bragging? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      But if it would have been Jobs talking about Mac, or Linus talking about Linux it would have been "Steve Jobs/Linus Torvalds Extols Virtues of Mac/Linux, Totally Demolishes Microsoft's Pathetic Ads."

      Not necessarily. It would depend on if they were bragging, or just extolling virtues. Gates is clearly over the line into bragging. I'd be fine about a similar interview with Jobs or Torvalds being described as "bragging."

      And the "Totally Demolishes Pathetic Ads" headline you made up seems really out of place. I don't think I've ever seen a slashdot headline like that.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:Bragging? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      everything Bill says in that interview is a load of crap, but does that really excuse that bias-laden headline?

      brag: to engage in boastful talk (ref: Oxford English Dictionary).

      Seems the appropriate word to me; do you prefer the editors glossed over his outright lies? And he did indeed react to Apple's ads. So the bias is...?

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    8. Re:Bragging? by udderly · · Score: 1

      The problem is that oftentimes there is no real way to quantify whether someone is bragging or simply stating what they believe to be facts without any attempt to glorify themselves. For instance, if I say that I won three gold medals in the last Olympics, I could be bragging or I could just be stating facts. It is especially difficult to claim that Bill is bragging in this case because he is answering questions in an interview instead of just giving an unsolicited opinion.

      The problem is that it involves a value judgment on the part of the reader or listener, and in this case, someone made that judgment. If the article shows that Bill is indeed bragging, why not let the reader come to her/his own conclusion?

      What would be your opinion if Fox News ran a value-judgment headline in reference to President Clinton that referred to him as "the Playboy President?" Or how about if CNN ran one that used the terminology "Shotgun Dick Cheney?" These organizations might lose credibility with you because that is the sort of headline that you would expect to see on a smear website or being used by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

      Slashdot *does* claim to be a news source and being an editor has a higher responsibility than some anonymous individual posting on a thread; if the editor wished to be seen as credible, she/he should refrain from this type of thing.

    9. Re:Bragging? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      The problem is that oftentimes there is no real way to quantify whether someone is bragging or simply stating what they believe to be facts without any attempt to glorify themselves.

      The problem with that approach is that all braggarts believe what they say on some level, otherwise they wouldn't say these things or defend the lies so staunchly. The only way to know is to objectively examine their claims. So let's do that, shall we?

      From TFA:
      When somebody comes to us [after discovering a vulnerability] we've got [a fix] before there is any exploit. So it's totally according to plan, and that's why we have the whole Windows Update thing. We made it way harder for guys to do exploits.The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.

      So according to him there have been no zero day exploits for Vista (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2073611,00.a sp), Apple has no equivalent to Windows Update (its been called "Software Update" since OS 8.5, see, not equivalent at all), and Apple have done nothing to improve the security of a platform that has no exploits in the first place...well that last one is true, I suppose, but that's like saying a housebrick is better than a car because it won't roll down hill if you leave the brake off.

      I could go through the entire article and pick apart everything he says, but I'm tired so do it yourself; you seem to need the practice. And remember, this isn't an interview with a 14 year old fanboy, this is the head of the company who has been in the software business for over thirty years. He isn't a complete idiot with no historical or technical knowledge, he knows exactly what he's saying.

      For instance, if I say that I won three gold medals in the last Olympics, I could be bragging or I could just be stating facts.

      Whether its a fact depends on whether its actually true or not. Since it certainly isn't true, I'd have no problem entitling an article "udderly brags about fabricated athletic successes". Come and sue me if you want a judge to explain the concept of "absolute truth" to you. Whether you believe it to be true is utterly irrelevant if you can't verify your claims with hard evidence.

      What would be your opinion if Fox News ran a value-judgment headline in reference to President Clinton that referred to him as "the Playboy President?"

      You do realise there is a difference between calling someone a name and describing what they're saying, don't you? The headline here isn't "Bragging Billy Gates Boosts Vista", it is "Bill Gates Brags About Vista"; it is not saying he brags all the time, it says in this particular article he is bragging. And I agree.

      Slashdot *does* claim to be a news source and being an editor has a higher responsibility than some anonymous individual posting on a thread

      Yes, the editors of a publication have a responsibility to treat facts as facts, and point out when someone is either lying or mistaken (for whatever reason). The reason politicans and business can get away with so much is because they've convinced people like yourself that all of reality is variable according to perspective. it isn't: the only thing that changes with perspective is opinion, the facts remain the same. That's what "fact" means.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    10. Re:Bragging? by udderly · · Score: 1

      Way to go straight to the insulting and demeaning tone, they definitely bolster your case.

      You can write a whole book if you want, but you know damn well that no real news organization is ever going to use the headline that Slashdot did in this case. No amount of obfuscation on your part will change that.

  21. He is right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Of course you cant come out with a total exploit for windows every month. They come out every 6 minutes.

    There is no way we could slow down the exploits for windows to the rate of once per month.

    Bill is simply proving to the world that he really doesn't know squat about microsoft products and the reality of what IT is anymore. (as if he knew to begin with.... He's a genius salesman, he never knew "computers" like people claim for him.)

    1. Re:He is right! by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

      He's a genius salesman, he never knew "computers" like people claim for him.)

      Too right. I truly hope that one day the history books will state this. Just because he looks like a nerd doesn't mean he's a genius programmer.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    2. Re:He is right! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Too right. I truly hope that one day the history books will state this. Just because he looks like a nerd doesn't mean he's a genius programmer.

      I've never seen anyone claim he was a genius programmer. But at least at one time he was a pretty good programmer. In fact Altair BASIC was the first and pretty much forever the smallest BASIC interpreter (4kB.) Gates was one of two primary authors of the software.

      So yes, Bill did know computers... when they were much simpler. And he knew how to code, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:He is right! by dangitman · · Score: 1
      You haven't??!!

      The media calls Bill Gates a genius or a whiz-kid all the time. Among middle-America, Bill Gates' name is often used as being synonymous with being a technical genius or brilliant hacker.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:He is right! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      In fact Altair BASIC was the first and pretty much forever the smallest BASIC interpreter (4kB.)

      NO, No NO!!!! <stomps feet, throws chair> 4k BASIC was the industry standard product in those days. At the time, there were MANY computers, each with entirely different architectures, as in like a G4 mac differs from a PC. EVERY DAMN MACHINE HAD 4K BASIC. And it had 4K Fortran as well. Any credible machine probably offered als 4K Algol if it wanted to sell in Europe.

      4K was the cut down version, and it was pathetic. Running "Lunar Landings" would totally max it out. If you wanted to do real work, you got the 8K version.

      You sure as hell could not solve Maxwells equations in 4K Fortran on any machine I tried it on. Now 8K, that was a REAL machine ;-) We are talking 1975 here.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  22. ragging on apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't heard 'ragging' since 1986.

    radical to the max.

    1. Re:ragging on apple by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      radical to the max.

      No way, its grody to the close.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  23. Is he on crack, again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    While I like Microsoft products more than the next slashdotter, even I have to shake my head at that. My wife knows nothing about computers or how her Mac works and has taken *ZERO* precautions on her machine and has never had a problem. I'm pretty computer literate, and certainly became more security savvy, and I still sometimes get caught by stuff on my Windows box. (Admittedly, the volume is way down since I started using Firefox)

    Do I think Mac is a better OS than Windows? Trick question...every OS has its place for the people that use it. Use what you like and what you're comfortable with. If your OS is getting in your way, you're using the wrong OS. (Reasons why Linux still sits in a relatively unused 20GB partition on my HDD)

    1. Re:Is he on crack, again? by burnin1965 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      every OS has its place for the people that use it. Use what you like and what you're comfortable with. If your OS is getting in your way, you're using the wrong OS. (Reasons why Linux still sits in a relatively unused 20GB partition on my HDD)
      I used to have that attitude, but as someone who uses the internet heavily I now understand that the choices others make have significant and serious effects on the quality of the internet for everyone who uses it.

      When the OS you feel comfortable with results in my inbox filled with spam from zombied machines, my firewall and server log files are filled with lame Windows attacks on my non-Windows machines, or the accessibility of a web site or portion of the internet becomes pathetically slow as one of those bot nets goes on a rampage, your choice of OS sucks ass.

      If your not connected to the internet then choose what ever crappy OS you want, if your going to be part of a public network, consider how your choice will affect others on that public network.
    2. Re:Is he on crack, again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, your wife is a stupid bitch. And so are you.

      OWNEDLOLWTFBBQ

    3. Re:Is he on crack, again? by SkippyX · · Score: 1

      "Consider how your choice will affect others"?

      I know this is an international forum, and there might be somewhere on the planet where people regularly do take into consideration how their choices will affect others, but I don't think I've seen much of it in my society over the last 20 years or so. I suspect it's like that most places, and always been.

      Besides, most people don't have a clue how their choice of OS can affect others. They've never heard of a zombie (outside a horror movie). All they know is they are tired of pop-ups and their machine being "slow".

    4. Re:Is he on crack, again? by Boojumbunn · · Score: 1

      When the OS you feel comfortable with results in my inbox filled with spam from zombied machines, my firewall and server log files are filled with lame Windows attacks on my non-Windows machines, or the accessibility of a web site or portion of the internet becomes pathetically slow as one of those bot nets goes on a rampage, your choice of OS sucks ass.

      If your not connected to the internet then choose what ever crappy OS you want, if your going to be part of a public network, consider how your choice will affect others on that public network.

      You know what? My windows computers are not zombied machines, have no viruses, and don't go on rampages. Since your condemning these things as the fault of the OS you seem to be blaming my machines. Interesting.

      I suppose this is on the same level as blaming the people who write DVDRipping software instead of the people who use it to burn off and sell hundreds of movies, or blaming people who write Filesharing software and not the people who distribute copyrighted material. You seem to be making the same argument that the RIAA and MPAA are making, that it is the developers fault when something is used for an illegal purpose and not the users.

      Sure, Windows could be made safer... some of the things you could do would decrease ease of use for the customer, but some wouldn't change the users exerience. But I don't think you can blame the rash of zombie/botnets/spam on the OS. I think the blame lays with the programmers who spend there time writing such software.

      Boojum the brown bunny

    5. Re:Is he on crack, again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Boo Fucking Hoo
      2. You don't have a spam filter? Seriously? Your superior OS with its superior software doesn't filter your superior email before it reaches your superior eyeballs? Get a fucking clue.
      3. See 1
      4. Your log files are "filled"??? Give me a break. I'm sure this is just DEVASTATING for you.
      5. How the hell do they even get to your firewall? NAT your fucking network, moron.
      6. I've never experienced a "portion of the internet" running slowly because of bots. It always runs nice and speedy for me.

      So basically, you don't run NAT (which stops nearly every internet-based windows exploit), and you don't run a spam filter, and therefore this is the fault of Windows users?

      Christ, were you born this stupid or did you just recently get back from MacWorld?

    6. Re:Is he on crack, again? by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the multitude of sites which are either designed to work in, or specifically work only in, a single proprietary web browser with contempt for web standards, which works for a single OS and was written by the same company, with the primary intention of strengthening its monopoly.

    7. Re:Is he on crack, again? by tholomyes · · Score: 1

      Funny, firewalls usually do the NAT-ing, and I don't see how network address translation will stop DCOM or RPC buffer overflows. Port blocking at the network level would certainly help, though.

      And, yes, having gargantuan log files for your firewall or IDS can be a pain if you want to, you know, *do* anything with the data or backup the logs.

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
  24. Earth calling Bill by ptomblin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What colour is the sky in your world, Bill?

    --
    The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    1. Re:Earth calling Bill by drawfour · · Score: 4, Funny

      Gray. Seattle thinks the rest of the world is insane for insisting that the sky is blue.

    2. Re:Earth calling Bill by John+Newman · · Score: 1

      Gray. Seattle thinks the rest of the world is insane for insisting that the sky is blue.
      What do you mean, we think? Next you'll tell me I'm the crazy one for not believing those nut-cases who insist there's a giant flaming yellow ball floating somewhere up in the sky. Pssht.
    3. Re:Earth calling Bill by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Jon Stewart should have interviewed Gates witha stormtrooper helmet on. When Gates asks "Why are you wearing a stormtrooper helmet, John?" Stewart replies "I'm not wearing a helmet... dark master."

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  25. Dumbass by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    """
    Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
    """

    Well first off, this just plain isn't true. But, I believe that it is true (or at least has been) for Windows. A simple search of the security focus archives would reveal if this has been true or not in the past. Any takers?

    """
    I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.
    """

    As someone above said careful what you wish for. Basically, I remember seeing the ad from Apple about Mac not having any virii. At that point, I wondered how long it'd be before someone did it (NEVER challenge an attacker). I think it was just a few months before it happened.

    Basically, if I were Bill, given even just Vista's already sketchy security track record, I'd be careful about making such comments. How long do people here think that it'll take before the month of Vista happens?

    1. Re:Dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      At that point, I wondered how long it'd be before someone did it (NEVER challenge an attacker). I think it was just a few months before it happened.

      Oh yeah, good point. Wait a minute... What happened? There's a Mac OS X virus now?

      Oh right, there isn't.

    2. Re:Dumbass by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Actually, there IS proof of concept and it DID make its way onto /. Perhaps you missed that day.

    3. Re: Dumbass by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1

      Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.
      Well first off, this just plain isn't true.
      Oh, Sir, you are obviously mistaken. See, you have to consider the time frame. First of all, OS X has only at all existed since 2000, so before that, no exploits could possible have come out. Thus, we have to limit or timeframe to at least 2001-present. Then obviously, you have to limit the timeframe to 2007-01-28, at which time MoAB coincidentally discovered the horrible bug that leads to admin-group users being capable of executing code as root(!). See, every single day!
  26. Microsoft Copying Apple again by powerlord · · Score: 1

    He makes the claim that 'security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.'
    I can see that MS is copying Apple again ... this time they're stealing Steve Jobs's reality warping field and trying to adapt it for Bill Gates.
    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    1. Re:Microsoft Copying Apple again by sakasune · · Score: 1

      But even Bill Gates Reality Distortion Field has its vulnerabilities...

      --
      "You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it," I said. "I'm prepared to call that cowardice."
    2. Re:Microsoft Copying Apple again by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1

      And like everything else Microsoft copied from Apple, everybody on the planet knows "Reality Distortion Field: Vista Edition" sucks in comparison except for them; they had it pointed backwards and accidentally convinced themselves instead of everybody else.

    3. Re:Microsoft Copying Apple again by TechDogg · · Score: 0

      I can see that MS is copying Apple again ... this time they're stealing Steve Jobs's reality warping field and trying to adapt it for Bill Gates.
      Dude, it's called a "Reality distortion field" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_fi eld
      --
      Got MILF? It does a body good!
    4. Re:Microsoft Copying Apple again by powerlord · · Score: 1

      this time they're stealing Steve Jobs's reality warping field and trying to adapt it for Bill Gates.
      "Dude, it's called a "Reality distortion field" Reality distortion field"
      Nah, thats just the MS name for it kinda like Widgets, vs. Gadgets.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  27. Mac Exploits? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm the "computer guy" in my family and I've convinced everyone to buy a Mac. So I'm constantly looking around for possible exploits to warn my parents, my wife, and my mother-in-law about. I paid particular attention to the month of Apple bugs.

    So I'd know if people were finding "daily" security flaws with Macs. This isn't to say that there aren't any, but three hundred sixty five a year? That's not even happening in Windows. And most of the ones that I've heard about require physical access to the machine, or for the attacker to be on the network. And the very few that have been able to be remotely triggered have been fixed within the month through Apple's software update.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    1. Re:Mac Exploits? by greysky · · Score: 1

      I also believe that *most* of the MoAB exploits that have been reported are not because of holes in 3rd party software, not the OS itself. Someone correct me if I'm wrong (I dare you!).

      --
      Bleed Orange - ride KTM.

    2. Re:Mac Exploits? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Informative

      I also believe that *most* of the MoAB exploits that have been reported are not because of holes in 3rd party software, not the OS itself. Someone correct me if I'm wrong (I dare you!).

      25-30% of the bugs reported by MoAB were in third party applications. A goodly number of them were local overflows or DoS on some service, which by themselves would result in little or no risk. At least one of them seemed to be the same issue (.dmg validation) stretched out for several days. A handful of them have real potential for widespread exploitation via a worm, virus, or Web site.

    3. Re:Mac Exploits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffff. That's an easy one. Just go to the MOAB website and count. If you do so, you'll see that 23 of the exploits are Apple software and the remaining 8 were third party. Of the 8 third party bugs, 2 of those flaws may also apply on multiple OSes.

    4. Re:Mac Exploits? by josquint · · Score: 1

      but three hundred sixty five a year?

      crap... my macs are REALLy gonna get NAILED in 2008!!! 366 NOOOOOO

      er.. wait.. my macs never get anything. Nevermind

    5. Re:Mac Exploits? by D4rk+Fx · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm the "computer guy" in my family and I've convinced everyone to buy a Mac.
      Ah... The second half of your sentence makes sense of the rest. I was wondering why you referred to yourself as the "computer guy" in quotes like that, then I read that you convinced your poor family to buy Macs...
    6. Re:Mac Exploits? by Gropo · · Score: 1

      then I read that you convinced your poor family to buy Macs...
      Yeah because it's "such bad advice." Tell you what sonny: Why don't you go back to trolling people with your own apparent diminished level of expertise?
      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
    7. Re:Mac Exploits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying 1.5x as much for, literally, identical hardware? Limiting yourself to a tiny market for software and add-ons? Losing your ability to work with the huge PC ecosystem that's been created around Windows? Eschewing the most advanced OS ever written?

      Yes, pretty bad advice, indeed.

      "Hey mom, I know you were looking at that $800 dell. How about you spend $1800 on a Mac that doesn't offer you ANY MORE VALUE that doesn't DO ANYTHING THE DELL DOESN'T. trust me. That extra $1000 will be spent well."

      Actually, I just figured out where that 1k goes.

      They ship you a superiority complex with every machine.

      Losers.

    8. Re:Mac Exploits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They ship you a superiority complex with every machine.

      Instead of a virus checker?

  28. Its like eating potato chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

    What he is really saying is that with windows you could be exploiting 30 or sometimes even 31 days a month, but with the Mac you only get one day. I guess you could fill all that time not being exploited with some Mac gaming.

  29. MOAB by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

    It's been going on this month - the Month of Apple Bugs.

    http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/

    Not a single instance of anything 'in the wild' though.

    --
    spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    1. Re:MOAB by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      No, it was going on last month. It's over now, and hardly anyone was impressed with their findings, and certainly no one was impressed with their attitudes. It's a good thing these guys maintained anonymity. No respectable security firm would want to hire them after such a blatant show of irresponsibility and venom toward one platform's userbase.

    2. Re:MOAB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's over now
      Over, as in the "unspecified remote kernel fun" vulnerability that appeared on the MoAB site with a PoC yet to be released? Doh!

      hardly anyone was impressed with their findings
      Ahh yes, all those who are clueless about heap overflows or remote arbitrary code execution are unimpressed. It's telling that there have been over 20 apple vulns released and only a single patch from apple thus far. Ignorance must be bliss.

      No respectable security firm would want to hire them after such a blatant show of irresponsibility
      They've shown they can clearly find bugs. See MoAB, MoKB, WoOB, if you need evidence. Security firms could give a crap about whether researchers make end-users feel all happy-joy-joy with their OS. They want to be able to say to firm X, "We can find and protect your company from bugs in X, that our competitor can't". It's the same reason why the same people who get busted for writing viruses/worms end up getting hired by security and antivirus firms.
    3. Re:MOAB by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      It can't be in the Wild because all of those required physical access to machine with ADMIN privileges.

      Quote from a developer I won't name:

      "if someone trying to hack your computer is seated at the computer, well, you have bigger problems, I think."

      I guess it was only BillG in IT industry who took MOAB serious.

      Lets think about the degree of the things an evil user can do with Windows admin account and mount volumes.

    4. Re:MOAB by gig · · Score: 1

      > It's telling that there have been over 20 apple vulns released and only a single patch from apple thus far. Ignorance must be bliss.

      Yes, YOUR ignorance must be bliss. Apple has released a MOAB-related patch, on January 23rd to be precise.

      The MOAB thing only released 22 "bugs" (not "exploits" not "vulnerabilities") and of these, many were for third-party developers whose only relationship with Apple is that they make Mac software. There are 22,000 Mac OS X applications, so the idea that you couldn't find 22 bugs in there would be really radical. And these are the best they could come up with? For example, one bug was in a shareware FTP client, another was in a shareware GUI enhancer that nobody uses. Only the very first bug from the very first day turned out to actually be both Apple-related and serious, and Apple patched it on the 23rd. All the systems I use are already patched ... most patched themselves.

      Also, some of the MOAB bugs required you to do stupid stuff like specifically skip the verification of a disk image before it is mounted. You have to go out of your way to do this, so why would you? For over 10 years we've been watching our Macs scan each disk image before it is mounted, and in that time we switched to a UNIX base and only got more serious about such verifications, so why would we download an image and then specifically say to the computer "attach this without checking if it really contains a disk and let's see what happens". That's the kind of stuff that has put a bad taste in people's mouths over MOAB, not to mention how they keep saying that they're "teaching Mac users a lesson" and such. Well, what they taught us was that things are pretty good on the Mac platform. If MOAB is the worst "month of bugs" you can find on our platform then things are pretty fucking A-OK.

    5. Re:MOAB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple has released a MOAB-related patch, on January 23rd to be precise.
      Yes, they released a MoAB-releasted patch for Quicktime on Jan 23, which would make *one* patch...reading comprehension, it's not just for kids anymore.

      The MOAB thing only released 22 "bugs" (not "exploits" not "vulnerabilities") and of these, many were for third-party developers whose only relationship with Apple is that they make Mac software.
      They released 31 vulnerabilities, with 22 of them being in *Apple software* not third party software like Rumpus, VLC, Colloquy, etc. Go to the MoAB site and do the math yourself. Btw anything leading to a DoS, arbitrary code execution, or priviledge escalation is by definition not only a bug but a vulnerability. The fact that they've released PoCs for everything shows that to be true.

      And these are the best they could come up with?......Also, some of the MOAB bugs required you to do stupid stuff like specifically skip the verification of a disk image before it is mounted.
      Many of the bugs do seem inconsequential if you look at them by themselves. The gotcha is that you can couple 2 or more of the bugs together to create an extremely effective exploit that not only leads to system access, but also privilege escalation. MOAB-22-01-2007 is particularly insidious in that regard.

      If MOAB is the worst "month of bugs" you can find on our platform then things are pretty fucking A-OK.
      If you think that being able to remotely access a system and gain a root shell is "A-OK", then you're only proving my point about ignorance being bliss. It also baffles me that you can say that without knowing the implications of MOAB-31-01-2007. "Unspecified Remote Kernel Fun" doesn't sound good IMO.
    6. Re:MOAB by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Over, as in the "unspecified remote kernel fun" vulnerability that appeared on the MoAB site with a PoC yet to be released? Doh!
      "Over" as in "the month in which the Month of Apple Bugs was taking place is now over".

      Ahh yes, all those who are clueless about heap overflows or remote arbitrary code execution are unimpressed. It's telling that there have been over 20 apple vulns released and only a single patch from apple thus far. Ignorance must be bliss.
      By the second day, they were already targeting third-party applications for vulnerabilities. A full third of their bugs were non-Apple applications. And their very first vulnerability was far from universally reproducible; many users testing the vulnerability reported that while QuickTime Player crashed, no actual code execution took place. Their second to last bug was a rehash of previously reported vulnerabilities in AppKit. They basically said one day, "We found this vulnerability in AppKit", then a few days later, they said "These applications which use AppKit are vulnerable too" as a separate vulnerability.

      As for Apple's fix releases, well what do you expect? They were never informed of the damn vulnerabilities beforehand, now were they? Do you really think Apple can just roll out security fixes on a whim? This is commercial software, and it must be thoroughly tested before released. And the MoAB people's justification that they were afraid Apple would muzzle them is total nonsense based on what some hack researcher told Brian Krebbs about a vulnerability which he never demonstrated to exist.

      They've shown they can clearly find bugs. See MoAB, MoKB, WoOB, if you need evidence. Security firms could give a crap about whether researchers make end-users feel all happy-joy-joy with their OS. They want to be able to say to firm X, "We can find and protect your company from bugs in X, that our competitor can't". It's the same reason why the same people who get busted for writing viruses/worms end up getting hired by security and antivirus firms.
      Yes, and then that firm will see that they don't believe in responsible disclosure and can't be trusted to keep information confidential. Finding and dealing with vulnerabilities involves more than technical skill; it involves being responsible about disclosing your findings. These clowns did a great job of showing that they can't be trusted to keep confidential information.
    7. Re:MOAB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Over" as in "the month in which the Month of Apple Bugs was taking place is now over"
      Ok, just wanted to clarify that you weren't saying all of the bugs had been released. Because you might look foolish making a comment like "hardly anyone was impressed with their findings" without having actually seen *all* the bugs yet. Especially when the last one is typically the pièce de résistance and has words like "remote" "kernel" and "fun" in the description.

      A full third of their bugs were non-Apple applications
      Not including the last vuln, I count 7/30 (23.3%)which would be less than 1/4. For reference: Only 2,7,8,16,18,19, and 27 are from other vendors. The PDF vuln affects preview, so you can't exclude it.

      many users testing the vulnerability reported that while QuickTime Player crashed, no actual code execution took place.
      The fact that people did replicate it indicates that it's real. From the conversations on the MoAB fixes group, it would appear that many of those testing the bugs were rather incompetent and couldn't find a bug if it was circled in red crayon. Not saying everyone there was like that, there were definitely a few people on the list who did realize the significance of some of them. Clearly Apple felt it was important enough release a fix.

      Their second to last bug was a rehash of previously reported vulnerabilities in AppKit. They basically said one day, "We found this vulnerability in AppKit", then a few days later, they said "These applications which use AppKit are vulnerable too" as a separate vulnerability.
      See, you don't even have a good understanding of the bug(s). The bug isn't in AppKit or any of the functions. It's in how Apple developers *misused* those functions in other applications. A good analogy is printf(). There isn't a "bug" in prinf(), it's just that when not used properly it becomes dangerous. So your argument is akin to saying that of all the vulnerabilities in various applications where someone has misused printf(), that they all count as *one* bug. You might as well say that all buffer overflows count as 1 bug. So if you're really going to nitpick, then all the applications listed in MOAB-30-01-2007 (Help Viewer, Safari, iMovie, and iPhoto) should each be counted individually.

      Do you really think Apple can just roll out security fixes on a whim?
      Well they fixed Quicktime, where are the rest of the fixes? It's been over a month for some of the bugs. Even the laughing stock of security, Microsoft, seems to be able to test and release fixes for zero-days that quickly when necessary. It would seem that the MoAB-fixes group is releasing patches. Third party vendors like OmniWeb released fixes that day (to their credit). Hmmm, maybe that was the whole point of the MoAB project? Rather than simply poking OSX users in the eye, to get them to lose the fan-boy blinders for a moment and ask Apple to improve. It's unfortunate that the vitriol on both sides has led things to degenerate.
  30. What's with all the [edits]? by Lazerf4rt · · Score: 4, Funny

    Check out this part of TFA:

    Yes, although security is a [complicated concept]. You're [referring to] the fact that there have been some security updates already for Windows Vista. This is exactly the way it should work. When somebody comes to us [after discovering a vulnerability] we've got [a fix] before there is any exploit. So it's totally according to plan, and that's why we have the whole Windows Update thing. We made it way harder for guys to do exploits. The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.

    Is this a joke? It sure [is weird] to read an [article that] has so [many freaking] edits. I wonder [if Bill] was swearing [like a] sailor throughout [the] whole interview, and they [had to] clean [up] his potty mouth?

    1. Re:What's with all the [edits]? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill G. isn't swearing, he's just talking like most people do. Starting, stopping, handwaving to stand in for words, pointing at things in the room, etc.

    2. Re:What's with all the [edits]? by Zerathdune · · Score: 1

      I am curious as to what went in place of [a fix].

      --
      No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
    3. Re:What's with all the [edits]? by dwightk · · Score: 1
      it probably looked like:

      Yes, although security is a bitch. You're talkin'bout the fact that there have been some security updates already for Windows Vista. This is exactly the way it should work. When somebody comes to us we've got the shit before there is any exploit. So it's totally according to plan, and that's why we have the whole Windows Update thing. We made it way harder for guys to do exploits. The number will be way less because we've done some dramatic things in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.
      --
      Like anyone can even know that
  31. Dancing with the stars by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

    It's amusing to watch Mr. Bill complain of FUD, misrepresentation, and lies as he implies that Windows has been the greater source of innovation and is by far more secure ("Macs are fully exploited every single day. I challenge anyone to exploit Windows once a month.")

  32. Anybody else scared by this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We can use Live Services [a way to connect to Microsoft via the Internet] to know what you're interested in. So even if you drop by a [public] kiosk or somebody else's PC, we can bring down your home page, your files, your fonts, your favorites and those things.

    That's all I've got to say.

    Yessireee bob, Apple is looking better every day!

  33. *Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by twifosp · · Score: 1
    I couldn't help but laugh reading this part from TFA:

    So, yes, it took us longer, and they had what we were doing, user interface-wise. Let's be realistic, who came up with [the] file, edit, view, help [menu bar]? Do you want to go back to the original Mac and think about where those interface concepts came from?

    Yes Bill, let's talk about where those interface concepts come from. I'll give you a hint, it starts with an X and ends in an EROX. Man, I wish I had zero ethics and no sense of irony. Maybe I could be a billionare too.

  34. upgrading, Huh? by acomj · · Score: 1

    I'm running the latest and greatest apple OS on dual g4 1 ghz (4-5 years old). It runs pretty well too.

    What was that about throwing equipment away?

    Its kind of an unfair comparison as windows supports way more configurations but I can't let statments like that go....

    1. Re:upgrading, Huh? by dcskier · · Score: 1

      perhaps my statement was a little too slanted trying to be funny but my point is this. the mac arguement that upgrading vista is major surgury and that upgrading a mac isn't is just false.

      yes you can run xp on old 8 year computer, you can put vista on an old computer as well. you can do the exact same in upgrading for a mac. but hardware wise for mac to be knocking a pc because it's so hard to upgrade hardware to take full advantage of the latest os is false. pc hardware upgrades are much easier than macs. apple can't win that arguement.

    2. Re:upgrading, Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      But that's not the argument.

      The argument is that to run Vista properly, you need to upgrade your computer, whereas with a Mac you don't need to upgrade at all.

      The latest version of Mac OS X will run just fine on a five year old Mac. In fact, it will run vastly better than the version of OS X that came with it. Sure you may be envious of your friends with their quad-core machines, but in terms of what you can do with the hardware you bought, you can keep upgrading the software and get improved performance out of it.

      I'm sure you can run Vista on a PC from 2002, but will it be usable? Will it be faster than the OS that it shipped with? How many of those expensive new features you're paying for will actually work?

      Upgrading a PC is definitely harder than not upgrading a Mac. I know, I've done both.

    3. Re:upgrading, Huh? by be-fan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think the argument is that PC hardware upgrades are easier than hardware upgrades on the Mac, but rather that Vista requires very substantial hardware upgrades while Leopard won't. Each release of OS X tends to be faster than the previous one, on the same hardware (though they usually use more memory). Tiger runs perfectly fine on a circa-2001 PowerMac G4 (composited windows and all), and so will Leopard. Meanwhile, Vista is going to crawl on a circa-2001 Athlon XP with a Geforce 2, and won't do Aero Glass on that machine at all.

      To put a sharper point on it, Apple's upgrade cycle is very gradual, and very incremental. They release a new major version every year or two. Each new version obsoletes a couple of the oldest supported models, and breaks a minor number of applications. An upgrade is generally not very traumatic. Meanwhile, Vista is being released half a decade after its predecessor. It's instantly obsoleting a huge amount of hardware, and breaking a lot of applications in the process.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    4. Re:upgrading, Huh? by neuroklinik · · Score: 1

      pc hardware upgrades are much easier than macs. apple can't win that arguement. Oh my f'ing god you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

      In 1999, I bought a "Blue & White" Power Mac G3. 400MHz PowerPC 750 processor. 128MB of RAM. 16MB ATI RAGE 128 GL graphics. 6GB HD. Shipped with Mac OS 8.5.

      What is it now?

      Well, let's see. It's been upgraded with a 1GHz PowerPC G4 (that's an entire generation upgrade), a full 1GB of RAM, ATI Radeon 9200 Pro 128MB graphics card (PCI Mac Edition), SIIG 4-channel sATA PCI Card, and lots and lots of storage. (The B&W G3's El Capitan case holds up to four HDs.) Oh, and let's not forget the USB 2.0 and FW800 PCI card. Oh yeah, and it runs Mac OS X 10.4.8. That's a full EIGHT YEARS after I bought the box, and it is still running strong, running the latest and greatest software.

      So, in short, do a little research before running at the mouth. You might actually look like you know what you are talking about.

    5. Re:upgrading, Huh? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to remember whether I have computers that are 8 years old. That'd be 1998/99 with PIIs or PIIIs in them. IIRC, many came with FPM or DDR RAM with a maximum configuration in the 512MB-1GB range. I have a 1996 era Pentium and PP180 still hanging around, and I certainly wouldn't try XP on either of those. The PP ran NT 4 until about 5 years ago, when it was shutdown for a while. The Pentium is still running 95, don't ask....

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:upgrading, Huh? by gobbo · · Score: 1

      In 1999, I bought a "Blue & White" Power Mac G3. ... EIGHT YEARS after I bought the box, and it is still running strong, running the latest and greatest software.

      I've had quite a few similar experiences to yours, cranking old IIfx and AIO G3 machines to new heights etc., and I had the same B&W as you, it left my hands very much upgraded.

      However, not all macs are created equal. There are many all-in-one designs, dead-end transition models (e.g. beige G3's) and hobbled motherboards in Apple's product history.

      Your experience is good, because you picked the right model: that case persisted throughout many product changes, for years. Yet, it has that stupid zip drive bay, so get out the snips to put in a second optical drive, and now you're into a case mod.

      The whole fuss about Apple machines upgrading tends to forget the vertical integration of the Mac. It's all about the software: yes, my old 366MHz G3 'toilet-seat' iBook is maxed out for ram and HD, and that's it for hardware upgrades, but it purrs running Panther and makes a very tough hard-working field machine for logging DV footage and running business apps. It's 7 years old and faster and very stable, thanks to OS X 10.3.

      Likewise I have some old win98 boxes sitting here on the floor, being upgraded to... puppy linux. If I could put more RAM in them I would, but installing a more efficient OS is the best upgrade you can do for an old machine.

    7. Re:upgrading, Huh? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, Vista is going to crawl on a circa-2001 Athlon XP with a Geforce 2, and won't do Aero Glass on that machine at all.
      Hey, you just described the PC I've got Beryl installed on right now. It couldn't handle XP either.
    8. Re:upgrading, Huh? by SporkLand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To put a sharper point on it, Apple's upgrade cycle is very gradual, and very incremental. If I remember correctly, the first release of OSX was pretty disruptive. Now that they did all the breaking they can have these nice incremental upgrade cycles. I think Microsoft is taking a similar approach to Vista.

      We'll see if Microsoft can follow-up the initial Vista release with upgrades that are as consistently good as Apple's.
    9. Re:upgrading, Huh? by be-fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OS X was disruptive because it was a completely different OS from previous versions of Mac OS. When you replace the OS completely, you get a little wiggle-room in the disruption department. Microsoft doesn't get to play that card with Vista, though. XP *was* Microsoft's "OS X 10.0". It was the OS that accomplished the painful transition from the Win9x kernel to the WinNT kernel in consumer-space. Vista is just a continuation of that code-base.

      Vista isn't disruptive because it had to be. It's not a rewrite, it's not a replacement, it's just a new version. The reason it's disruptive is because Microsoft took five years worth of new features and new APIs and instead of developing them incrementally over half a dozen releases, like Apple did, they stuffed them into a single mega-release. The result is that instead of updating apps gradually as new APIs come out, developers have to massively overhaul their apps for all the new APIs in Vista. And consumers, instead of dealing with a few apps breaking with each incremental release, have to deal with a huge amount of software breaking all at once.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    10. Re:upgrading, Huh? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I installed Vista on a 2001 machine, a P4 1.5Ghz with 1GB of Ram (someone spent a small fortune in 2001 to put 1GB of rambus memory in this machine!), a 7200RPM drive, and a GeForce 2 video card. Vista ran fine. Of course you really have to beef up a machine to run all the fancy new Vista features, but cut out Aero and other eye candy and Vista is not nearly the hog many people make it out to be. Probably just about any machine made in the last 5 years can run Vista, with at most a memory upgrade if its less than 512MB.

      OS X being faster on each new version isn't true anymore. It used to be, mainly because 10.0 was such a dog and there was lots of room for optomizations. But with things like Spotlight and the Dashboard, OSX has been getting more bloated and its slowing things down, especially on machines with less than 512MB. 10.3 is probably the fastest version of OSX out there.

    11. Re:upgrading, Huh? by gig · · Score: 1

      The Vista upgrade in the Apple commercial is not one where the user says "gee, I need to get a really great video card, let's open the box and install one" ... it's specifically referring to the WIDESPREAD CIRCUMSTANCE where a user bought a PC within the last 1-2 years that was a shit-hot box at the time, but it only has 128MB of video RAM in it and Vista wants 256MB for Aero (no shit). So to put Vista on your "Vista-Ready" PC you have to do major surgery first.

      For the equivalent Mac user, you buy Leopard and it has system requirements that include all of the Macs sold in the past 3-5 years. The same GUI system that takes 256MB on Vista runs on 32MB on the Mac, and in a slower mode on Macs with 16MB, which you have to go back to 2001 to find. So you don't need to upgrade the computer's video system to do a Leopard upgrade. Yet after the Leopard upgrade you will have ALL of the features of Leopard, including fancy graphics.

      Notice the comparison is between upgrading THE OS on a recent PC to Vista and upgrading THE OS on a recent Mac to Leopard. Microsoft cannot win this argument. The Mac will take under 15 minutes and it will work perfectly afterwards. Just figuring out whether your PC video needs to be replaced or not is a huge undertaking for most Windows users. There are IT writers who weren't able to upgrade their 2006 name-brand PC's to Vista and get it working (George Ou is one). I have been using Macs for many years and I never heard of a user who couldn't upgrade their OS X successfully.

      Also, if you want to do a direct head-to-head how-do-we-upgrade-certain-components, with the Mac you just replace the whole box. That's what you do. An iMac or Mac mini is one device just like a router is one device or phone is one device. Not only are all the components well-matched, but everything is included already, and the model is known by a huge community and will have many future software upgrades, and the resale value is even quite high. So if you feel that the video in your Mac isn't cutting it, you sell that Mac on eBay, get an alarmingly good price oftentimes, it goes to a new user and continues to be useful, and you buy a new Mac.

    12. Re:upgrading, Huh? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I'm running the latest and greatest apple OS on dual g4 1 ghz (4-5 years old). It runs pretty well too.

      The "latest and greatest apple OS" is itself almost 2 years old, so it's not really fair to compare system requirements to an OS only just released. So that version of OS X actually ran on a machine only 2-3 years older than its release.

      What are the system requirements of OS X Leopard, to be released shortly? That would be a better comparison to Vista.

      Vista requires an 800MHz processor and 512MB of RAM, which is years old.

      This seems a pointless argument to me, anyway. People running older computers have no obligation to upgrade.

    13. Re:upgrading, Huh? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      This seems a pointless argument to me, anyway. People running older computers have no obligation to upgrade.

      In fact it's not only that - whenever Apple drop older support (e.g., classic MacOS, switching processors), that's praised as a good thing for dropping support for "legacy" stuff! If it was Vista being touted as being able to run on an ancient machine, we'd be having the same argument in reverse, with people claiming that's a bad thing!

  35. Not a fan of the ads by namityadav · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am not a big fan of the "I am a Mac" ads. Being a Linux user, I don't care that much about OS X or Windows based PCs. So perhaps my opinion is unbiased.

    I think that these ads might offend Windows users instead of getting them to switch to the cool side. These ads do not show the strength of Macs. These focus more on insulting Windows based PCs.

    Moreover, don't know why, but I've always felt that any company that really has superior products doesn't have to attack the competition this way. In fact, through these ads, Apple has lost a little respect in my eyes, if nothing else.

    ps. I know that writing something against Apple might not go very well with my Karma, though :-(

    1. Re:Not a fan of the ads by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am not a big fan of the "I am a Mac" ads. Being a Linux user, I don't care that much about OS X or Windows based PCs. So perhaps my opinion is unbiased.

      I think the fact that you know what Slashdot is makes you the wrong viewer for those ads. I'm an OS X fan, and I use Linux and Windows every day. I probably have a better handle on each platform's strengths and weaknesses than most people. Those ads are targeting people who don't even know what an "OS" is. Try to put yourself in the mindset that you have never heard of Linux, and you don't know what an OS is. Now imagine, all the computers at the store(Walmart) run Windows. You don't even know where you'd get a computer that ran something else, except maybe if there was a Web site. Now imagine you've only ever run Windows, and you don't have any idea how you get viruses or worms or trojans. You've heard of Apple computer and know they sell Macintosh computers, but you don't know how you'd use one or where to get one or if they are better in any way. Now watch the ads again.

      From the perspective of a computer geek these ads are patronizing and imply some inaccurate things. They are not precise and the concepts they explain are way fuzzier than in the real world. For average people, however, the messages they convey are fairly truthful and simple enough for people to understand. "Getting a mac means negligible chance of malware" is a valuable message for the clueless and I wish more would listen to it.

      I think that these ads might offend Windows users instead of getting them to switch to the cool side. These ads do not show the strength of Macs. These focus more on insulting Windows based PCs.

      They focus on benefits of the mac the average person can understand. I dare you to drive to the middle nowhere in Iowa and try to explain to an average person the benefits of having a capable bash shell instead of the Windows command prompt or Cygwin, in 30 seconds or less. Or explain system services or not being part of a monoculture or default network services settings.

      Moreover, don't know why, but I've always felt that any company that really has superior products doesn't have to attack the competition this way.

      When you're dealing with a monopolized product often the only way to market a product is to compare it to something the user does know about. If people don't know why they should go out of their way to get a mac instead of just picking up a Windows box anywhere, they aren't going to do it.

      ps. I know that writing something against Apple might not go very well with my Karma, though :-(

      People often complain about an anti-windows or pro-linux or pro-mac bias on Slashdot. Most of those people are incorrect in my experience. I say good and bad things about the actions/functions/features/or image of all three regularly and I haven't noticed any one being modded more than the others. I made comments both in favor of and criticizing Linux development on the desktop yesterday and both were modded way up. So long as what you say has value, in general the masses overpower the occasional fanboy who thinks Linux or Windows or Mac is some sort of religious choice.

    2. Re:Not a fan of the ads by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      yeah, IMO they are uberlame ads.

      As you stated, companies with superior products don't need to smear/belittle the competition.

      Whatever.

      I'm a mac! And I'm a PC! (off in the corner:) And I'm Ubuntu! W00t!

      B.F.D.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    3. Re:Not a fan of the ads by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      I think that these ads might offend Windows users instead of getting them to switch to the cool side. These ads do not show the strength of Macs. These focus more on insulting Windows based PCs.

      I think that's a good point. But I don't think the ads are really aimed at making people switch to Mac. The ads are really more designed to make people who bought a Mac think they made the right decision, so they'll keep buying Macs. i.e. "You don't want to buy a PC and be one of those NERDY people do you?"

      I'm not sure if it's effective though. The PC guy (John Hodgeman) is a lot more appealing as a person than the snobbish Mac guy. There's certainly "the faithful" who that ad appeals to, but I'm not sure if the rest of the people who buy Macs want to be identified with a prickish looking, snobby, "better than thou" character.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Not a fan of the ads by TranscendentalAnarch · · Score: 3, Funny

      They should make an "I'm Linux" commercial.

      They should cast John Roberts, the guy in the enzyte commercials, for windows, and Ellen Feiss for mac.

      As for who would play linux? I'm thinking a /. poll for that...


      New Poll: Who plays "Linux" in the commercial?

      - The Geico Lizard
      - Scarlett Johansson
      - Jonny Lee Miller aka Zero Cool
      - Carrie-Anne Moss
      - CowboyNeal

    5. Re:Not a fan of the ads by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think they should add a Linux guy who comes, tears the still-beating heart out of PC Guy and ass-rapes Mac Guy. Then he and BSD Guy could go and tag-team on Mac Guy, using PC Guy's bloodied corpse as a weapon, shoving it repeatedly into Mac Guy's stomach until Mac Guy's torso is ripped in half. Perhaps OS2 Guy and Amiga Guy, old codgers that they are, could come along and piss on the corpses of the two most obnoxious and retarded assholes to ever grace a computer ad.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Not a fan of the ads by tfreport · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly right. My parents are not the most savvy tech people - they call at least once a month to me at work with computer questions. The ads appeal to them, my dad has even started asking whether he should get a Mac. Why? Because he has the experience of the computer not "talking" with the new camera that he purchased or wanting to do a simple slide show of his recent trip to Hawaii. Those are things he knows others do on their computer and he cannot understand why he is not able to. It is to him that the Mac ads are so simple and so appealing.

    7. Re:Not a fan of the ads by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But I don't think the ads are really aimed at making people switch to Mac. The ads are really more designed to make people who bought a Mac think they made the right decision, so they'll keep buying Macs.

      Maybe other people have different experiences, but I know about 100 people who have switched to mac computers, most of them software engineers. I know one person who switched back (to Linux). I doubt Apple has as much of a problem keeping switchers as getting people to switch in the first place.

      There's certainly "the faithful" who that ad appeals to, but I'm not sure if the rest of the people who buy Macs want to be identified with a prickish looking, snobby, "better than thou" character.

      Apple has been getting a whole lot of customers lately (relative to a few years ago), about half of whom are not old customers returning. I seriously doubt they're aiming their advertising at current customers. I suspect their ads are aimed at average people, rather than computer geeks, which is why no one on Slashdot particularly likes them.

    8. Re:Not a fan of the ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to buy a MacBook for running linux until I saw an Apple ad this week. As offensive as the Apple ads are, after reading Gates comments I'm tempted once again - out of petty spite.

      Microsoft need to die.

    9. Re:Not a fan of the ads by theurge14 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it could be percieved by some Windows users as insulting since the effect of the ads might make them feel slighted for buying a PC.

      But in comparison, they are likely way less offensive then Windows users who continually compare $499 Dells to $1100 Macs and then proclaim Macs as "too expensive".

    10. Re:Not a fan of the ads by phorest · · Score: 1

      New Poll: Who plays "Linux" in the commercial?

      - The Geico Lizard
      - Scarlett Johansson
      - Jonny Lee Miller aka Zero Cool
      - Carrie-Anne Moss
      - CowboyNeal

      None of the above: Though this guy would have to be my pick! -The Geico Caveman

      </sarcasm>

      --
      God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
    11. Re:Not a fan of the ads by kindbud · · Score: 1

      New Poll: Who plays "Linux" in the commercial?

      Pastor Deacon Fred

      "You can fry an egg on the devil's hiney, but it ain't never no-how gonna come out sunny-side up."

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    12. Re:Not a fan of the ads by TranscendentalAnarch · · Score: 1

      None of the above: Though this guy would have to be my pick! -The Geico Caveman </sarcasm> At least it would fit the stereotype.
    13. Re:Not a fan of the ads by Der+Reiseweltmeister · · Score: 1

      I dare you to drive to the middle nowhere in Iowa...

      I've driven to the middle of nowhere in Iowa several times from the good 'ol silicon valley, and I gotta say that these huge corn-fed iowans are more than capable of bashing shells! They are pretty into their monoculture though.

    14. Re:Not a fan of the ads by Zerathdune · · Score: 1

      ps. I know that writing something against Apple might not go very well with my Karma, though :-(

      Every time I see this in a post it gets modded up. Deservingly, I might add. Bad moderation isn't as much of a problem on slashdot as people say it is. Yes, it will happen every now and then, but usually by the time I find the post, it's put back up to +3 or 4 and my only hint is that someone replied to it saying "Who the hell modded this troll?" It gets fixed quickly, and usually the moderation makes a fair amount of sense in the end. (Though I once posted something and was modded 100% underrated. huh?)

      --
      No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
    15. Re:Not a fan of the ads by hollywoodb · · Score: 1

      I've been a strictly linux user since about 2001... I've used OS X at my university, but don't have a lot of experience with it. My friends and family all run Windows XP on PCs of varying age and quality. I happen to really like the "I'm a Mac" ads... Although the troubles that "PC" goes through are clearly over-the-top, and the "Mac" guy is a bit smug, they are funny if you take them lightly. But more importantly, my (less knowledgeable in OSes and hardware) friends and family love the ads, and some have even asked me if I've used a Mac, or where they can try one. Unfortunately the nearest Mac/Apple store is about 300 miles, and the local schools/libraries/universities typically have eMac systems running a notably old version of OS X, so they really don't offer the best experience. Personally, I'm most comfortable running an Xfce desktop on a reasonably up-to-date Linux distribution (Fedora, but I always have Slackware on a partition that I know won't fail me), but I think some of my friends and family would be much better suited by a Mac than their current systems based on what they do with their computers. It makes me cringe when my folks call and ask what to do about some POS software that AdAware and Norton won't remove, if I think they should buy more memory and what kind, and/or why their greeting-card making software suddenly stopped working even after they've uninstall/reinstalled it. Often I don't know (haven't had much experience with Windows in the past five years) and wish they were using a less problematic OS.

      --
      I may have to share this planet with animals, but I'm doing my damn best to eat every last one of them.
    16. Re:Not a fan of the ads by dangitman · · Score: 1

      New Poll: Who plays "Linux" in the commercial?

      Eric Raymond. "Use Linux or I'll blow your fucking head off, you camel-riding communist!"

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    17. Re:Not a fan of the ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they should add a Linux guy who comes, tears the still-beating heart out of PC Guy and ass-rapes Mac Guy. Then he and BSD Guy could go and tag-team on Mac Guy,

      So the message is that Linux users are gay? Not only gay, but sociopathic criminals? Way to reinforce the existing stereotype!

    18. Re:Not a fan of the ads by Ian+McBeth · · Score: 0

      As a long time Windows User,and Linux experimenter(never used it for anything serious yes, though i do have fun with it)

      I am not the least bit offended by the apple ads. I don't take them as an insult to me in the least.
      I take them as pointing out the lameness, etc of MS Windows and its creator.

      I have already made up my mind, that I will be ordering a Macbook Pro within the next few months, to replace my aging dell notebook.

      simple fact of the matter is, I want nothing to do with Vista.

      I will keep Xp for a while on my old dell, but I plan to switch it to ubuntu as soon as I leave my current job within the next 9 months.

    19. Re:Not a fan of the ads by Andyham · · Score: 1

      I agree that the ads are not good and can alienate people. It appears to me that the ads merely preach to the converted. They don't get the benefits of the Mac across and why a person should buy them. To some people they may be cute, but I got rather tired of them fairly quickly. Here are the major selling points that they should be pushing, practical things that can sell a good product:

      1) The price might seem to be a little more than a PC, but you generally get a higher-quality piece of equipment. Add the cost of an Internet Security Suite (most people will foolishly lay out money for Norton or something like that) and the added cost of various other utilities you will buy, and you have pricing comparable to a Mac.

      2) They require less maintanence than a PC. And your time is worth money.

      3) They are as user-friendly as a computer can get these days. It is a simple matter to change stuff and add programs. Not always so with Windows.

      4) They are reliable. This again is a Time-Is-Money issue.

      You don't need to say anything abut the operating system in those ads. Your average guy on the street who uses a computer wants a tool or a toy. They are buying a computer, not an operating system. When people want to buy a computer and ask for my advice, they never ask me what kind of operating system they should buy. They ask me what brand of computer to buy.

      The previously mentioned selling points are the very reasons I told my late-30's contractor friend and his wife to buy a Mac when they asked me "What kind of computer should I buy?". They were especially glad they did when they saw what happened to his buddy's PC computer running Windows XP. And what his buddy will have to do to keep it operating. For him, it is the simplest and best way to run a computer. For me, it is fewer Sundays running Anti-Spyware programs in a month and trying to troubleshoot other problems over the phone.

      I use Slackware myself and am perfectly comfortable here. I doubt my friend will be that comfortable with Linux ever, and that's OK by me. But the end result is that this is one less Windows machine out there, and it has everything to do with the total Apple experience. And they did a much better job of putting a concept into product than Microsoft ever did.

      It is just silly that a company can be as large as Microsoft, have talented people working for them, and still has to send the big guy out to lie to everyone when they launch a major new product. And if he ever wants to talk about "borrowing" ideas, he need to look no further than his mirror.

    20. Re:Not a fan of the ads by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Just like Bill Gates in the interview, you likely "just don't get it." The ads are funny, period. The best jokes are funny because there is truth to them. I really like the one where he tapes a web cam to his head. This captures the culture of Windows perfectly.

    21. Re:Not a fan of the ads by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You hear stories of switchers to Mac, but how many people bail from the Mac to go to Windows? Now that Macs run Intel, I can run the latest flavor of Windows. I know more people switching to Macs now because of Intel processors (why, I'm not sure) than I've known in my 19 years of Mac use. (Think iPod success here?)

    22. Re:Not a fan of the ads by Toon+Moene · · Score: 1

      > These focus more on insulting Windows based PCs.

      No, they insult fat middle aged men like me.

      I don't care - I use Linux (whether on a Mac or a PC).

    23. Re:Not a fan of the ads by gig · · Score: 1

      > Moreover, don't know why, but I've always felt that any company that really has superior products
      > doesn't have to attack the competition this way.

      Wow, right here we are discussing a Bill Gates interview in which he outright lies about Apple, up and down and all over, in ways that many here have described as being "shocking" and "disappointing" and that is from people who already hated Bill Gates. And you have a problem with playful commercials that explain very technical concepts to everyday people by comparing anthropomorphized versions of two PRODUCTS. The Apple commercials don't even mention a competitor by name ... no Microsoft, no Dell, no HP, no Sony.

      There are not even any users in the commercials, we are simply watching two computers in their natural habitat like we could watch two fish in a tank. We learn the strengths and weaknesses of both computers as they are applied to various modern computing tasks, which they are either prepared for or not, as they undergo routine maintenance such as anti-virus or needing to be rebooted or not, and as they experience significant events in the "life" of a personal computer (e.g. OS upgrades, out-of-box experience). It's a simple way for a person to learn about the very different personalities of the two mainstream computer systems.

    24. Re:Not a fan of the ads by gig · · Score: 1

      You gave four great reasons to buy a Mac:

      1) lower overall price
      2) lower maintenance
      3) more user-friendly
      4) more reliable

      Here are four great reasons to buy Windows Vista:

      1) lower overall price
      2) lower maintenance
      3) more user-friendly
      4) more reliable

      Microsoft will tell you this with a straight face. Of course, they are leaving out the silent "than previous Windows versions."

      They don't fool you and me because these are technical issues and we have technical experience. But many people completely lack technical experience. They are not going to be able to make head or tails of the above. And if it comes down to plain credibility, you and I know Bill Gates is a felon and Steve Jobs could actually design products at Apple if he wasn't CEO, but to many people all they know is Microsoft is the biggest company and nobody gets fired for buying it and that's what I have at work also, so they end up trusting Bill Gates, ha ha.

      On the other hand, in the Apple ads you see a "PC" in the real world, struggling to get by in a world he isn't prepared for. That is a comment on Microsoft's products that cannot be made with technical specs. Users want to make DVD's and photo books and PC is crashed, or PC is getting upgraded, or PC suggests accounting or computer programming instead because that's all his software can do. That rings true to experience. It seems to me that non-technical users are watching these commercials and coming away with MORE REALISTIC ideas about what PC's can and can't do maybe only because they're finding out that they're not the only person who couldn't make a DVD with their PC. Users assume it is their fault, especially after Bill Gates tells them Windows is powerful and easy to use.

      Even if the commercials only teach people that a Mac is different from a PC, that all PC's are not created equal, that is probably doing a service. At least they may be teaching people to compare what each PC they consider can actually DO rather than just thinking they are all the same so buy the one for $199.

    25. Re:Not a fan of the ads by gig · · Score: 1

      > But I don't think the ads are really aimed at making people switch to Mac. The ads are really more designed
      > to make people who bought a Mac think they made the right decision

      No, there's no way. Actual Mac users would like to see a commercial where Steve Jobs pisses on Bill Gates. Literally.

      Actual Mac users want to see Apple stop being all humble and polite like the Mac guy in these ads and they want to see Apple call out Microsoft directly at every opportunity. Mac users LOVE it when Steve Jobs quotes Microsoft's head of Windows Vista development saying he wants a Mac. Mac users want these great conceptual battles to be waged and they want the rest of the world to come into the 21st century of computing and join the fun and also could you please stop spamming the fuck out of us with your botnets? Thank-you.

      The thing is, Apple likes to talk about how much work they put into designing the hell out of their latest product and that is all. Here is product X, it is round, it has these features, it can cure your halitosis, it has a prominent Apple logo, obviously you will be moved to purchase and use it by its very fitness for the task if not your desire to lick it. Mac users all go "YES, YES, WE KNOW THAT ... tell everybody how the Mac OS doesn't bug you all day like Windows, tell them how there are no viruses."

      Notice that the virus-related Mac commercial was the most controversial. The MOAB guys cited it and others, as an example of Apple "crossing the line" because theoretically all computers can get viruses and Apple shouldn't say "bring it on" but I remember when that commercial came out it was like a cheer went across the Mac community, because we were all like "finally someone just fucking SAID IT!" In fact, the anthropomorphized PC with the hanky and the sneezes is not just saying it but acting it out.

      Also, Mac users have all run both Mac and Windows so when we watch these commercials, we know they are going easy on the PC, and we see the Mac guys obvious humility. If it looks the other way around to you, you ought to run a Mac a bit and see what time it is. It is not 2001 even though that's what your Windows XP tells you.

    26. Re:Not a fan of the ads by gig · · Score: 1

      Once you get all your friends off of Windows, they stop calling with problems and start being enthusiastic about computers. You get movies and photos from them instead of questions about installing software.

    27. Re:Not a fan of the ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dare you to drive to the middle nowhere in Iowa and try to explain to an average person the benefits of having a capable bash shell instead of the Windows command prompt or Cygwin, in 30 seconds or less.

      Yeah, a capable bash shell is definitely one of the main advantages for someone who doesn't know what an OS is. Wait, what?

    28. Re:Not a fan of the ads by hollywoodb · · Score: 1
      It depends on your audience.

      Personally I'm content with yum and writing SlackBuilds and tracking down dependencies when necessary.

      Now I don't expect everyone or anyone to feel the same way about installing software, and for some (problems aside) clicking "Next", "Next", "Next", "Finish" is just "the way" you install an application. When I get off of my cloud I'm willing to bet that 'Joe Average' would grasp the concept of installing software on a Mac more easily then learning how to use emerge, apt-get, yum, pkgtools, etc... and to the same point, adept, aptitude, synaptic, or even klik.

      Once you get all your friends off of Windows, they stop calling with problems and start being enthusiastic about computers. You get movies and photos from them instead of questions about installing software.

      I wish it were that easy, and the Linux fan that I am, I still recommend a Mac if the person I'm talking to isn't the type to "get into" the way their system works, isn't the type to understand why or to what end they may need madwifi or ipw 2x00 firmware (for example).

      Especially, in the "I'm a PC/I'm a Mac" commercials, while obviously a bit smug they really are enjoyable, and some cases not far off the mark.
      --
      I may have to share this planet with animals, but I'm doing my damn best to eat every last one of them.
  36. How many exploits? by adambha · · Score: 1

    Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

    Well, take a look at the SANS Top-20 Internet Security Attack Targets and count how many times you see the word 'Microsoft' versus the number of times you see 'Apple' or 'OSX'.

    Hmmm...

  37. Sidebar is 13 years old by kindbud · · Score: 5, Informative

    NEWSWEEK: If one of our readers confronted you in a CompUSA and said, "Bill, why upgrade to Vista?" what would be your elevator pitch?

    Bill Gates:
    The most effective thing would be if I could sit down with them and just take them through the new look for a couple of minutes, show them the Sidebar...
    Sidebar, new Windows interface from Quarterdeck
    Newsbytes News Network, April 6, 1994

    Sidebar is delivered on a single floppy disk, takes up less than 1 megabyte (MB) of hard disk storage space, and less than 300 kilobytes (K) of random access memory (RAM). It also fits on the right edge of the computer's display to take up as little screen space as possible.

    Quarterdeck has exclusive license of Sidebar from Paper Software of Woodstock, New York. Paper Software originally distributed the product on a try-before-you-buy basis as shareware, then Quarterdeck licensed it, made significant changes, and is now shipping the product. The suggested list price is $59.95.
    Yeah, cool new idea there, Bill.
    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
    1. Re:Sidebar is 13 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, but I bet M$ gets the patent.

    2. Re:Sidebar is 13 years old by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      I like that Gates fails to answer the question. An elevator speech (or pitch) is meant to be a snappy, thirty second spiel that hits the big points. It's certainly not a sit down and chat for a few minutes.

      If he can't say "Security, new look, security, better games, security, better resource management, security" in under thirty seconds, it's a good thing he's not in charge any longer.

      I'm a Mac user mainly, and even *I* can make an elevator pitch about Vista!

    3. Re:Sidebar is 13 years old by djw · · Score: 1

      It's also been part of Mac OS since 2005, except there it's called the "Dashboard" and "Widgets."

    4. Re:Sidebar is 13 years old by slackmaster2000 · · Score: 1

      Yep, nothing new, nor exciting. Every couple years I find myself for some reason downloading a sidebar / widget program and spending some time getting it setup, only to eventually uninstall it because it just takes up space. Really, there is no information that I need to glance at so frequently.

    5. Re:Sidebar is 13 years old by AlHunt · · Score: 1

      Sidebar, new Windows interface from Quarterdeck
      Newsbytes News Network, April 6, 1994
      Yup. And 1995 brought us spinny 3D gizmos for the desktop:

      SpinWizard uses an intuitive 3-D carousel design, and works with the Microsoft Windows Program Manager to manage the desktop and

      Cute little gadget, actually, but all eye candy.

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
  38. Daily Show Interview by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

    It's probably worth posting the Daily Show interview with Bill Gates:

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    1. Re:Daily Show Interview by gandreas · · Score: 1

      Personally I was hoping for Daily Show's "Resident Expert" John Hodgman to be involved in the interview, but I guess we know now why that didn't happen...

  39. Editors? by plopez · · Score: 1

    we have editors?

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  40. Condensed version... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Vista is real kewl.
    2. I can't believe how apple is lying about being superior.
    3. In the future we'll lock in customers by offering our applications as services and by storing the user's data on our servers.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  41. The audience is the thing by Scareduck · · Score: 1

    When Gates says that people are coming up with exploits for the Mac every single day, it's possible he really believes it. The truth, of course, is far different (and much less dangerous than with Windows exploits), as anyone who actually uses the platform can attest; but Gates here is talking to his core audience, which wants to be reassured that the security headaches they're constantly having aren't peculiar to the Windows platform. As with Bush talking to the GOP faithful, it's important to stay on-message.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

  42. Now there's a REAL Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about a reality disconnect!!! He must have been off giving away his money on another planet if he thinks there are more exploits on a Mac than on a PC. WOW!!!

  43. What does this remind me of... by Woek · · Score: 1

    ...this sad facade of optimistic propaganda, despite obvious failure.... ah, I remember! You gotta love him

  44. Apple Negative Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Negative ads can produce a backlash. People are starting to hate anything iApple. Jobs is evil.

  45. Those Ads ARE Misleading by Petersko · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Seriously, come on. The ad where the PC buys the Mac that C++ reference manual that he secretly lusts after himself is just so much blatant false image building it's ridiculous. Are they implying that Mac programmers live in a glorious world where technical manuals are unnecessary? Or that every windows user is a technical programmer? It's ludicrous.

    The "home movie" comparisons where the shapely woman is the mac one and the ugly unshaven guy in drag is from the PC is just dumb.

    The PC going in for surgery is another joke. At least he PC CAN be upgraded instead of simply requiring replacement for a major OS update.

    They're great ads. Seriously, they're billiant. But they lie.

    I think Microsoft should fire back. With one man representing one game they should show the PC addressing a full concert hall. Then the Mac should be addressing a hotel conference room with a bunch of empty seats. With five seats full of really old men, one should realize he's in the wrong room and leave.

    Then show the PC calling in to some Microsoft-product-only connection and getting through, while the Mac gets, "I'm sorry - we can't help you."

    At least those would sort of represent reality.

    1. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      Seriously, come on. The ad where the PC buys the Mac that C++ reference manual that he secretly lusts after himself is just so much blatant false image building it's ridiculous. Are they implying that Mac programmers live in a glorious world where technical manuals are unnecessary? Or that every windows user is a technical programmer? It's ludicrous.
      Yeah. Macs come with manuals - I got a supposedly consumer-oriented Apple iBook a few years ago, and included on the disks alongside XCode were a full Objective-C programmer's reference, all the UNIX manual pages, and loads of API documentation.

      It was most disappointing. Kind of like buying a printer, and discovering all the printer control codes in the manual. Remember when that happened?

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    2. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by thefinite · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seriously, come on. The ad where the PC buys the Mac that C++ reference manual that he secretly lusts after himself is just so much blatant false image building it's ridiculous. Are they implying that Mac programmers live in a glorious world where technical manuals are unnecessary? Or that every windows user is a technical programmer? It's ludicrous.

      The point, of course, is that it takes being the kind of person that wants a C++ GUI programming guide to actually enjoy and really understand Windows.

      The "home movie" comparisons where the shapely woman is the mac one and the ugly unshaven guy in drag is from the PC is just dumb.

      Easy to say, but I defy you to make a movie in MovieMaker that looks anything close to as good as one made in iMovie. Have you even used iMovie?

      The PC going in for surgery is another joke. At least he PC CAN be upgraded instead of simply requiring replacement for a major OS update.

      Any Mac made in the last five years can upgrade to Tiger without more than a memory upgrade and actually run many things faster. I speak from personal experience on this and the iMac I had was actually six years old. The point was that you don't *need* a hardware upgrade to upgrade the OS.

      When you call someone a liar you need to provide evidence to that effect.

      --
      Boom Shanka
    3. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by iccaros · · Score: 1

      Misleading is your statment The PC going in for surgery is another joke. At least he PC CAN be upgraded instead of simply requiring replacement for a major OS update. I have a Dual 400mhz G4 with 1 gig of ram made in 1998 that runs the newest apple OS faster than my Dell P4 2.8 gig (with HT) with 2 gigs of ram running XP, let alone trying to run Vista (tried but took too long to do anything) I also just bought dual 1.8 Gig upgrade processor's for my Mac, Which should make it even faster than my 1 year old Dell. So why do I have to throw away my Mac when a new Version of OSx comes out? Even Leopard will still support my now 9 year old Mac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.5), and Each time I upgrade my system runs faster not slower http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista / and as for customer support, the last Time I called Microsoft they told me it would Cost $250 for an answer, while talking to the Apple guy was easy with no talk of charges.

    4. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Microsoft can't fire back, and it'd be terrible marketing to try.

      It's one thing for an underdog to make fun of the market leader, but when the market leader makes fun of the underdog, that massively strengthens the underdog's position. People would wonder why Microsoft are so rattled, they'd hear the Apple name and maybe look into these computers.

      On the reverse side, Apple's trying to gain marketshare in a world that already knows all about Windows, so mentioning it won't hurt Apple.

      Ignoring the slings and arrows of Apple's marketing team is a much better position.

    5. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

      I think the funny part was that it was a C++ GUI guide. That's so over. A book about Web GUI with Ruby that would be a good gift.

    6. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      I hope you meant that as sarcasm. I find extensive documentation to be a good thing.

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    7. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      The PC going in for surgery is another joke. At least he PC CAN be upgraded instead of simply requiring replacement for a major OS update.

      You missed the point. Generally speaking, major OS X updates don't require you to upgrade your hardware, or at least not on the same level as Vista (a 128M video card? why?)

    8. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      Any Mac made in the last five years can upgrade to Tiger without more than a memory upgrade and actually run many things faster. I speak from personal experience on this and the iMac I had was actually six years old. The point was that you don't *need* a hardware upgrade to upgrade the OS.
      Even older machines do fairly well. I have an almost 8 year old G3 tower that runs OS X 10.4 quite nicely. In fact, 10.4 runs much faster than 10.3 or earlier. As for upgrades, the only one needed to run 10.4 was a RAM upgrade (from 128 MB to 1 GB), though I have added a video card, a larger hard drive, and swapped the CD-ROM drive for a DVD-ROM/CD-RW. What more should I wish to upgrade?
    9. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by cryocide · · Score: 1

      When you call someone a liar you need to provide evidence to that effect.

      OK, how about the ad that claims that the PC needs special drivers for the camera, but the Mac doesn't? Name a consumer-level camera that natively interfaces with a Mac that won't do so with a PC. They blatantly lie in this ad, claiming that the PC doesn't understand the new camera. If they wanted to take a shot at Windows' driver issues with cameras, they'd have to find an old non-standards-compliant camera, not the "new camera from Japan."

    10. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The "home movie" comparisons where the shapely woman is the mac one and the ugly unshaven guy in drag is from the PC is just dumb."

      I think people in general found it funny.

      At least people with what we call "a sense of humor".

    11. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by porcupine8 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I have a Fuji Finepix 2600. I've never had an issue hooking it up to a Mac - it just appears as an external drive on the desktop. Or, if I want, iPhoto opens up and takes care of it for me (but I don't like iPhoto much).

      This Christmas, I tried to hook it up to either my mom's Dell laptop or my brother's HP desktop. Neither one had drivers for it, neither one could find any drivers for it when I let it do whatever wizard-thing it tried to do. I finally had to find them online myself, download them, run the program to install them *twice*, and then it would finally recognize my camera.

      The odd thing is, I think I've hooked my camera up to my mom's laptop before with no problems. But since then it's had a couple viruses and a couple reformats, so I guess whatever drivers it had got lost along the way. That's also not an issue on my Mac.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    12. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      Btw, I realize that this is not a brand-new camera. But it is no older than any of the computers in question (all were owned by my family at the time I got the camera). So you would think they would be able to talk to cameras that are no more outdated than themselves.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    13. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by miley · · Score: 1

      Name a consumer-level camera that natively interfaces with a Mac that won't do so with a PC How about the cameras that are embedded in the macbook, macbook pro, and imacs? My take on the ad was that video cameras are included in all the consumer computers apple sells.
    14. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, _i_ have used a Mac with iMovie. A horrible program. The GUI is so hard to use. If you are cutting a scene, a click by accident a few pixels away from the marker will reset your cutting. Imagine that with a Apple Mouse and a 24" screen.
      Also, in the middle of adding an effect to a clip the program just crashed. All our editing was lost because we forgot to save (you Mac guys always say that a Mac never crashes, so we didn't pay attention to saving our project).

      I hate iMovie.

      I wish I had my laptop with Premiere at that time instead of a Macintosh.

    15. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by gig · · Score: 1

      > The ad where the PC buys the Mac that C++ reference manual that he secretly lusts after himself is just so much blatant false image
      > building it's ridiculous. Are they implying that Mac programmers live in a glorious world where technical manuals are unnecessary?
      > Or that every windows user is a technical programmer? It's ludicrous.

      No, no, no. I'm a Mac user and I have technical manuals here on my desk. However they are all about graphics, not C++.

      > The PC going in for surgery is another joke. At least he PC CAN be upgraded instead of simply requiring replacement for
      > a major OS update.

      First of all, if you want internal upgradability in a personal computer, you can't do any better than a Mac Pro. It is easy to get in there, you can swap in and out SATA drives without cables, you can replace the CPU's, the RAM, and install PCI cards. The fact that you can also buy a Mac in a notebook or an all-in-one desktop doesn't stop you from choosing the Mac that is right for you.

      Secondly, the ad is specifically about what could be called "forced Vista hardware upgrades" where the user wants to upgrade his or her Windows XP to Windows Vista and nothing else, but because of Vista's high hardware requirements, MUCH MUCH HIGHER than Mac OS X, the user has to purchase a new video card and have it installed so that after that they can upgrade to Vista. Compare to a Leopard upgrade even on a 5 year old Mac you don't have to upgrade the hardware and you can run ALL the features, even though many are more advanced than Vista. You can also see the direct Vista connection in this timely ad when when the PC goes off and says "if I don't come back you can have my peripherals" and the Mac goes "speaking of peripherals ..." because the other big problem Vista users are having is that they're plugging in their peripherals and only half are working, and these things all work on the Mac. So the Mac is saying "when you get back, you might have more bad news."

      > They're great ads. Seriously, they're billiant. But they lie.

      I think the reason people like them is that they find the PC to be "in character" ... the troubles he's having are the troubles you see a real PC out in the everyday world going through, except with less grace.

      > I think Microsoft should fire back. With one man representing one game they should show the PC addressing a full concert hall. Then the > Mac should be addressing a hotel conference room with a bunch of empty seats. With five seats full of really old men, one should realize > he's in the wrong room and leave.

      Ha ha ha that really represents the Mac community. It's five old guys, ha ha. Be sure to show the chains holding the PC's audience right there in their seats where they can be ready to answer the next little pop-up bubble "your PC may not be secure click here to find out why". Ha ha.

      >Then show the PC calling in to some Microsoft-product-only connection and getting through, while the Mac gets,
      > "I'm sorry - we can't help you."

      At first I didn't get this because I'm so used to a world where it is easy to communicate over wires in standardized ways and interoperability is easy. Then I realized that you're bragging about how Microsoft encodes everything into its own weird formats to lock you into using only their software. Not sure that's a selling feature.

      Or is it that you think the Mac is a Microsoft-free ecosystem? Actually no. We have our own Silicon Valley Microsoft Mac Business Unit, which has been publishing Word for over 20 years straight. Also Apple has the best MS Office converters around if you want to open your Microsoft files in Apple's tools.

      > At least those would sort of represent reality.

      Sort of is right.

    16. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by gig · · Score: 1

      > The point, of course, is that it takes being the kind of person that wants a C++ GUI programming guide to actually enjoy
      > and really understand Windows.

      No, the PC is not a user. He is a PC. The point is that C++ is what the PC is good at, what he's done historically, and what the PC knows. He can't conceive of making a photo book because he doesn't have that software. He comes with C++ developer tools but he doesn't come with iLife.

      We the users are watching this drama play out, and we can easily see which is the right tool for the job.

      A lot of people don't understand the concept of software, huh? You simply can't explain to them that there is a hardware thing and a software thing, or that each computer could conceivably contain an entirely unique software configuration. It is hard to explain to many users that one iMac and another might have different software installed if they look the same on the outside. If you are knowledgeable about computers you might find the idea that you can take a computer out of the box and THEN identify, procure, install a range of software tools, and only THEN get down to work to be totally awesome. Most people don't think that way, though. Whatever their computer can do when they first take it out of the box and turn it on, that is what it's going to get used for. Not just because they don't know how to actually install software, but because they don't know what software is and they don't know how to judge whether they might want to replace iPhoto with a third-party solution.

      It is tempting for a technical user to look down on the above-mentioned user, but keep in mind that person might be a doctor, artist, lawyer, firefighter ... they may be very accomplished in their non-Computer Science field, and they may need to do Web and email and they need stability and security and they need a complete set of tools if they are going to get good results from their digital camera and DVD burner and blog. That stuff has to be in there already for this user.

      Now imagine that you are the above user watching the C++ commercial and you realize "oh wow, some computers are made for photography, and some are made for programming" and sometimes that is accompanied by thinking "hey, the photography computer is for ME" because lots of people suffer under the illusion that all computers are for programming, all are made for very technical people only and everybody else has to suffer and suffer as they use them even to do basic things.

      Fundamentally, what's behind this commercial is the fact that the basic software configuration and capabilities of the average Mac and PC are very different and people should know that before they buy, no matter what they buy. We are used to seeing computer spec sheets that have RAM and CPU speeds and such and we list software titles, but really what is more and more important is the stuff the box can actually do without further configuration. We all know you can radically reconfigure a Mac or PC due to tens of thousands of third-party applications but that doesn't mean that the initial configuration of software shouldn't be carefully designed, top quality stuff that acts as a foundation for whatever you add or replace. Having iLife there teaches people all about digital media and sometimes that is how they fall in love with movie making or photography, because they already have the basic tools in an easy to use high-quality versions. After a couple of years of photography you might replace iPhoto with Aperture or another tool or not but you'll never have no photo management tools at all.

    17. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by gig · · Score: 1

      Macs have cameras built-in. That is the point of the commercial. Every MacBook and MacBook Pro has a camera in it already. Every iMac since the iMac G5 about two years ago also. For Mac Pros there is an Apple camera that attaches with any one of about 5 different mounting kits it has in it, including magnets, so you can set it up so it looks great and is solidly attached so you can aim the camera or just use it without it bouncing around.

      Apple is well within their rights to pick on shitty cameras and most especially their terrible mounting systems. They make the best internal cameras and the best add-on. Go look at them.

      > OK, how about the ad that claims that the PC needs special drivers for the camera, but the Mac doesn't?

      No that ad is not just about drivers. Once you are just talking to the camera, that is not success. It is only the extremely low standards of the PC industry that have you thinking this is about drivers. You're saying "hey, Windows can connect to a camera! Job done!" no that is not really anything at all. A computer that can hook onto the Internet but doesn't have a Web browser is not going to work for most people even if you can ping stuff all day long.

      On a Mac, when you plug in a camera, iPhoto offers to import the photos, as easily as importing a CD into iTunes. Once they are in there, you can do basic corrections like Red Eye, rotations if necessary, apply keywords, and then archive to CD or DVD, send over the Internet for printing, even design a photo book, all within iPhoto, all with the same UI and ease of use as iTunes. You're in this one window with all your photographs and you can move them around and make albums and slideshows, like iTunes playlists. To the user, there is iPhoto and there is the camera. There are no drivers, there is no software to install ... I bought a digital camera last year and threw all the discs that came with it in the trash and took some shots and then plugged it into my Mac and boom you are in iPhoto and you're working with photographs. There was no configuration. You don't even have to look at your camera's memory as a disk or work with it in any way other than as photographs.

      Also, on a Mac you expect to open any professional image or movie or audio format and it just plays. This even extends to Camera Raw images from any manufacturer. So even though I hadn't installed any software on my Mac for my Nikon camera, I could still open its camera raw images on my Mac. These are not real digital images, but rather camera sensor data and all the camera's settings, so it is not a small thing to make them just work.

      So you can clearly copy files from one disk to another with a PC ... even if one disk is in a camera. However on a Mac you can do photography ... working with the photographs as files and disks is optional and secondary. I would bet you there are many iPhoto users who would be surprised to find out their photos are stored as files, same as many iTunes users would be surprised that each song is a file. The interface enables you to see photographs and audio/video clips instead of files and folders.

    18. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by shilly · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. I have a Canon Ixus 55. Nice little camera. I plugged it into the laptop I use for work -- a compaq tc4400. Nothing happened. It took a lot of futzing around to get pictures off it. I tried the same on my MacBook at home. iPhoto opened up automatically, showed me a picture of my camera, named it correctly as a Canon Ixus 55 and asked if I wanted to import my pictures. The two user experiences were not even remotely similar in terms of ease of use. The point is not what's *technically feasible*, it's about what's *readily doable* without any fuss. There's a world of difference.

    19. Re:Those Ads ARE Misleading by cryocide · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what went wrong with your tablet PC but the PowerShot SD450 (Ixus 55) only needs drivers for Windows 2000 or earlier versions, and only for direct capture, not for image transfer. It might have been because you were using Windows XP Tablet PC Edition--I don't know much about that version since the only piece of hardware I've ever used that runs on a Tablet PC version of Windows is an Acterna TestPad. My PowerShot S400, an similar but older camera that uses CF cards instead of SD, has never, ever needed drivers for Windows XP. It doesn't even have problems with the infamous nothing-has-third-party-drivers-yet Windows Vista.

  46. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he was making the point that Apple copied from Xerox.

  47. Very nice for Linux by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Gates mentions Linux, without really any prompting from the interviewer, in his second answer. He doesn't really say anything, but just the fact that he mentions Linux without having to is going to make Linux seem more like a serious contender to many people.

  48. Scared by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Heh, I was thinking the same thing. "What else could he have possibly said [here]?" (nothing else made any sense, other than swearing).

    I haven't seen Bill Gates this scared of Apple/Mac since the ramp up to Windows 3.x. Perhaps not coincidentally, I saw this pointed out earlier today.

    I can't imagine with his wealth and the importance of what the Gates Foundation can be doing why he bothers to show up to work at Microsoft anymore. You'd think he'd have graduated from that position a while ago.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Scared by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't imagine with his wealth and the importance of what the Gates Foundation can be doing why he bothers to show up to work at Microsoft anymore. You'd think he'd have graduated from that position a while ago.

      This is because Gates wants power, plain and simple. He wants to be respected, and if that won't work, he'll settle for feared. His ubernerdish countenance and ostensibly tiny penis (If you saw him on video getting pied in the face, you know that he has no sense of humor) have left him with a complete sense of insecurity. As such he has to exert his control over others in order to feel good about himself.

      This is why the Gates foundation isn't going to examine its investment portfolio to make sure that they're not investing in companies that are killing people. It's not actually about helping people. It's about further extending his influence.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Scared by NullProg · · Score: 1

      His ubernerdish countenance and ostensibly tiny penis (If you saw him on video getting pied in the face, you know that he has no sense of humor) have left him with a complete sense of insecurity.

      Not quite. If you remember a while back....

      From a few idle doodles, the experts were able to offer a thorough assessment of Mr Blair [GATES] as an aggressive, unstable man under enormous pressure, struggling to keep his irritability under control.
      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1463867, 00.html

      Enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
    3. Re:Scared by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      If you saw him on video getting pied in the face, you know that he has no sense of humor

      hey, whatever happened to the guy who pie'd Gates? I want to firstly shake his hand and secondly buy him several beers

      video is here

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  49. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No amount of artificial WOWs and marketing bragging makes Microsoft and their products cool.

    It works just the opposite way, actually. Those Apple ads work so well, because they build on the public's existing perception about Microsoft, instead of what Apple would like people to believe.

    Microsoft's WOW ads, and Bill Gate's public WOW comments on the other hand are trying to create the non-existing WOW feeling.
    Microsoft is no longer WOW even among Wall Street slaves and corporate slave drivers.

  50. This thread is hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    This thread is like a micro-version of what Slashdot has become: Mac-Land for zealots. /. isn't even Linux-Land anymore. It used to be that people would get hot under the collar
    if you said something bad about their flavor of Linux, but today the religious fervor seems to have
    died down and mulled into true criticism, reflection and discussion.

    Not so of the newer, meaner (suddenly self-confident) Mac fanchick. They'll mod you
    down for saying "Mac is just another company" (its not a joke, I've seen it happen).

    I can't seem to figure out how Mac cultivated this incredible consumer loyalty. As a free-thinker,
    I like to believe that I'll buy whatever is best. I'm not really loyal to any particular brand
    or OS. How is it possible that Mac converted such a huge swathe of geekdom over to its game-crippled,
    closed-sourced, hardware locked, eye-candy OS? And did so with cult-like fervor?

    One can't even discuss the glaring limitations of Macs without generating anger (yes, true
    hostility) and getting modded down.

    Is someone paying you guys, or what?

  51. GUI innovation? by the_nightwulf · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    Let's be realistic, who came up with [the] file, edit, view, help [menu bar]? Do you want to go back to the original Mac and think about where those interface concepts came from?
    What point is he trying to make here? Windows had it first? MacOS 1.1 seems to have everything but the "help" entry. Windows 1.01 is close but not quite there.

    Or is he trying to make the point that Apple didn't invent the GUI? If you'd like to get technical, Bill, Xerox didn't have those specific features either.

    I'd love to counter his ridiculous points, but I can't figure out which flawed point he's going for.
    1. Re:GUI innovation? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I thought Bill's comment was curious here too. I think he was hinting that MS invented it (bold lie), without actually lying. Windows 1.0 was never released to the public, because of legal conflict with Apple. Let's see, Apple keeps on using File...Edit... etc. for a full three years before Windows 2.0, and I'm to believe that MS actually invented it? Nice revisionism, Bill. If Windows had file..edit..whatever, first, then pray tell, why was MS Office first available for the Mac, a full year before there was even a GUI for Windows? Maybe file..edit..view was a sub command of dos?

  52. Is Gates wrong, or lying? by djh101010 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OK couple things about his statements that jumped out at me from reading TFA: The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.

    Um, Bill, Apple hasn't had to fix DLL hell, and processes run by a user blowing away system things, because they didn't build those problems in in the first place. They didn't have to block open ports with vulnerable services listening on the by default, because they're not _open_ by default. And so on. Next?

    Question: How about the implication that you need surgery to upgrade? Well, certainly we've done a better job letting you upgrade on the hardware than our competitors have done.

    How so, Bill? What are the hardware requirements for your new OS? How many 5 year old boxes, or even 3 year old boxes, meet that?

    You can choose to buy a new machine, or you can choose to do an upgrade. And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it's superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say? Does honesty matter in these things, or if you're really cool, that means you get to be a lying person whenever you feel like it? There's not even the slightest shred of truth to it.

    So Bill is saying, that there's no truth to the statement that you need to make hardware changes if you want to upgrade to vista. NO truth to it.

    Tell that to my inlaws; they'll need a new box entirely.

    I mean, it's fascinating, maybe we shouldn't have showed so publicly the stuff we were doing, because we knew how long the new security base was going to take us to get done. Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

    OK Bill, show me the figures. Show me a total exploit on OSX. Now, show me 365 of them for each year it's been out. Back up your figures or be shown to be the liar you are.

    I just can't keep going through this, I think that one says it all about the guy's outright lies, and/or complete lack of clue. So, windows fanbois, is he lying, or is he clueless?

    1. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by Altus · · Score: 3, Insightful


      on the upgrade bit.

      Doesn't XP and Vista make it more difficult for you to upgrade your computer by making you re-register the software just for changing some components. I mean the OS is what they have control of and they are actually using it to make it more difficult to upgrade the hardware. I can drop a new video card into my mac and I wont have to deal with any licensing crap at least.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    2. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by ak3ldama · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't care to refute everything you say, but my older computer could run vista. It's a 1.6Ghz (AMD 1900+ XP) with 1Gb of ram and 2x40GB hard drives which clearly fits the bill. (The video card is also DX9 capable with 128MB ram, but that was a previously upgraded component.) It is about 5 years old. According to the all knowing and never wrong wikipedia the cpu was released on November 5, 2001. I don't remember but it might be the Thoroughbred core, in which case my point is completely incorrect. Not that I care, Vista isn't coming close to my computers. For my uses Linux is just fine, and in the future I'll only consider OS X and Linux. Non-the-less there are definitely 3 and 5 year old computers that are capable of running Vista; whether they should is a different answer.

      As for your other points you're definitely correct. Billy G was talking out of his lower orifice, although to the uneducated he may have sounded reputable.

      --
      "but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
    3. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by *SECADM · · Score: 0

      The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things. Um, Bill, Apple hasn't had to fix DLL hell, and processes run by a user blowing away system things, because they didn't build those problems in in the first place. They didn't have to block open ports with vulnerable services listening on the by default, because they're not _open_ by default. And so on. Next?

      You are right, they didn't build those problems in in the first place... they didn't build it at all, in fact. They took an extremely secure and mature server OS and conveniently made it theirs. So Bill's comment is in fact, correct: Apple hasn't really done anything for the security of their OS. Where as Microsoft, after taking so much beating in the security side, has spent significant amount of investment in the area. Now whether or not the investment they've made is good enough is yet to be seen.

      --
      sure I'll have a sig.
    4. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Apple might not have had DLL hell, but they had an extension hell with pre-OS X that, according to Mac people that used it that long ago, was a pain. This was fixed with OS X.

      One problem that I run into is that I can't just give people a "normal" user account because software doesn't work. Requiring Power User or Administrator is what gave XP and previous a lot of security problems. I don't have Vista, but supposedly it improves the situation, though I would be skeptical that it is completely fixed simply because Vista has to run legacy software to be accepted.

    5. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by NMerriam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they didn't build it at all, in fact. They took an extremely secure and mature server OS and conveniently made it theirs. So Bill's comment is in fact, correct: Apple hasn't really done anything for the security of their OS
      On the contrary, NeXTSTEP was built by Steve Jobs' NeXT almost 20 years ago now. Yes, they make liberal use of BSD and other open software components in the middleware, but pretty much everything below the user level and above the command line was created from scratch (for better or worse, as anyone trying to run a web server on native OS X sockets can tell you). Apple most certainly made a huge investment in security (and features and other things) when they bought NeXT and started the transition to what became OS X. It took several years and many millions of dollars and lines of code.

      And even from day 1 of OS X's release, they've made mostly good decisions when faced with security vs usability choices, while in the same 8 years MS has made pretty much all the wrong decisions when faced with the same questions. It's possible they've changed 180 degrees on their security with Vista, but it sure doesn't seem that way from the installations we've set up for testing. They seem more interested in bombarding the user with confirmation dialogs so that they can then blame the user when something goes wrong, rather than actually coming up with a (or using an existing) security model that is both useful and usable for a non-computer expert.

      I think Gates (and MS) is too much like most slashdotters, thinking that if anything goes wrong it's because the user didn't RTFM, not because the system was poorly designed. Jobs, at the opposite extreme, wants to make computers be sealed appliances with no user-serviceable parts but expensive maintenance contracts. Somewhere in-between is the right answer, Apple is just fortunate to have enough good programmers to translate Jobs' desires into a functional compromise. MS doesn't have anywhere near enough UI designers or usability testers to overcome the RTFM attitude that comes from MS's geek culture.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    6. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by djh101010 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple might not have had DLL hell, but they had an extension hell with pre-OS X that, according to Mac people that used it that long ago, was a pain. This was fixed with OS X.

      Right, and that's a very good point. Rather than continue to support a fundamentally broken design for eternity, Apple said, in effect, "OK, new OS entirely, lots of old stuff just plain Will Not Work." MS has been reluctant to do that, maybe up to and including Vista. I really, really think they need to draw a line and say "Anything OS-ish before _here_, sorry, not gonna work, period" so they can stop including fundamental design flaws for the sake of staying backwards compatible with 5 or 10 year old stuff. It's funny - I can't read files from Word 95 on an XP box, but they try to make executables from then work. What's more likely to be needed? Seems to me, let the office formats be backward compatible, no problem there, but dump the OS compatibility attempts that make the new one suck for the same reasons the old one sucked. Now, let me be completely clear - I have not, and quite likely never will, buy vista. So I'm saying this as an already-decided outsider. I just don't see what needs I have that it would meet.
    7. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't XP and Vista make it more difficult for you to upgrade your computer by making you re-register the software just for changing some components. I mean the OS is what they have control of and they are actually using it to make it more difficult to upgrade the hardware. I can drop a new video card into my mac and I wont have to deal with any licensing crap at least

      That's rich.. First of all the re-activation won't fire unless you change a significant part of your PC parts. You can change your video card, sound card and all your peripherals and nothing will happen with the activation.

      I have another question: your Apple motherboard fries. When you change it, does OSX... oh wait, you can't change it! There aren't any for sale by Apple. That's sure a lot better.

    8. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by jt2377 · · Score: 0

      NEXTSTEP was a combination of several parts:
              * a Unix-like operating system based on the Mach kernel, plus source code from UC Berkeley's BSD Unix
              * Display PostScript and a windowing engine
              * the Objective-C language and runtime
              * an object-oriented (OO) application layer, including several "kits"
              * development tools for the OO layers

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP

      Microsoft hired a group of developers from Digital Equipment Corporation led by Dave Cutler to build Windows NT, and many elements of the design reflect earlier DEC experience with Cutler's VMS and RSX-11. The operating system was designed to run on multiple instruction set architectures and multiple hardware platforms within each architecture. The platform dependencies are largely hidden from the rest of the system by a kernel mode module called the HAL.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_nt

      have a nice pie of STFU!

    9. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by MacDaffy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple might not have had DLL hell, but they had an extension hell with pre-OS X that, according to Mac people that used it that long ago, was a pain. This was fixed with OS X.

      This isn't accurate. I can think of VERY few extension conflicts in Apple extensions. There was an extensive integration and compatibility group to make sure of it. There could be plenty of problems with the mix of Apple and third-party extensions, but resolving them wasn't "hell"...usually.

      A user could boot with the shift key held down, turning off all extensions. Then, a search of the preferences folder by date modified would often turn up the offending extension or control panel. You could boot into the Extensions Manager by holding down the SPACE bar. Then, you could either choose a basic Mac OS extension-control panel set or a full Apple-only set. If your machine crashed after booting from that, you could eliminate extensions until the problem was isolated. There was also an application called Conflict Catcher that also helped with the situation.

      The best way to solve extension hell? If you just installed something and your machine starts crashing, uninstall it. Inconvenient, but hardly "hell." And it was WAAAAY easier than resolving DLL problems.

    10. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      I thought you were backing up my points until I read the last line of your post. I don't understand what in your quotes disagreed with anything I said about the development of NeXTSTEP.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    11. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      OK couple things about his statements that jumped out at me from reading TFA: The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things. Even more interesting is the fact that the interviewer hadn't even mentioned Apple yet in the interview. Bill brought this up on his own.
    12. Re:Is Gates wrong, or lying? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Thank you thank you thank you! Someone else finally calls out the pathetic "RTFM" dweebs! One day, in an ideal world, the majority will dictate how computers are designed, and not the geek sub-culture. Normal people use computers in much larger numbers than computer geeks, so why are are hands tied to using computers the way geeks do? Equally annoying is anyone who disputes another's point-of-view by calling them anything with the word boy/boi in it. Yeah, because that is an acceptable debate tactic that demonstrates a strong command of logical thought and expression...or not.

  53. I'd say he's running scared..... by 8127972 · · Score: 2, Informative

    .... Given his reaction when questioned about the look of Vista by Miles O'Brien of CNN:

    http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/bill-gates/does-bill-ga tes-always-say-no-no-no-when-he-hears-os-x-232750. php

    and his "performance" on The Daily Show:

    http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/the-daily-show/bill-gat es-tells-jon-stewart-why-he-should-buy-vista-yes-i t-was-as-boring-as-this-headline-232403.php

    I'd say that Bill is a bit scared that Vista will flop, or worse, people will just buy a Mac.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:I'd say he's running scared..... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Oh, I doubt that. He knows Vista will, eventually, be a rousing success. What he's worried about, I'm sure, is the fact that the next pointless upgrade in four years may be all but impossible to sell.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:I'd say he's running scared..... by Dracos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd say that Bill is a bit scared that Vista will flop, or worse, people will just buy a Mac.

      I'd go so far as to say that the only thing keeping Vista from being a flop is MS' strongarm agreements with the OEM's.

      If no one at MS can come up with a single compelling reason to get Vista other than irrelevant eye candy, then there must not be one. Nobody wants Vista, because there's no real value in it, and because MS can't tell anyone why they should want Vista.

      The next couple of years will be a huge opportunity for Apple and/or Lunix.

    3. Re:I'd say he's running scared..... by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      "If no one at MS can come up with a single compelling reason to get Vista other than irrelevant eye candy, then there must not be one."

      There is a reason, but not for you and me.

      I think the truth of the matter is that Vista is MS's bid to be the gatekeeper and tollbooth between the entertainment cartels and consumers. Everything MS has been doing in the last few years has been about locking in media to the Windows platform. The XBox line, the Zune, Vista, all point to a coherent strategy about getting a MS device everywhere, allowing you to share your media amongst those devices, locking out competitors, and then charging both consumers and media providers a fee to play in the MS ecosystem.

      The reason why Vista looks less than compelling is for the obvious reason, it is less than compelling. The only reason they'll get away with it is the OEMs have no choice.

      I get funny feeling Vista will be MS's Waterloo.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  54. *Can* be taken over totally by noidentity · · Score: 1

    "security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."

    And every single day, probably thousands of Windows machines are taken over by malware, in the wild. Unless I'm a user with an inconsiderate security researcher in my house who daily takes over my machine, that they do this in their labs is irrelevant to me.

  55. Speaking of misleading... by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    I'm not apologising for Microsoft, but the bit where he says Apple's ads are misleading is talking specifically about the ad where 'PC' is having surgery to upgrade - from TFA:

    How about the implication that you need surgery to upgrade? Well, certainly we've done a better job letting you upgrade on the hardware than our competitors have done. You can choose to buy a new machine, or you can choose to do an upgrade. And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it's superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say? Does honesty matter in these things, or if you're really cool, that means you get to be a lying person whenever you feel like it? There's not even the slightest shred of truth to it.

    And I'm not being funny, but it's easier to upgrade a PC than a Mac. Am reminded of You pick it up, throw it away, then go buy a new one - now that's convenience .

    Cue G5 tower (of which I am one) and Mac Pro users replying saying that they can be upgraded - sure they have expansion slots and you can change the graphics card - that's great but most PC's are more flexible - for example if you want you can change the motherboard etc. - can't exactly do that with a Mac tower. The other question of course is exactly why is it Microsoft's fault if PC hardware can or cannot be upgraded?

    Having said all that of course, having used Vista Business for the last month, I'd advise avoiding it like the plague until at least the first service pack and for software to be fixed to work on it like Server admin tools etc.

    1. Re:Speaking of misleading... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I'm not being funny, but it's easier to upgrade a PC than a Mac.

      Umm, in what way? If you compare Apple machines to comparable PCs, they are about the same ease of upgrading hardware. Now Apple sells more all-in-ones, laptops, and small form factor machines than average, so I suppose you could argue that Apple makes more machines that are harder to upgrade, but that is pretty, bloody weak.

      for example if you want you can change the motherboard etc. - can't exactly do that with a Mac tower.

      Actually you can, they're just expensive and you have more limited hardware options. Having limited hardware option != harder to upgrade though. They are different issues.

      How about some counter points. When upgrading hardware on the mac, you never have to worry about calling Apple to get a new key, because your OS decided you are a criminal. You never have to worry about reinstalling the OS, or OS's in succession because you only have an "upgrade" version. If you are replacing the whole machine, say you got a new laptop, moving all your files, software, certs, accounts, etc. from the old one to the new one is an order of magnitude easier with a mac.

    2. Re:Speaking of misleading... by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point of the ad. It's not saying that upgrading is easier on the Mac, it's saying that upgrading to a new OS doesn't require a huge amount of upgrades. It's a dig at the resource requirements of Vista, not the upgradability of PCs.

      On a tangential note, upgrading PCs has become a crock. Back in the day, when I could stick a Pentium overdrive chip into my 486SX motherboard, upgrading made some sense. These days, unless I upgrade every year it seems like I have to buy the majority of a new system because the standards for memory, graphics, and CPU sockets keep changing. Given that you can always EBay your old Mac (for a pretty good price mind you), upgrading a PC is probably not much cheaper, if at all. For example, I have an October 2005 PowerMac G5 (2500 new). If I EBay the old machine, I could probably get a new Mac Pro for less than $1000 total cost. However, to upgrade a similar-era PC to the Mac Pro's specs would cost me well over $1800, since I'd have to replace the CPUs, the motherboard, the RAM, and maybe the PSU as well.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    3. Re:Speaking of misleading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The thing about windows apologists is they tote the motherboard replacement like Linux geeks tote os compilation. As if it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and my wife will stay up with me on a Friday night to watch me do it.

      No, as a matter of fact I am not interested in either. I was during college, when I needed to learn, but not any more. Nowdays I want to use my computer for surfing, email, photos, videos, and a Mac offers me all of these things right out of the box with 0 setup time needed.

    4. Re:Speaking of misleading... by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Umm, in what way?

      Umm, in the way that you can change any component you like without having the buy a new computer.

      Actually you can [change the motherboard], they're just expensive and you have more limited hardware options.

      Ok smartass, you can't change it for a different one, or are you expecting me to believe I can just go and buy a new Mac Pro Intel board to upgrade my G5 tower? I don't think so.

      When upgrading hardware on the mac, you never have to worry about calling Apple to get a new key, because your OS decided you are a criminal.

      That would be because Apple make most of their money from the hardware - if you are installing OSX, then you are doing that on a Mac (cracked copies hacked to work on PC hardware not counted). You can't blame Microsoft for trying to prevent piracy, unless you want to criticise Apple for using DRM on iTunes because they are assuming you are going to be a criminal and file share your downloads.

      You never have to worry about reinstalling the OS, or OS's in succession because you only have an "upgrade" version.

      ...you mean like my Tiger upgrade I bought from Apple that will only install over Panther?

      Back to my original point - you simply cannot make a serious comparison between 'upgrading' a Mac (by changing the graphics card, or putting in more memory) with the amount of options that are available for PC hardware, and if you are going to seriously compare that, then you are invalidating the Apple 'surgery' ad because by your logic 'Mac' should also be in plaster as he too would be having surgery to 'upgrade'. In reality his bigger, faster replacement should appear on screen, shoot him in the head and take over from him.

    5. Re:Speaking of misleading... by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Nowdays I want to use my computer for surfing, email, photos, videos, and a Mac offers me all of these things right out of the box with 0 setup time needed.

      Hear hear - this is why I have a PowerBook that I use for almost everything and I strongly recommend OSX over a PC for home users. I'm not a Windows apologist - I think Vista is terrible bloatware that nothing works on ATM TBH but I will challenge lies and misleading statements - for example, if someone claims there are '140,000' exploits for Vista, that info must come from somewhere - firstly I'd be genuinely interested to read about that but clearly that statement is obtuse as it is talking about all versions of Windows. It would be like someone saying there are xxxxx viruses and exploits for OSX while including things from OS7 etc - the majority of OS7 exploits are simply not going to cause a problem under Tiger (I'm factoring in Classic) therefore it is misleading to mention them.

    6. Re:Speaking of misleading... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Umm, in what way? If you compare Apple machines to comparable PCs, they are about the same ease of upgrading hardware. Now Apple sells more all-in-ones, laptops, and small form factor machines than average, so I suppose you could argue that Apple makes more machines that are harder to upgrade, but that is pretty, bloody weak.

      Well, I guess you might have a point, as the closest "comparable PC" to a propriety Apple tower is some propriety Dell piece of junk. However, if you build a PC yourself, you can get something a bit more flexable and easier to upgrade compared to a Mac (or OEM PC too).

      Also, that argument isn't exactly weak, as All-in-one, SFF, and laptops is all you can get from Apple, unless you want to spend $2500 on a Mac Pro.

    7. Re:Speaking of misleading... by bryan1945 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Apple for using DRM on iTunes because they are assuming you are going to be a criminal and file share your downloads."

      This would be mostly because the RIAA companies required it. As for independent artists, I don't know (I don't use iTunes), but if they are also DRM'd then I agree that's wrong (unless the artist asks for the DRM).

      Just sayin' because a lot of people here seem to think Apple hoisted DRM on iTunes just for the fun of it.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    8. Re:Speaking of misleading... by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      This would be mostly because the RIAA companies required it.

      If you want to apologise for that then fine - but what about Apple locking Intel OSX to Mac hardware only? Why can't I just buy OSX and install it on a PC? Or were they told to do that too?

    9. Re:Speaking of misleading... by jonhorvath · · Score: 1

      Amen Brother

      That is why Apple will always be a niche OS

    10. Re:Speaking of misleading... by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Something tells me you know very little about macs. In my six-freakin-year old Mac, I can swap out ram chips in and be up and running in about 30 seconds. First of all, my PCs that both use the exact freaking SD-Ram, take 30 seconds just to "shut down". Yeah, that's right, I can add ram to a dinosaur G4 Mac tower and be back online faster than my 2 year old XP machine takes to turn-the-fuck-off.

      Upgrading the zif socket in my 350MHz G4 to 800MHz cost about $40 and took less than 5 minutes and one reboot. About 4 minutes were spent apply thermal glue. You can go on about upgrading your motherboard all you want. To claim you can't buy a Mac motherboard and install it in a tower just shows you aren't a serious Mac user. Take a trip over to xlr8yourmac.com and inform yourself.

      I've spent hours adding a video card to a pc before, and XP has NEVER recognized the card in only one reboot. I've upgraded video cards on Macs, once using a PC version card and flashing the ROM in about the same amount of time it takes to install those ram chips. You stick the card in the slot and boot-up. Done. If I could get all the time back from clicking through Nvidia driver install screens in XP, I'd be a year younger. I've had PC components that refused to work with XP work just fine in my G4, even when designed for XP (and not Mac). This isn't necessarily because a Mac is so well designed. Rather, it demonstrates just how poorly Microsoft designs stuff in their quest to dominate everything, while being good at nothing.

      "Upgrading" a hard drive is a freakin' joke in XP. With a Mac, you can borrow your friend's Mac-loaded hard drive and it boots up. No configuring, no restarts, nothing. You get a working desktop in about 30 seconds. The last time I took an XP hard drive out of one machine and dropped it into another, I didn't have working video card, network card or audio for a couple hours and about 10 reboots.

      You can go on about "propietary" this and that, but the fact remains that this is a much easier way to perform upgrades.

    11. Re:Speaking of misleading... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Umm, in the way that you can change any component you like without having the buy a new computer.

      What component of a mac can't you change out? I've changed hard drives, controller cards, video cards, ram, optical disks, etc. I know people who have swapped out motherboards, cases, power supplies, and chips. I'm not really seeing the problem here. In fact, for my now ancient tower which still serves as a PVR and media server, I swapped out so many components over time that if it was a Windows machine I would have had to re-register and mess with Microsoft over licensing issues multiple times, while this has never ben an issue with OS X.

      Ok smartass, you can't change it for a different one, or are you expecting me to believe I can just go and buy a new Mac Pro Intel board to upgrade my G5 tower? I don't think so.

      If you can find a case it will fit in as well as compatible parts, why couldn't you? You're arguing a little bit of apples and oranges here though. Can you buy one of the old WinNT machines that ran on PPC and upgrade it to an x86 one easily? It is usually easier to buy a new case, power supply, and motherboard and re-use the rest of the parts

      That would be because Apple...

      I don't care. No really, I don't care why this particular aspect of upgrading hardware is easier for the mac any more than I are why fewer USB webcams have Windows drivers. That's the way things are and we're discussing the way things are, not why.

      You can't blame Microsoft for trying to prevent piracy, unless you want to criticise Apple for using DRM on iTunes because they are assuming you are going to be a criminal and file share your downloads.

      I can and do blame MS for using measures that unreasonably assume I'm pirating software and are so prone to false positives. In a free market they would never get away with treating customers so shabbily. I dislike Apple's use of DRM on music they sell and find it to be an annoyance as well. That is not, however, particularly relevant. This isn't a "macs are better... no PCs are better" discussion, although perhaps you've mistaken it for one. We're talking about the ease of upgrading hardware. MS's annoying DRM is relevant to that. Apple's music DRM is not.

      ...you mean like my Tiger upgrade I bought from Apple that will only install over Panther?

      My tiger upgrade installs all by itself, even on a blank drive, without swapping any DVDs. Where did you get one that does not?

      Back to my original point - you simply cannot make a serious comparison between 'upgrading' a Mac (by changing the graphics card, or putting in more memory) with the amount of options that are available for PC hardware, and if you are going to seriously compare that, then you are invalidating the Apple 'surgery' ad because by your logic 'Mac' should also be in plaster as he too would be having surgery to 'upgrade'.

      Oh, was that your point? Well that's bullcrap for a different reason. The ad is using surgery as an analogy for upgrading parts. I haven't had to add any new parts to my 7 year old g4 tower to get it to run the latest release of OS X. y 7 year old PC, which cost slightly more at the time, cannot run Vista, and can barely run XP these days. The ad refers to the completely valid point that the requirements for running Vista are a much newer PC, than the requirements for running OS X 10.4 (or 10.5) because in general OS X releases run better on old hardware with each release while Windows releases each run slower.

      Are you trying to assert that the ad was implying surgery on the PC was harder than surgery on the Mac, because I don't see that at all.

      In reality his bigger, faster replacement should appear on screen, shoot him in the head and take over from him.

      Do you ever just read some comment you wrote again and think, "gee I'm making emotional decisions and trying to argue complete crap that has little to do with the subject at hand because I feel threatened by people who make fun of my choices?" Yeah, have fun.

    12. Re:Speaking of misleading... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess you might have a point, as the closest "comparable PC" to a propriety Apple tower is some propriety Dell piece of junk.

      What an interesting assertion. Independent reviews of the quality and reliability of Apple hardware rank it at the top of the heap, usually even above Lenovo. Dell consistently is near the bottom of the heap. I think maybe your perception of things is a wee bit unreal.

      However, if you build a PC yourself, you can get something a bit more flexable and easier to upgrade compared to a Mac (or OEM PC too).

      I don't know about this. If you pick the right off the shelf machine it can be plenty easy to upgrade and just as flexible. Heck my old g4 tower was one of the easiest to work on machines I've ever owned. You grabbed a handle and the side hinged down, taking half the components with it. I only wish PC case vendors had something as nice. Also, speaking only to OS's, using OS X instead of Windows provides less need to upgrade as the requirements have been going down instead of up. Also, you never have to worry about Windows deciding that last piece of hardware you swapped out means you're probably a pirate and going through a rigamarole to re-activate. You don't even have to put in a serial number to start with.

      Also, that argument isn't exactly weak, as All-in-one, SFF, and laptops is all you can get from Apple, unless you want to spend $2500 on a Mac Pro.

      It all depends upon your needs and what you're building. As I said, if you use OS X you have much more limited selection of machines. That is a major limitation of using OS X. Trying to restate that limitation as "Apple machines are hard to upgrade if you buy a laptop, which is hard to upgrade if you buy one from another vendor too" is walking all the way around the block to get back where you started. In some instances, you can't buy an Apple machine that fits in your price point and feature set, while you can find PC hardware that does. One of those machines you can't buy might be a bottom of the line, cheap tower for low end upgradability. One of those machines might be a high end tablet. The problem, however, is not that Macs aren't upgradable or that Apple machines don't do well with styluses. The problem is that Apple ahs a limited selection of hardware and that means you might have to pay more for a model that has a given feature than you would if you have more options.

    13. Re:Speaking of misleading... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Whoa, there...

      I was only pointing out one point about the iTunes DRM. I like Macs (I own one), but I personally don't know if licensing OS X would be good or bad for Apple; in this sense, could Apple do a PC OS X software only and still survive? I don't know. I like my laptop, even if is cost a couple of hundred dollars more. I'm not rich, I got lucky since it was a surprise Xmas present that my wife told me she saved for 3 years to buy me this laptop.

      And of course no one told Apple not to let you run OS X on whatever PC hardware. Did anyone tell Nintendo they should run Halo?

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    14. Re:Speaking of misleading... by beoba · · Score: 1

      Why can't I just buy OSX and install it on a PC?

      Because Apple is a hardware company.

      --
      I am not a number - I am a free man!
  56. Delusional by TheWoozle · · Score: 1

    Wow. I'm not sure that I would actually go as far as he has with trying to spin Vista. He is still a very wealthy man, and making obviously delusional statements such as these in public could be grounds for having him declared mentally incompetent. I wonder if Melinda put him up to it?

    --
    Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
  57. so does this mean? by mackil · · Score: 1

    I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine

    So does this mean that if we do take him up on his dare, we won't be prosecuted if we succeed?

  58. Dare? by redelm · · Score: 1
    BillG'sd comments "I dare anybody to do that [pwn] to MS-Windows once per month"sounds like he's authorizing attempts.

  59. Nebula Award Candidate by psbrogna · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base."

    Last I checked, being dramatic in an interview (though I really felt like this was more of a press release) has absolutely no effect on code security. Your code base? As far as the Windows code base (past, present & I'll bet future), I have one comment: "All your bases belong to us".

  60. Before what happened? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Still no viruses on a Mac, there was one instance of a trojan that petered out pretty quickly...

    And still no spyware.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  61. Bill Shatner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because Bill Gates has been taking public speaking and acting lessons from William [Bill] Shatner.

  62. Three Things by franksands · · Score: 1
    1. It's a *MS* NBC article.
    2. It's an Advert for pete's sake, it's not "give me your brain and let me think for you". All adverts in the history of advertising have used exageration or hyperboles to clarify the argument they're selling
    3. The ad does have a valid argument: If you are going to make a major upgrade on your computer, or buy a new one, why not buy a mac?
  63. Almost like a blog article by Ougarou · · Score: 1

    I'd say this is just like most blog articles: flaming to get referred to. Bill is blogging on his own MSNBC again. But when people actually go there to read it, it's so shallow and dim minded that they decide to click on the ads.

  64. is that fair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > We made it way harder for guys to do exploits.

    So what about the gurlz?

  65. Advertisers lie!? by GodInHell · · Score: 1

    NO WAY! You mean advertisements (like this interview) aren't truthful!?

    Crap.. does this mean my penis enlarging cream and weight loss supplements AREN'T making all the fat in my body run into my depending member?

    CRAP!

    -GiH

  66. Oh He Just HAD to Ask... by eno2001 · · Score: 1
    I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

    Put on your PC flak jackets Vista users...

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  67. Four Apple bugs in a month, when looking!! by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Informative

    The MOAB actually only came up with three or four Apple bugs, the rest were in third party software that also applied under Linux and Windows!

    The most serious exploit (Quicktime) could only be replicated by one in sixty people, and that was when RUNNING A CUSTOM EXECUTABLE LOCALLY, generating the attack file from the binaries on your computer - again, which only worked for one in sixty people.

    Ridiculous. Now we know exactly what projects like MOAB lead to, idiocy at the highest levels of the executive quarter.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Four Apple bugs in a month, when looking!! by antibryce · · Score: 1


      I'm actually wondering if Bill's comment wasn't a reference to the MOAB project. This greatly boosts my opinion that MS is helping to finance the MOAB stuff.

    2. Re:Four Apple bugs in a month, when looking!! by gig · · Score: 1

      Nothing has made me more sure of the quality of my Mac than MOAB. Thank-you MOAB!

      Before MOAB, I knew intellectually that I was far safer than if I had chosen the "other" personal computer, but I didn't really FEEL it in my heart. Maybe I was just paranoid because of the daily horror stories I hear from Windows users.

      Now, having seen the intellectually embarrassing collection of Mac hacking recipes that MOAB put together, even with all of their anti-Mac animus and shoulder chips, I really and truly KNOW that I am as safe as anybody can be when connected to a global network 24/7.

      Looking forward to next year, MOAB! Let's do this every January. Next year you can show me how safe my iPhone is also.

    3. Re:Four Apple bugs in a month, when looking!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MOAB actually only came up with three or four Apple bugs
      What's sad is that your post was modded +5 informative, when almost every single statement you've made is factually incorrect (some absurdly). There were 31 bugs released, with 24 of those in Apple software. 7 were in third party software like Rumpus. Go to the MoAB site and count for yourself.

      The most serious exploit (Quicktime) could only be replicated by one in sixty people, and that was when RUNNING A CUSTOM EXECUTABLE LOCALLY, generating the attack file from the binaries on your computer - again, which only worked for one in sixty people.
      Do you have a link for that? The exploitation conditions do appear tricky if you don't know what you are doing.
      From MoAB:

      The exploit default address (0x17a853c) works if you open the file directly from disk (example: open pwnage.qtl). If Quicktime reads the file and it's already running, it will most probably fail.
      The fact that 59/60 people are incompetent, doesn't prevent the 1/60 from compromising the rest.
  68. A New York Post Headline by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

    Gates to Hackers: "Bring it ON!"

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  69. Choice quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gates: We'll tell you how Vista just wasn't good enough, and we'll know why, too.
    Well that's it then. Save your money everyone!
    Way to sell Bill.
  70. Hmmm... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's get this straight. The fact that Macs can be hacked makes exploiting Windows okay?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  71. You call that an elevator pitch? by cgrayson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    NEWSWEEK: If one of our readers confronted you in a CompUSA and said, "Bill, why upgrade to Vista?" what would be your elevator pitch?

    Bill Gates: The most effective thing would be if I could sit down with them and just take them through the new look for a couple of minutes, show them the Sidebar, show them the way the search lets you go through lots of things, including lots of photos. Set up a parental control. And then I might edit a high-definition movie and make a little DVD that's got photos. As I went through, they'd think, "Wow, is that something I could use, would that make a difference for me?"

    I'm a developer, but even I know the sales-jargon phrase elevator pitch. I don't know many 30-second elevator rides that afford a chance to sit down with someone for a couple of minutes. They must have really nicely furnished, though slow, elevators in Redmond. (Wow, is that allegorical to Vista, or what? ;-)

    Anyway, there is no way on God's green earth that Bill Gates doesn't know what "elevator pitch" means. So the answer really is, no, there is not a quick and compelling explanation for why one should upgrade to Vista. Instead, there is a long, laborious demo that ends in a rhetorical question about whether there's anything useful.

    To which the answer is probably, "No."

    1. Re:You call that an elevator pitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another funny thing is the part "I might edit a high-definition movie and make a little DVD that's got photos", which is purely a userspace application (i.e. a program that Microsoft could have released for Win2000 if they wanted).

    2. Re:You call that an elevator pitch? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a politicians answer. Don't answer the question. Answer another question that sounds similar

    3. Re:You call that an elevator pitch? by aaronfaby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Bill Gates: The most effective thing would be if I could sit down with them and just take them through the new look for a couple of minutes, show them the Sidebar, show them the way the search lets you go through lots of things, including lots of photos. Set up a parental control. And then I might edit a high-definition movie and make a little DVD that's got photos. As I went through, they'd think, "Wow, is that something I could use, would that make a difference for me?""

      Great. I would then come sit them down next to a Mac, show them all the same features, and explain that Macs have had all this and more for years.

    4. Re:You call that an elevator pitch? by funpet · · Score: 0

      Sure Windows Vista is full of features that mimic Mac OS X (in fact, that's what makes Vista such a worthless OS in my opinion). At the same time, Mac OS constantly implements "new features" that have been in Windows for ages, and they call it "innovation". The truth is, everybody steals from everybody. MS is usually quicker to copy Apple's features than Apple is to copy MS's, but in my experience it takes about 5 years for a "good feature" (at least those which are visible to end-users) to go from being in one OS to all of them.

    5. Re:You call that an elevator pitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At the same time, Mac OS constantly implements "new features" that have been in Windows for ages, and they call it "innovation"."

      Name one.

    6. Re:You call that an elevator pitch? by BCoates · · Score: 1

      Name one.

      Preemptive multitasking.

      Free bonus: Memory protection

  72. for those of us who watch the daily show by blindd0t · · Score: 1

    NEVER challenge an attacker

    Right - because we would never want to embolden such people/groups.

  73. Never EVER forget that.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that Bill Gates is not really actually a true nerd, geek, technical whatever... or even really a "genius salesman". First and foremost, above all other things [even though he dropped out of Harvard pre-law his freshman year], Bill Gates is a wanna-be LAWYER just like his old man. That is the mental, psychological, and social conditioning inside his psyche that drives and controls the very essence of the man.

  74. The ad I'd like to see . . . by mmell · · Score: 1
    Apple is ragging on PC - probably about something involving music, personal media, whatever. In the middle of this, three executives walk up, look at PC and say "Excuse us, but we need you back at work now" - leaving the Mac looking awkward, confused and alone.

    Apple is ragging on PC - the usual story - and in the middle, up walks a red demon and a penguin who PC introduces as his "brothers".

    1. Re:The ad I'd like to see . . . by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple is ragging on PC - the usual story - and in the middle, up walks a red demon and a penguin who PC introduces as his "brothers".
      Aww, bless. It's almost as if you don't realise that Mac OS X's Darwin is derived from FreeBSD.

      I'd show you the output from uname -a and a listing of the files in /etc, but my MacBook Pro is currently running Windows XP. For PC games stuff, no less. It's quite a speedy Half-Life 2 machine!
      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    2. Re:The ad I'd like to see . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wish has been granted:
      http://www.lauriemcguinness.com/

    3. Re:The ad I'd like to see . . . by Heliode · · Score: 1
      Allow me, uname -a :

      Darwin HeliosbookPro.local 8.8.1 Darwin Kernel Version 8.8.1: Mon Sep 25 19:42:00 PDT 2006; root:xnu-792.13.8.obj~1/RELEASE_I386 i386 i386

      On my 1st generation 15" Macbook Pro. The complete listing of /etc is rather long but basically what you would expect on a Unix system.

      --
      Fox can take the sky from you.
    4. Re:The ad I'd like to see . . . by jmac1492 · · Score: 1

      How about:
      Apple is ragging on PC about being more "fun" because of being able to make slideshows from digital photos or something. The PC is like, "Well, I'm a fun guy too. In fact, there's only one way to settle this: with a game of $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_GAME_HERE$. What's that? Can't play it? Well, what about $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_OTHER_GAME_HERE$? $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_OTHER_GAME_HERE$? Well what about $INSERT_PRETTY_MUCH_ANY_OTHER_GAME_HERE$? Oh, sorry to hear that. You keep screwing around with those pictures. I've got some aliens/Communists/Nazis to frag. Later."

      --
      Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  75. abuse of moderation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Troll" does not mean "anything with which I disagree". It means that someone is saying something they don't believe in order to get a reaction out of you. I believe every word I printed above. Therefore it is plainly, simply, and factually not a troll. It is also not engineered to piss people off, therefore it is also not flamebait.

    It's really too bad slashdot doesn't care about abusive moderators. Oh sure, you can lose your moderation ability permanently for criticizing the editors sufficiently, or even for modding them down, but abusing moderation, well, that's A-OK.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:abuse of moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a dumbass. You're saying blatantly stupid/rude things that, even if you believe them, are said to be insulting. Insulting people is just a way to get a rise out of them. Bill Gates has dedicated his entire (and quite formidable) fortune to his charitable foundation. If you were questioning his methods that would be okay, but you're making a personal attack on a man who doesn't merit it.

      Now quit crying, go sit in the corner and stop trolling while the adults talk.

    2. Re:abuse of moderation by terrymr · · Score: 1

      If that's troll then what is flamebait ? :-)

    3. Re:abuse of moderation by danaris · · Score: 1

      You're simply wrong. What he said counts, in my estimation, as flamebait, not a troll. As he correctly pointed out, trolling requires it to be done purely to gain a reaction, not out of real conviction, while flamebait simply requires the post to be likely to attract flames.

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    4. Re:abuse of moderation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're saying blatantly stupid/rude things

      The potential rudeness in what I am saying is nothing compared to the rudeness inflicted upon the world by Bill Gates and Microsoft, both of which are entities well-known to be willing to step on others at every opportunity, legal or not, in order to have their way. What makes you imagine that Bill Gates, the man who created and helmed this company which has been lying, cheating, and literally stealing its way to success all along is some kind of philanthropist?

      even if you believe them, are said to be insulting

      Said to be insulting? They're said to help people realize the truth. My goal is not to insult anyone, although I don't mind doing that in the process of achieving my goals - sharing reality with those in denial.

      Bill Gates has dedicated his entire (and quite formidable) fortune to his charitable foundation.

      Bill Gates' foundation is investing its money (which it has to do to maintain it because you can't just put that much cash in a bank) in companies which are known to be causing health problems. It is enabling these companies to do harm. Charitable foundation? Or merchants of death? Or both? And does charity excuse the harm done? Some say yes, that if the net benefit is positive, all should be forgiven. Some of us, however, believe that is an utterly hypocritical place for a supposedly philanthropic organization to be. It's somewhat analogous to healing someone's broken leg, then holding them down so that someone else can break the other one. Sure, thanks for fixing my leg, but I still can't walk now.

      If you were questioning his methods that would be okay, but you're making a personal attack on a man who doesn't merit it.

      No, I'm making a personal attack on a man who DOES merit it. Have you really forgotten history so quickly?

      Now quit crying, go sit in the corner and stop trolling while the adults talk.

      So now that you have complained about my insulting Bill Gates, you are insulting me. You are a hypocrite.

      I'd really like to know if you got paid to write this, or if it's just a personal attack against me. Because it seems to me to be a very revisionist way of looking at history. Those of us who remember how Bill Gates made that fortune, which is basically theft given that Microsoft was found guilty of basically everything it had been accused of during his time at the helm, understand that you are either utterly ignorant, or lying through your teeth.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:abuse of moderation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As per the FAQ: "Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait."

      Thus, as per the FAQ, this comment is neither a troll nor flamebait. It is not intended to make people angry. It is intended to educate. Of course one may not agree with my assertions, which is why I welcome reasoned debate - but I do not welcome abuse of moderation.

      I am willing and prepared to defend my assertions, and have done so on this very topic in the past. I will not stop simply because some people who are either blinded by his fortune or funded by his fortune. There have been known instances of Microsoft astroturfers on slashdot, so it should come as no surprise to anyone if we also have Gates Foundation astroturfers here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:abuse of moderation by mandelbr0t · · Score: 0

      Whoa! Cowboy!

      You realize of course that's there's more than one moderator. And that there's meta-moderators (do they change the final score, though?) Sounds like you need a drink or two. Come back on Monday :)

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    7. Re:abuse of moderation by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You realize of course that's there's more than one moderator. And that there's meta-moderators (do they change the final score, though?) Sounds like you need a drink or two. Come back on Monday :)

      I always need a drink or two. Or three. But I think the reason my back is up so far is that I've been catching more and more abusive moderation lately. And also, a lot of these slide right through metamoderation. I mean, you think the trolls don't metamoderate?

      But also I'm annoyed that these people are allowed to do it continually. Personally I set myself unwilling to moderate because I found that I always ended up moderating in conversations in which I knew the least, where frankly I was not qualified to moderate, because I would rather contribute than moderate. I think the whole moderation system is broken by design and if I want to convince others of this, I'm going to have to be vocal about it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:abuse of moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I was getting paid to write this (unless you count being at work :P).

      While I may not agree with Bill Gates' business decisions, everything I've ever heard about him personally has been good. Your comments weren't aimed at his company or his decisions, they were aimed squarely at him. Unless you've had a lot of personal interaction with him, your comments carry little to no weight. He has done innovative things with his charitable organization that I think have been fantastic; some of the things, as you've pointed out, aren't so much. To this I apply Hanlon's Razor, the same thing I've applied to you ;)

      And it's not hypocritical for me to insult you. You are a dumbass who's out on the fringe and has extrapolated more from the facts than should be. That's fine. But you're under the impression that saying these things does not merit people marking you as a troll or flamebait. Apparently you didn't deserve the troll mod, my apologies. But your post was flamebait. If everyone can see it except you, there's a problem, and statistically, it's probably not with us ;)

    9. Re:abuse of moderation by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Personally I set myself unwilling to moderate because I found that I always ended up moderating in conversations in which I knew the least,

      You don't need to know about a topic to be a good moderator. For example, it's pretty easy to spot abusive posts like trolls, even if you know nothing of the discussion's subject. Likewise, it's also fairly easy to mod people up to counter unfair moderation - like if they are modded troll just for expressing an unpopular or controversial opinion, and didn't submit an abusive post.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    10. Re:abuse of moderation by Brickwall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gates is simply following in the footsteps of other robber barons, like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Sam Bronfman (of Seagram's - he started out as a bootlegger) by trying to purchase respectability through charitable acts. It's not a case of people "alleging" MS has committed criminal acts; it's been tried and found guilty in more than one court. And since Gates is the top man, he is just as responsible as Ken Lay at Enron.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    11. Re:abuse of moderation by gig · · Score: 1

      The thing to notice with Bill Gates is all his financial stuff is Bizarro. He didn't make a fortune by being competitive ... but by being anti-competitive. It turns lots of his financial stuff upside-down. If you didn't earn your money honestly, it changes all of the assumptions.

      If you serve the rest of society well by offering them a better product than your competitors at a fair price, then nobody denies you the right to a reasonable profit, or the right to invest that profit as you see fit ... spend it, you earned it. Even if you completely refuse to do any charitable giving at all, at least while you were working you made the world a better place ... you sold people a better product than your competitors at a fair price. People might not even notice that you're not giving to charity because you're so popular for making that great product, it helped so many people.

      But what if you have a really shitty product and you know you can't compete with the rest of the industry, so you eliminate your competition through some illegal means, destroying that market and leaving your product to fill the vacuum, and then you charge everybody a higher price than they have ever paid in that market before, and keep in mind this is for a sub-standard product that could not compete on its own (or else why go to the trouble of all that law-breaking?) then you can make a lot of money. But you did it without doing any good. People are buying your product because it's the only one on their store shelves, not because they compared it to a competitor's product and found yours to be better. And they're paying more than ever and getting less. And the product only gets worse because there is no competition, no market. After a while you might become very rich and very unpopular.

      What you have to do then is give a bunch of your money to charity. Buy a little good PR. If you have stolen billions by that point it is easy to give millions back. In fact, it might even feel good. Even if you give half of it away, it feels sort of like earning the other half also, and since you stole it, the earning part feels good, as long as it doesn't involve any real work like designing a product and taking it to market against your competitors. That you would not want to do. All that work and then you don't even know if a product is going to succeed and make money. Better to compete only in markets where there is no competition. For those you don't even need a real product. You can get paid for losing. Guys like Bill Gates would rather do that.

      Bill Gates has the old problem that people have when they win a dishonest election where there was only one candidate. Yes, you won, yes you are the President, but nobody actually respects you like they would if you had run an honest campaign against a reasonable opponent and still come out ahead. Doing that is what people respect. Earning money by competing and winning and then giving that money away is what people respect. People who understand that Bill Gates stole everything he has and never worked a day in his life and simply has not contributed don't think it's all that special that he gives money to charity.

    12. Re:abuse of moderation by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      "His ubernerdish countenance and ostensibly tiny penis"

      Reasoned debate intended to educate, and not intended to insult and enrage?

      Anyhow, you're at 2 Insightful, so I wouldn't complain. There are far greater number of Apple "astroturfers" modding here, which cause anything not pro-Apple to be modded down, and unlike your case, that means sitting at 0 or -1.

  76. He's becoming Mr Burns by Deep+Fried+Geekboy · · Score: 1

    He looks old and tired and crotchety and he plain doesn't get it any more, does he?

    Also, I know it might SEEM like Bush and Cheney have made it okay to just flat out lie, but it isn't, and you will all burn in hell.

    --

    I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.

  77. He may claim whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...he will however be remembered as the :
    • richest man in the world of his time
    • man who gave most people the worst possible software
    • man who destroyed the whole worlds trust to the industry he represented

  78. Lost me at the first question by dontknowdidley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's your elevator pitch?

    Elevator pitches are supposed to be short - you have less than a minute to make someone invest more time in understanding you product or proposal.

    Bill states that he needs minutes to sit us down and explain blah, blah, blah.

    For F**k's sake, at least throw out "We've learned to copy better," "We admit that XP will always be full of holes and changed everything to give ourselves a head start to the bad guys," "It's pretty." Anything other than giving us a pie chart where the light grey shows the amount of time of hanging out and the dark grey shows the amount of time "kickin' it."

    I'm not sure Bill would be a convincing sales guy at CompUSA.

  79. Sorry Billy boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

    I hate to break it to ya but now vista is shipping with DRM, nobody needs to break Windows to totally take over users machines. Microsoft have done all the hard work themselves.

  80. MS Windows != PC by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

    I just don't like how they say PC instead of what they're really referring to. Can't they say 'I'm the other operating system'. A PC fits into any of those pitfalls only when it's operating system lets it.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:MS Windows != PC by cryocide · · Score: 1

      Heh, they certainly don't want to admit that the new Mac is a PC now do they? Apple insists they're a hardware manufacturer and not a software vendor, when in fact, the only difference between the two, aside from proprietary hardware interface, is the OS.

  81. Why vista? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me one fscking good reason why I should move to vista?

  82. Pleeze. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    He makes the claim that 'security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.'
    Wow, where's the "Month of Windows Bugs" when you need it.

    And before anyone answers "EVERY month is the Month of Windows Bugs" I mean where someone publishes a nice calendar or even just an easy-to-reference list.
    1. Re:Pleeze. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And before anyone answers "EVERY month is the Month of Windows Bugs" I mean where someone publishes a nice calendar or even just an easy-to-reference list.

      This looks pretty decent: SARC Vulnerabilities.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  83. Misleading claims by DeathKoil · · Score: 1

    I am not a Mac user yet, though I am going to make the switch when I get a new laptop. The commercials are not the reason for me switching, I think they are stupid. Having extensive knowledge of the Windows operating systems, I know that a lot of the things that are said on the "I'm a Mac..." commercials is just plain wrong. For exmaple: how can it be claimed that Macs are for fun and PCs are for business when Mac have six [youtube.com] games? They have more than one commercial that make fun of PCs for being for business only, and these are the one that bother me most.

    They also have those two commercials about photo albums and home vidoes. On the Mac it looks great, but on the PC is looks like a hack job. To me, this isn't saying it is easier on the Mac, its saying that, "everyone looks better when done on a Mac. Ha Ha PC! Go back and run Word at someone's office like you are supposed to".

    If your product is superior, tell us about its strengths, not about the competitions "supposed" weaknesses. Apparently Apple thinks PC users have no artistic talent or games to play.

  84. MOAB and Microsoft? by Swift2001 · · Score: 1

    Has it occurred to anybody to check the funding for the "security experts" who came up with MOAB. Billy seemed kind of familiar with it, didn't he? At least with its spin.

    Since Microsoft has been well-known to fund phony grassroots activity, $20 million for phony lawsuits agains IBM and any flavor of linux you can name, and all kinds of dirty tricks, I'm just wondering who's doing the funding for the "security researchers." I mean, for a solid month, there's a trickle of pee about so-called security problems, and then, Vista is launched, and the CEO and founder is still hit with snide comparisons to the Mac and the iPod. Do I know it for sure? No. Would I put it past them? No.

  85. More Advanced Browser by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

    From TFA
    The more avid users download the upgrades in between, but of XP users how many downloaded a browser that was more advanced than the one they had? Maybe you and the people you know all did, but most people don't.

    Yes, Bill, they do, and that browser's name is Firefox.

  86. but.. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    He rants on about Windows Search like its the greatest thing since sliced bread.
    Is it just me or have you noticed how hard it is just to search for a file with a given name?

    You have to go to the start menu, click the search tool, select file (which is not the default), go to extended options, find and check the option to tell it you want to look in the system directories too, type the name, hit start button. If you missed you can't just easily retry a different spec, you get all this nonsense options that you have to wade through. I don't need the options to search for people on the internet or whatever repeatedly getting in my way.

    Linux is either:
    locate filename
    or
    find . -name filename

    Just look at the relative lengths of the description, let alone the time it takes to do it.

  87. Who's calling Who a lying SOB? by vandan · · Score: 1

    Oh dear, Billy, you sound a little flustered this time around. Good.

    First you make the idiotic statement that someone discoveres a 'full system' exploit for OSX every day, and go on repeating that point. But a) I don't think it's quite that often, in fact I would be surprised if it was one every week, and b) at least Apple fix things in a relatively timely manner. Windows 'full-system' exploits, on the other hand, DO pop up every day, and go unchecked for months without being patched.

    You say "we've done a lot to fix security, and Apple hasn't done any of these things". What kind of an claim is that exactly? There doesn't appear to be any substance. Hell, I've done a lot to fix security in my software, and Microsoft haven't done any of these things.

    The bottom of page 2 is a classic ... you say "No, I think you'll find that Microsoft offered all these user interface innovations long before Apple ... what's that you say ... oh ... that stuff ... yeah sure we copied everything from Apple in the past 7 years, but just remember this: Microsoft invented the File Menu". That's some innovation right there, Billy Boy. Without the File menu, I suppose we couldn't open files, right? You should have patented it while you had the chance.

    I also like the crying foul over Apple's adverts. Not that I'm an Apple fan, but you can tell by Bill's response that Apple are good at hitting raw nerves.

    1. Re:Who's calling Who a lying SOB? by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      No kidding! Who is lying here? Gates insinuates that Windows invented "file edit view", however, Apple Macintosh was using "file edit view" 3 years before Microsfot Windows 2.0, the first graphical MS Windows, released in 1987. Win2.0 was a reactionary move to the new trend of graphical UIs; especially that of Mac OS. We see this theme repeat itself even to this day with Vista. "Aero", "Gadgets", "Sidebar", and several other features are not only implementations of features already present on Mac OS X, they shamelessly model their names after the OS X version. Pathetic.

      It was a clever lie, though, because Gates doesn't full out say, Microsoft invented "file edit view"! I think he is trying to use the old Mac-bash tactic of "Xerox-PARC" invented that! Of course anyone who knows anything about computers understands that key PARC people left XEROX to join Apple, and that the XEROX inventions likely would never have enjoyed wide-scale adoption if it weren't for the original Mac.

      Gates should have pitched the fact that Windows OSes can run on your Intel Mac too, since Microsoft doesn't make computers. They only stand to benefit by selling copies of Windows to the nearly 50 million Intel iMacs sold thus far. Instead of going head-to-head with his product (that loses on most accounts) he should tout something like, "why not run both?".

  88. Yep. by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Panther was the saviour of our Bondi iMacs - faster than ever before - ditto Tiger for my G3 iBook.

    I have circa 2001 mainstream PCs that choke on XP.
    And that's with all the pretty colors turned off.
    Which is the only way to tell you're ruinning XP anyway.
    God, I'm sick of having to 'splain why everything's grey again.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:Yep. by Robber+Baron · · Score: 1

      I have circa 2001 mainstream PCs that choke on XP. I have to call bullshit.
      I have a pretty basic 800Mhz Athlon box that I put together in mid-2000 that runs XP just fine. It was by no means the fastest system available at the time either.

      Systems I was deploying in 2001 were all pretty much 1-1.2 GHz Athlons with Windows 2000 and they all run XP just fine as well.

      Mind you there's some frightfully bad shit out there in the wasy of PCs that were unabashedly sold by sleazy big box electronics retaillers to rubes, that won't run anything well, but that isn't exactly XP's fault, is it?
      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

  89. Those aren't edits. It's Mad Libs PR Edition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The PR people sent him a Mad Libs style interview script, and he read it exactly like that. Think Discworld: "I square bracket your name here close square bracket..."

  90. Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by bonch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In nearly every single Vista article, there is mention of OS X and how it's had these features for years, which is a refreshing change. It's been extremely frustrating for Mac users the last six years because they had this OS that, despite early flaws, was years ahead of its time, but the tech media continued to ignore it. Maybe this started after OS X Tiger was released, but since last year's Vista delay, the media has been really harsh toward Vista and praiseworthy toward Apple. It's like they're finally giving Apple some long overdue credit for keeping the momentum going on OS X while the "biggest software company in the world" couldn't even squeeze out an update to its aging Win32 codebase.

    It's like the press finally realized how behind Windows is and how it never really came to dominate the market based on its merits. Microsoft just got lucky with a braindead IBM contract in the 80s and rode the commodity PC wave. Everybody has realized that Microsoft isn't that big and scary at all, and now that they're being forced to compete with Google, Apple, and others, we see just how floundering they are. The tactics they used to use in the 90s (announcing vaporware to freeze the market, releasing buggy 1.0 versions and getting OEMs to bundle them over competitors, etc.) don't work anymore.

    Vista is a headache to use. The interface, the extra dialogs, the multiple menu styles, the redundant buttons...it's a schizophrenic OS, and it even runs your games slower. Apps like Windows DVD Maker are a pathetic joke compared to iLife. I bet we didn't see an iLife '07 announcement at MacWorld because it's going to be bundled right into Leopard as part of the OS, just to stick it to Microsoft even further.

    Seeing Bill's reaction is just funny. This isn't the first interview he's been asked about OS X--there's a clip on YouTube where a CNN guy asks him about it as well, and Bill just pauses and reacts. It's funny. The press is finally waking up.

    1. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by Poltras · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is -1, interesting really interesting or just too long and somewhat non-opinional but if you've got time to lose read it? Because that's long and I don't know if I should or should not read your opinion based on the moderation. -1, interesting should not exist...

    2. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's like they're finally giving Apple some long overdue credit for keeping the momentum going on OS X

      I doubt it. I'd say it's due to the iPod, which means that you are actually allowed to (shock! horror!) use Apple products today.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    3. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by PatrickNM · · Score: 1

      Not sure what planet you have lived on for the past few years, but I recall hearing LOTS about how great OS X is and has been. I am a "native" Windows user (as in it is all I have ever been able to afford to use due to the high $'s required to buy a Mac) but have tried OS X on a newer model Apple laptop. It is as good as people say, so I won't bash it.

      I personally have never had the issues I hear people bash Windows over. I am a pretty experienced user and am very attentive to updated virus protection, firewalls and such. I can honestly say that I can count on one hand (and not use every finger) the number of "blue screens of death" I have had on my own pc's.

      I do have relatives and friends that have had those kinds of issues, but usually it comes down to them doing something stupid like deleting the folder with the operating system files in it, deleting a key system file, opening attachments on emails they shouldn't have (with no virus protection/detection), etc.

      I guess I am saying there is a certain class of user that is well suited to Windows, and I am in that group. I do a lot of business work (spreadsheets, etc.) that are pretty mathematically intensive, and even the famous Mac commercials give Windows its props in that arena.

      I also know there are classes of users that are better suited to the Mac. If I were in the graphic arts or music fields I would have a Mac, without a doubt.

      I will admit that Bill Gates lives in another world from the rest of us and his sense of reality is probably way off from what we "normal folks" see. It is humorous sometimes to listen to one of the "elite" act like they really understand the common man.

    4. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by angulion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to downplay OS X at all, but;
      "... Mac users the last six years because they had this OS that, despite early flaws, was years ahead of its time, but the tech media continued to ignore it."

      I would rather say OS X being *at* its time. It really is Windows that is behind in times.

      I wonder where we would have been today if there would have been any real competition the last 10 years.

    5. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by Xamataca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I also know there are classes of users that are better suited to the Mac. If I were in the graphic arts or music fields I would have a Mac, without a doubt. You only need to be creative regardless of the hardware/OS.

      I still use the "amazing" combination of pencil and paper...
      --
      ***Game Over***Insert Coin***
    6. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by Drakino · · Score: 1

      "I personally have never had the issues I hear people bash Windows over. I am a pretty experienced user and am very attentive to updated virus protection, firewalls and such. I can honestly say that I can count on one hand (and not use every finger) the number of "blue screens of death" I have had on my own pc's.

      I do have relatives and friends that have had those kinds of issues, but usually it comes down to them doing something stupid like deleting the folder with the operating system files in it, deleting a key system file, opening attachments on emails they shouldn't have (with no virus protection/detection), etc."

      On the OS X side, you really don't need to worry about a virus scanner, or antispyware system, and well, it does have a firewall, but I've never bothered with it. Thats one reason I switched. If it is because OS X is more secure, or it's such a small target, I don't care either way. It's less I have to maintain, and that leaves more time to do other things. I've also switched some of the people who rely upon me for computer support, and it has saved tons of time there too.

      "I guess I am saying there is a certain class of user that is well suited to Windows, and I am in that group. I do a lot of business work (spreadsheets, etc.) that are pretty mathematically intensive, and even the famous Mac commercials give Windows its props in that arena."

      Not really. Unless you are tied to very specific Windows apps, odds are an OS X running machine would work for you just as well. Spreadsheets work fine in Excel for the Mac, and in fact Excel 1.0 was released in 1985 on a Mac. 1987 was the first year Excel came out for a PC. True, the Mac commercials paint the PC as a business machine and the Mac as a fun machine, but thats just a tactic to try and show people don't have to run the same OS at the office as they do at home. I ran my Mac as a work machine in a heavy Windows environment for 2 years with no issues. Only reason I didn't continue is because I moved onto a new job, where unfortunately Visual Studio and DirectX is a requirement. I'll look to get back on a Mac in the office once Parallels or VMWare gets Direct3D working.

      Don't restrict yourself to just one solution. I've been keeping up with Linux, and back in the day was a big OS/2 fan. I don't have any particular loyalty to a platform, so I'll switch if needed. Macs have my attention for now, and they only showed up as a possibility once OS X shipped.

    7. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I feel no frustration towards the media bias. I have become quite accustomed to being smarter than the 9 out 10 people that I encounter (read the sig). I don't suffer fools. They talk of Aero, Bitlocker, like it is a great thing and I just yawn. Personally, I like the 90% using that other OS. I rather my OS not become the target of all those malware writers trying to sucker those fools out their money. Moreover, I like to keep the cool factor. Nothing is cool if every idiot uses it (no novelty). Frustrated? Nah, just bored waiting for Leopard which will only cost me $129 for all the stuff MS will copy in another 5 years then ream that 90% some more.

      --
      You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
    8. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smarter than 9 out of 10 people? But doesn't that go against the fundamental tenents of democracy? I bet you hate democracy.

      Personally, I like democracy, seeing as I'm part of that 9 out of ten. Yep. I'm a moron and I vote.

    9. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by gig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > You only need to be creative regardless of the hardware/OS.
      > I still use the "amazing" combination of pencil and paper

      This is bullshit because you're saying that because the Mac is hardware/OS and Windows is hardware/OS then therefore you can be equally creative with each one. The problem with this is that Mac and Windows are so fundamentally different, and include so many different tools, that they are not at all for the same job. A set-top box may also be hardware/OS but it may not make a good creative workstation, it may not replace paper and pencil.

      Paper and pencil is good and creative because it gets out of your way. You can draw a house, person, office hierarchy, map, a portrait of your lover, write a poem, whatever. I use Photoshop and a Wacom Art Tablet (digital airbrush) all day on a Mac and the experience is the same ... everything I do is directly related to pushing pixels, the Mac gets out of my way, and I can focus on the work I'm doing. There is almost no IT overhead, just like paper and pencil (you have to sharpen the pencil from time to time) or an iPod. There is no downside over paper and pencil because the Mac is as reliable as paper and pencil.

      Windows on the other hand is still way too much like cooking your own paper, whittling your own pencil, and then in the end it is not reliable, and it wants to chat about IT all day with you, which is fucking stupifying.

      So, yeah, you can be creative regardless of what tools you're using, but if you're trying to be creative with ART then get ART tools, and if you're trying to be creative with MUSIC, then get MUSIC tools. If you want to be creative with IT, then get IT tools, get Windows or Linux or a breadboard kit but don't pretend to be making art and music with that pile of shit. If you were serious about art or music you would not be running Windows, you'd have some conte and a newsprint pad before that, you'd run a dedicated audio recorder before you'd be running Norton trying to get your audio mixer back up and running.

      In professional art and music it is not acceptable to have any crashes because if you lose the afternoon's painting or the killer vocal take you may lose your month's pay. You can't say to the 12 piece band that they should come back tomorrow because you have a virus in your Win Win.

      And if you're not a professional, then your weekend art or music or creative time is maybe even more precious. You shouldn't have to look like a complete asshole in front of your kids to work the digital photography, for example. Blow $500 on a Mac if you want to do the digital shit ... iLife is at version 7 any moment now and very sophisticated, they've been building on iLife since before OS X.

      Compare Windows Vista Ultimate $399 with Mac mini $599. Mac mini has all the same OS features and INCLUDES THE HARDWARE. It's very hard to promote Windows as some kind of cheap option that you make do with because you can't afford a Mac.

    10. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by Xamataca · · Score: 1

      So, yeah, you can be creative regardless of what tools you're using, but if you're trying to be creative with ART then get ART tools I've been using win/PC for 15 years for doing "creative" graphic stuff professionally. And till I got NT and XP it was clear that the difference was "OS". Programs from Adobe, Macromedia, QXpress, etc... are the "real" tools.

      In professional art and music it is not acceptable to have any crashes because if you lose the afternoon's painting or the killer vocal take you may lose your month's pay. I've seen enough crashes in Mac not to trust so called "art" tools too. I've teach almost every prepress "staff" how to open and print PS, EPS, etc created from PC in their state-of-the-art macs through an "UNIXed" rip attached to their plate film printer. I've had some BSOD in NT (not noticeable, really) and only one in XP since 2002. Bullshit?, I call it my experience. (May I add that I've only had virus once since 1995? and that it happened in 1998?) Win95PCs where, back in those days, a collection of an incompetent OS with bad drivers and poor soft and I agree on your point. I've worked with Cubase, Cakewalk and even Logic in win98!! and it's clear for me that until XP there was a gap between Mac and wintel in terms of Music tools. But that ended with XP.

      Compare Windows Vista Ultimate $399 with Mac mini $599. Mac mini has all the same OS features and INCLUDES THE HARDWARE. It's very hard to promote Windows as some kind of cheap option that you make do with because you can't afford a Mac. Back in 1998 it was the inverse. Macs where so fucking expensive...
      Did I say it a cheap election today? I don't think so. If you want a great winPC you'll have to spend a lot of money choosing the best hardware; almost what you need for a "great" mac...
      I've always love MacOX because it's really user-friendly and easy, apple always come with innovative stuff and that's great but, what really tikcs me off it's all this noise about "get the right stuff", the "artist choice", the "smart tool", the "creative way"...
      Slogans never tell the complete truth (both sides).
      --
      ***Game Over***Insert Coin***
    11. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      It's been extremely frustrating for Mac users the last six years because they had this OS that, despite early flaws, was years ahead of its time, but the tech media continued to ignore it.
      Now you know how Amiga Users felt decades ago ;)
    12. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by r3m0t · · Score: 1

      "there's a clip on YouTube where a CNN guy asks him about it as well, and Bill just pauses and reacts. It's funny."

      If that's the clip I saw, he said "We have plenty of things Apple doesn't... [about 5 things] parental controls..."

      I wish the reporter had caught that.

    13. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by PatrickNM · · Score: 1

      "Compare Windows Vista Ultimate $399 with Mac mini $599. Mac mini has all the same OS features and INCLUDES THE HARDWARE. It's very hard to promote Windows as some kind of cheap option that you make do with because you can't afford a Mac."

      For the average person it is still more affordable to buy a Windows based pc than a Mac. Yes, the Mac mini is affordable, but I can get a more powerful machine for the same money (or less if you are a good deal shopper) that runs Windows. I am talking value, not just the amount of money spent.

      I still would pick a Mac if I was in a creative field, but you are exagerating about how bad the pc is with regard to tools that work well. Maybe not as well (not nearly in some cases), but not the IMPOSSIBLE task you describe.

      I have always, and always will, say that you use the right tool for the right job. I applaud both Windows and Mac for being good in their particular niche. They just aren't both for everybody.

    14. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's been that much a change, at least regarding Macs. The media mentioned OS X when XP was launched, and in fact with classic MacOS before that, the mainstream press long gave obligitary mention to the Mac, whether or not it was warranted, and even when there were other popular home machines, which were ignored.

      It's always been "Mac or PC and nothing else" for the mainstream media, where "PC" only ever meant a machine running DOS or Windows.

      What has changed I think this time round is more coverage for Linux.

    15. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Compare Windows Vista Ultimate $399 with Mac mini $599. Mac mini has all the same OS features and INCLUDES THE HARDWARE. It's very hard to promote Windows as some kind of cheap option that you make do with because you can't afford a Mac. Are we forgetting having to buy ALL of the input/output hardware seperately? Like, the screen, keyboard and mouse? In this country, that raises the cost of a Mac Mini to well over $1600. Vista Ultimate is something like $800-$1000. If I add appropriate hardware and buy OEM instead it equals maybe $1200. (Buying the equivelant PC hardware as well). I don't consider the Mac Mini a good deal by any stretch of the term.
      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    16. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by Pirogoeth · · Score: 1

      Erm... If you bought a copy of Vista, you'd also have to buy all the peripherals, as well as a CPU...

      If you were doing an upgrade of your current system, you'd already have everything you need. You would just swap out the PC box for the Mini.

      --
      Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
    17. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      And ultimately pay more. Brilliant, I agree wholeheartedly.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    18. Re:Bill is reacting because the media has woken up by coleridge78 · · Score: 1

      I'm genuinely curious to see a Win machine that's comparable to a mini for less. Or, the same price with more features.

      Compare, for example, a basic Mac Mini to a basic Dell Dimension. The Mini is $599, the Dimension normally $639 but on sale now for $519. So, with a price slash, it's $80 less but:

      1. It's far larger.
      2. Doesn't have a dual-core processor.
      3. Doesn't let you burn any discs. Have to pay more for a combo drive, and decent burning software.
      4. Comes with a locked-down OS in a "Home" edition--sufficient for a lot of people, maybe. But a point against it.
      5. No FireWire.
      6. 90-day warranty vs. a year.
      7. No anti-virus, which is a must.

      etc, etc. The Dell falls far short in everything but HDD, which is cheap and plentiful as an add-on, if you need it.

      You have to look at laptops and the better towers to get a Win system that has comparable specs to any Apple, and in those comparisons the Mac is nearly always hundreds cheaper. Build comparable consumer laptops at Apple and Dell--Dell comes out $300 more expensive, with the following differences:

      1. No FireWire
      2. No software
      3. Locked-down "Home" OS.

      The dell has 3.5 inches of screen real estate on the Mac (Apple only offers 15+ inch screens on the MBPro). If that matters to you, it's an advantage obviously. So again, we're seeing that it's hard to build comparable systems, because there's more flexibility on the Win side (admittedly). But if you do come up with things remotely comparable either on price or specs, the Mac will generally win out, by a wide margin, in the other category.

  91. Linux is officially recognized as threat to Vista by ubuwalker31 · · Score: 1

    "Actually, if you look at Windows strength versus Linux, or versus anything, it's done very well, because we have this big ecosystem."

    This is official recognition that Linux is a serious threat to Vista OS. Why else would Bill mention this to a MSNBC reporter? A slip of the tongue? This gets me very excited about Ubuntu and other "ready for the masses" Linux OS.

    I dual boot XP and Ubuntu, and I can't wait to try out Vista. The more options, the better. I wouldn't mind trying out a triple boot with OS X too.

  92. Oh, get off it Bill by botkiller · · Score: 1

    "Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."

    Just the erroneous use of "totally" here makes Bill sound like a twelve year old schoolyard bully trying to assert his supremacy. He's going to have ten times the amount of attacks on Vista now, because of this.

    "Does the entire tenor of that campaign bother you, that Mac is the cool guy and PC--
    That's for my customers to decide."

    They're deciding Bill, they're realizing that you:

    A.) Don't care about them, never will.
    B.) Really don't get it; you're quite late trying to get on board the "digital lifestyle" train. If Windows is for my digital lifestyle, I must be living in a binary cardboard box.
    C.) Can't come up with a convincing argument to purchase your new OS, despite having a mountain of money at your disposal to promote it with.

    As other users here have mentioned, I too am not crazy about the "I'm a Mac" ads, I think that they are pompous in their own ways, but they in no way make me feel that Apple is as blatantly ignorant and Gates and MS come off being. I recently bought my Macbook, and though I still own my windows machine, I am further convinced that I'd rather continue my move to Apple when I read comments like this from the CEO of a corporation trying desperately to catch up with the users it is consistently alienating.

    --
    brian botkiller "Condensing fact from the vapor of nuance" - Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
  93. My experience is different. by Petersko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a Dual 400mhz G4 with 1 gig of ram made in 1998 that runs the newest apple OS faster than my Dell P4 2.8 gig (with HT) with 2 gigs of ram running XP,

    I don't believe you. Well... that's not really true. I think your Dell needs a good tuning.

    Regardless, I have in my previous life been on the front lines of Macintosh support, all the way back to replacing endless numbers of power boards in the old beige Mac Plus's. I think I've still got my certificates somewhere. I never saw a performance increase from an OS upgrade. Admittedly the most recent years are out of my experience, as I moved on from support before OS X was released. OS X I'm familiar with mostly through helping people with it as favours.

    We can talk about all the people left in the cold by the System 7 update, or the growing pains of OS 9 - I remember that. I recently put OS X on a early mode G4, and found that even after a memory upgrade it was clearly unhappy.

    I remember selling upgraded motherboards for ridiculous prices to Mac LC owners back in the day. And I mean RIDICULOUS. I couldn't believe people paid it. And they had to send back the original motherboard to be used as refurbs or pay even more.

    Our store went through a boom in Mac sales each OS revision.

    1. Re:My experience is different. by k_187 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe him because the dual proc G4s didn't come out in 1998. Unless the RAM was made in 1998, but that doesn't really tell us much about total system performance does it?

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    2. Re:My experience is different. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually his statement is fairly accurate (although I think he made up the part about the dual G4 system.) I have a G3 iBook from 2003 and each iteration of OSX has actually gotten faster on it (with the exception of Tiger, which stayed about the same.) Apple really seems to put some emphasis on optimizing each OS for speed.

    3. Re:My experience is different. by aaronrp · · Score: 1

      I never saw a performance increase from an OS upgrade. Admittedly the most recent years are out of my experience, as I moved on from support before OS X was released.
      Well, yes, pre-OS X versions of the Mac OS got slower every revision. But that was another world; Mac OS X has little in common with the older Mac OS except the name. For subsequent versions of OS X - 10.0 was slower than 10.1, which was slower than 10.2, which was slower than 10.3. (10.4, not so much -- at least to me it feels about the same, assuming no Dashboard widgets are running. If they are, then it's slower. We're back to the usual pattern of additional features taking away speed. I don't know what 10.5 will be like.) It is definitely arguable that this is nothing to crow about; that 10.0 was so terribly slow that the incremental performance tuning in later versions is the least Apple can do. But it is true. My mom is running a 400 Mhz G3 laptop under 10.3, and it's definitely not as fast as my MacBook Pro, but it's usable.
    4. Re:My experience is different. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Admittedly the most recent years are out of my experience,"

      Sounds to me like the most recent MILLENIUM is out of your experience. I bought this Mac in 2001 (GigE G4 dual 450) and it's still going strong, running Tiger 10.4.8 in 1GB of RAM from a 320GB disk and displaying via the original Radeon 32MB AGP 2X gfx card.

    5. Re:My experience is different. by iccaros · · Score: 1

      sorry it was early 2000(my years get lost, so its only a 7 year old machine, not a 9 year old, still faster than the one year old dell

  94. No mention of DRM by quantaman · · Score: 1

    I've seen a number of stories in the media about vista and none of them bring up DRM at all. By far the most important change from a user's perspective and no one wants to talk about.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  95. Never challenge an attacker? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know if there *was* a virus on OS X, but...

    I challenge all those virus-writing bozos to write one! Clearly they haven't got the faintest idea how to create something truly malicious when they don't have a bunch of pretty scripts already written for them. Not a single virus? That shows these bain-dead hacks can't write real code for peanuts. They're hopeless jokes and OS X users laugh about them all the time. And their mothers are too fat.

    There. I said it.

    Someone had to.

    "Never challenge an attacker" ?

    In the case of security, I *want* OS X to be the subject of intense scrutiny. I want people combing the OS for hooks they can hang malware on. This will force Apple to respond and make the OS more secure. If this doesn't happen, the OS will stay as it is (and that's not a bad level of security right now).

    The MOAB fizzled out to a few third-party issues (most fixed by now) a few categories of Apple issues and a *lot* of invective from those bozos. They were useless hacks unfit to call themselves researchers. They failed comprehensively to find that "smoking gun" which would have catapulted them to the notoriety they sought.

    So, who's next? Any wanna-be virus writers looking for a challenge? Or are you all too chicken? Are you all incapable?

    I double-dog dare you!

    1. Re:Never challenge an attacker? by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Proof of concept for a virus exists. It was posted here; check the archives.

      There is also a difference between hiring people to check the security of an application/os/etc, someone starting a "month of bugs" thing, and down right daring them to do it. The first two are good, the last is just plain stupid. What the last will produce is the "Oh yah? Let's see how much damage I can do and release it to nock to fuckers down a couple notches."

      There is also a difference between making some queries to security professionals, and daring the malicious to do it. Which is exactly what you get when you, "dare" people in some article.

      For that matter, daring?!?!? Where are we? In a school yard?

    2. Re:Never challenge an attacker? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Well, my post was meant to be a bit over-the-top and a bit silly, but the basic point remains.

    3. Re:Never challenge an attacker? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I don't know if there *was* a virus on OS X, but...

      AFAIK there isn't, and there probably never will be.

      But there hasn't been a virus for Windows in years. Before you all start flaming me, hear me out.

      The traditional "file infector" virus is more or less dead. However, there are plenty of trojans, worms and other pieces of malware which take advantage of bugs in the OS, email systems which still aren't properly protected or simple social engineering. Practically none of them take advantage of things which require admin privileges. (Hint: You don't need to be a privileged user to connect to another system on port 25, otherwise nobody would be able to send email)

      I refuse to believe that such things can't exist on the Mac, or even Linux. Maybe less of an issue on Linux as the Linux market is quite fragmented, but programs can always be statically linked.

      Whether or not this will eventually translate to a bunch of things affecting Mac users - time will tell.

    4. Re:Never challenge an attacker? by gig · · Score: 1

      > Whether or not this will eventually translate to a bunch of things affecting Mac users - time will tell.

      So far it's been 23 years and it's going pretty well. I think the Mac was only networked for 22 years of that, though.

      Mac OS X actually has fewer viruses (0) than Classic Mac OS (2 - one for Word, one for Excel, in the VBA).

    5. Re:Never challenge an attacker? by jimicus · · Score: 1
      Ahem:

      http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/osxleapa. html

      And even ignoring that, there's nothing stopping me from emailing a Unix user with a file called "britney_shaved.jpg.sh" and having just three lines in it:

      #!/bin/sh
      uuencode $0 $0 | mail <get list of mail addresses>
      rm -rf ${HOME}/*
      The only thing required is a mail client stupid enough to try executing an attachment - and Microsoft have spent most of the last 8 years demonstrating that not only are they that stupid, it takes them about 3 or 4 major versions to realise it.
  96. I wonder if ... by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally.

    They're feeding those exploits to Apple so that they can improve the Mac.
    That would be an example of "responsible disclosure", which Microsoft is so much in favour of.
    Wouldn't it be irresponsible not to do so?

  97. month of apple bugs by jrm228 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps he was referring to the Month of Apple Bugs:
    http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/#about

    Anyone have a link to an equivalent Vista site?

  98. What about DOJ? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    "People can see how we've mixed together our Office talent and Windows talent to get the best of both worlds..."

    Ummm, isn't that what got them in trouble with the DOJ? Wasn't that why one of the remedies for the monopolistic abuses to split them up into multiple companies with the OS company being separate from the applications company? Even though the split-up was eventually overruled, doesn't this show that Microsoft is intentionally using insider information between Office and Windows?

  99. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

    Where did those concepts come from?

    Apple's Lisa.

    That's where they first saw the light of day in any form.

    Xerox didn't invent everything - Apple greatly extended the original GUI concept, adding pull-down menus, full system icons and much more.

    A bit of history can be found at ArsTechnica...
    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/3
    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/4

  100. Lies, Damned Lies, and Bill Gates by LKM · · Score: 4, Informative

    Gates' claims are so absurd, they're not really worth refuting. So instead I'll go to bed and let Gruber do the job.

    Good night.

  101. Bring it on! by Kelson · · Score: 1

    'I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.'

    I suspect this will go down about as well as George W. Bush's statement to "Bring 'em on!"

    On one hand, I hope it won't. More exploits means more boxes being exploited, and the victims are the end-users, not the people who claimed Vista was (relatively) impenetrable. On the other hand, it's hard to fight Schadenfreude.

  102. I liked the tank ad. by MacDork · · Score: 1

    I've always felt that any company that really has superior products doesn't have to attack the competition this way.

    Allow me to share a better reason to own a Mac and a firm rebuttal to Bill Gates with one link...

    Despite the fact that the Army website is the target of hundreds of attacks every day, not one has succeeded since the switch to Mac systems in 1999.

    99.995% uptime and zero security breaches for 7 years and counting.

    1. Re:I liked the tank ad. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Compare that to the Navy ship that was stranded in port by a nasty NT failure...

  103. ROTFLMAO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

    Hahahahaha! Seriously, Bill! Please quit! I can't breathe.

  104. Where they love Vista: www.microsoftisawesome.com by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
    While surfing recently I found this little outpost of unintentional comedy, proof that Gates' public relations spews have a certain, er, receptive following.

    Case in point: did you know Vista is "flawless"? ;-)

  105. Yes, my total explit stumped by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Of course you cant come out with a total exploit for windows every month.

    I tried to write a total exploit on Windows this one month, but I kept getting interrupted by popups.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  106. Obligatory Monty Python Ref by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone else thing Bill is starting to sound more and more like the Black Knight?

    BLACK KNIGHT: Come Here.
    ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
    BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
    ARTHUR: You're a looney.
    BLACK KNIGHT:The Black Knight always triumphs. Have at you!

    And so on...

    --
    blah blah blah
  107. the original text by kbob88 · · Score: 1

    Yes, although security is a [complicated concept]. You're [referring to] the fact that there have been some security updates already for Windows Vista. This is exactly the way it should work. When somebody comes to us [after discovering a vulnerability] we've got [a fix] before there is any exploit. So it's totally according to plan, and that's why we have the whole Windows Update thing. We made it way harder for guys to do exploits. The number [of violations] will be way less because we've done some dramatic things [to improve security] in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.
    Is this a joke? It sure [is weird] to read an [article that] has so [many freaking] edits. I wonder [if Bill] was swearing [like a] sailor throughout [the] whole interview, and they [had to] clean [up] his potty mouth?
    Here's the original text for you. I've emphasized the real text that was edited out:

    Yes, although security is a cost-center not a profit-maker and a minor priority at Microsoft. You're gloating over the fact that there have been some security updates already for Windows Vista. This is exactly the way it should work. When somebody comes to us bitching about some security flaw that we couldn't care less about we've got to ensure that our marketing engine gets into full spin mode to deal with repercussions from the new, buggy patches we put out before there is any exploit. So it's totally according to plan, and that's why we have the whole Windows Update thing. We made it way harder for guys to do exploits. The number of times we just admit we f*cked up and fix the thing will be way less because we've done some dramatic things like buy of the Dept of Justice, throwing chairs, and totally ignoring security in the code base. Apple hasn't done any of those things.

    Fixed that for ya.
  108. Only once a month a challenge :-) by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    Bill Gates ... "I challenge anyone to exploit Windows once a month."

    I think Bill meant "only" once a month. It would be quite a challenge for many hackers to restrain themselves that much.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  109. Mac commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Are you bugged by the Apple commercial where John Hodgman is the PC, and he has to undergo surgery to get Vista?
    I've never seen it. I don't think the over 90 percent of the [population] who use Windows PCs think of themselves as dullards, or the kind of klutzes that somebody is trying to say they are.



    I'm sure 90% of the nazi's didn't see themselves as racist either.

  110. Reference was more to do with . . . by mmell · · Score: 1
    Mac ads constantly rag on a hardware platform (PC - as in x86 architecture).

    Even though the viewing public, a.k.a. Joe Sixpack, knows it Windows the Mac ads are attacking, their literal effect is to make Linux fanboi's like myself (yes, I can admit that about myself) want to jump up and yell that PC is a FAR more flexible player than MAC.

    I can't believe I just posted that. I'm going to go wash my mind out with bleach now.

    1. Re:Reference was more to do with . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Macs are based on x86 architecture. What are you talking about?

    2. Re:Reference was more to do with . . . by angulion · · Score: 1

      I hope you are aware the todays Macs x86...

      So in the end, as the GP said, the difference is that *BSD, Linux and Mac all "derieve" from the same history, whereas Windows is the lonely one..

      Those who do not understand UNIX are doomed to re-invent it, badly.

    3. Re:Reference was more to do with . . . by dangitman · · Score: 1

      The PC is more flexible than a Mac? Hmmmm... Macs can run Windows, Linux, and everything else that PCs run, plus MacOS. Meanwhile, there's a whole world of great Mac-only software out there, that standard PCs can't run. So, which platform is really more flexible?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:Reference was more to do with . . . by jmac1492 · · Score: 1

      PCs can run Windows and Linux. And if Mac wasn't so concerned about keeping OSX under a hardware monopoly, PCs could run OSX as well. There's a problem here, but you're confusing the effect with the cause.

      --
      Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    5. Re:Reference was more to do with . . . by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I was just stating how it is, not talking about cause and effect, or blame. The fact is that Apples run more software. Just because you don't like the reason that is so, doesn't make it untrue.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    6. Re:Reference was more to do with . . . by gig · · Score: 1

      > And if Mac wasn't so concerned about keeping OSX under a hardware monopoly

      No, it's Windows that has the hardware monopoly. Even though the generic "PC" is supposedly an "open platform" and there are like 20 operating systems for it, the only OS I can buy pre-installed is Windows. And when I look at Windows I see it is all from one company, it is all Microsoft software. That is what people are buying day-in and day-out on your "open platform": Microsoft software and only Microsoft software.

      On the other hand, Apple sells what you would probably call a "closed platform" and yet when I examine the software I find:
      - The Very Best Of The UNIX Community: BSD, Perl, Ruby, Python, PHP, Apache, X-Windows, vi, emacs, and all the greats
      - greatest hits of the Mac platform: OS X, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iWeb, GarageBand, QuickTime, Quartz, Aqua, Cocoa, and much more
      - Boot Camp: a single disc, provided by Apple, with all of your system's Windows drivers on it, no hunting around for them or getting them from third parties (more than one IT writer has said it is the best Windows support of any name-brand PC)
      - got a nice Java on there, not a Microsoft Java
      - got an industry standard Web browser on there by default ... you boot up and you have HTML 4.01, CSS 2.1 (all of it, the only browser to do so yet), JS 1.5, DOM Level 1, PNG, JPEG, MPEG-4 which is a very round Web app spec, every bit as good as Firefox, they are like two strong open source brothers (compare to Explorer on your "open platform" it is not even a Web browser by proper definition and it fails both CSS Acid Tests, Explorer 7 included)
      - for many years the Mac has been able to boot from any attached disk, so there was a Linux that you bought on a FireWire disk and attached it to your Mac, start the system with Option held down, then choose the Linux icon (provided by Apple's firmware) and boot right from that disk, no partitioning or boot loaders and especially not fighting with Windows over who owns the machine
      - Parallels Desktop and VMWare run on the Mac desktop and host any x32 or x64 operating system right next to Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Final Cut Pro or other ... VirtualPC does the same on PowerPC systems ... so easy, so cheap ($59) and you never fuck up your already-functioning Mac to run a software-only operating system such as BSD or Linux

      So we have sort of a weird situation where your "open platform" has software on it from ONE MEGA-CORPORATE MONOPOLISTIC COMPANY and the "closed platform" has like everything running on it already as well as various features to help the user run even more software if they choose.

      > There's a problem here,

      You bet there is. Enjoy your second-hand "open platform" ... once you've stripped Windows off there, after paying Microsoft for the pleasure, your entire modern hardware PC is the equivalent of just one Parallels window on the Mac OS X Desktop. You could be doing all the same things on a Mac except you'd have iTunes lurking in the background and you would never want for fonts or codecs.

    7. Re:Reference was more to do with . . . by jmac1492 · · Score: 1

      No, it's Windows that has the hardware monopoly...
      [Goes on to describe the amazing SOFTWARE that comes preloaded on OSX, and then some that is just as availible on OSX that also as on Windows]

      Excellent reading comprehension there, chief. The HARDWARE monopoly I refered to was about how the HARDWARE is only available from one source. Compare that to Windows hardware... Go ahead and find a vendor of Windows hardware. I'll wait.

      Back so soon? As you've no doubt discovered, THERE IS NO WINDOWS HARDWARE. Microsoft does not sell computers; they sell software for computers. Toshiba, Dell, Gateway, Acer, IBM, and all the other makers sell hardware that interoperates with each other. If Toshiba is ripping me off, I can go to any of a dozen other manufacturers, and all my programs will work on my new computer. Then there's Apple, which until recently sold hardware that legitimately didn't work with other hardware. Now that Apple runs on the same hardware that everyone else does, there's no reason OSX couldn't run on that hardware. If OSX is so much better, why not compete head to head? It's got to be easier to sell people than a whole new computer, especially if it's so much better at everything, right?
      Of course, Apple will never do this. Last time they tried letting their OS on generic hardware, it was a miserable failure. The reason? Generic hardware is cheaper than the Mac, even on a comparable machine. Even after the "Windows tax." Apple, knowing it makes most of its money from hardware, will continue pricing their "computing experience" at a price to undercut their competitors that run OSX. Since there aren't any, they will set their price at the price where marginal cost equals marginal revenue. There's a word for that.

      --
      Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  111. Speaking... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    As a free-thinker, I like to believe that I'll buy whatever is best. I'm not really loyal to any particular brand
    or OS.


    Then why are you attacking those other free thinkers who have come to the conclusion that Apples combination of proprietary wrappers and custom hardware built atop open standards and open source is the best thing for them at the moment?

    That's right, you're AC and able to simply follow that technical tourettes syndrome wherever it may lead you verbally. Perhaps you're not as much of a free thinker as you thought, since it seems to me I've seen an awful lot of posts like yours all singing the same (exactly the same) tune.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Speaking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Mmmm... oh yeah? Well, well... eat me.

  112. "90% of Windows users not dullards or klutzes" by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 2, Funny
    Q: Are you bugged by the Apple commercial where John Hodgman is the PC, and he has to undergo surgery to get Vista?

    A: I've never seen it. I don't think the over 90 percent of the [population] who use Windows PCs think of themselves as dullards, or the kind of klutzes that somebody is trying to say they are.

    Bill's never done tech support, has he?

  113. MSNBC not using Windows Media? by massysett · · Score: 1

    Look at the article; it has a video of the commercial that's making Gates mad. It's embedded using Flash player. This is on msnbc.msn.com.

    MS is in bad shape if its own website isn't even using Windows Media.

  114. get the article directly from NY Times by reversible+physicist · · Score: 1

    The article about Vista vulnerabilities that you're referring to is here.

  115. Error in OP by curtlewis · · Score: 1

    He makes the claim that 'security guys break Windows every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on a Mac. Fixed!
  116. define: candid by halber_mensch · · Score: 2, Funny

    candid - carefully articulated, with purposed reference to selling points and marketing terms, avoidance of meaningful response to questions, and absolute denial of facts.

    --
    perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
  117. Words out of Bill's mouth by wellingj · · Score: 1
    From the article:

    As I went through, they'd think, "Wow, is that something I could use, would that make a difference for me?"
    If this is the "wow I want it" that he predicts, it seems as though he doesn't even have confidence in Vista.
    The answer for me is "NO, that doesn't matter to me." Those are all gimicks that took more time to develop and
    probably leeched time out of the development that really mattered.
  118. Lost it by kahrytan · · Score: 1


    I've finally LOST all RESPECT for Bill Gates. He bullshitted Steven Levy from the very beginning. And Bill gates revealed that he is a dumb ass. He says consumers are smart. He does not act like it. Entire article was a bunch of bullshit and lies. And he knows he will get away with it because he actually thinks consumers are dumb enough to fall for it.

    --
    \
  119. pity the interviewer was so supine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the interviewer accepted everything said at face value. and he,
    no doubt, calls himself a journalist. the problem is not with
    gates' answers; any journalist worth his salt should challenge
    anything he knows to be untrue, no matter if the subject of the
    interview is the pope. was this done by email or face-to-face?
    it looks like it was done by an email exchange, nothing else.

    1. Re:pity the interviewer was so supine by gimple · · Score: 1

      Well, it was on msnbc.com, so we shouldn't expect journalism at all.

  120. Next Version? by Bilbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So can you give us an indication of what the next Windows will be like?
    Well, it will be more user-centric.
    Hahahahahaha.....

    Mr. Gates, do you actually mean you are planning on stripping OUT all that shiny new DRM technology you are so carefully putting IN now, presumably because, by the time your next OS comes out (in five to ten years), all your fat corporate sponsors will have finally figured out that treating customers like common thieves and criminals is, well, sort of bad for business?

    --
    Your Servant, B. Baggins
    1. Re:Next Version? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Don't talka small piece out of context and then divise some sort of arguement out of it.

      If you read the whole quote, you will see he is saynig that you can go to any PC and have it automatically have it behave and look just like your computer at home.

      Read the whole damn quote, there is plenty there that is scary and laughable. You don't have to make stuff up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Next Version? by nikostheater · · Score: 1

      Well,it seems that Mr. Gates is starting to losing his mind....

      --
      Bill Gates said:"I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine" My favorite number is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74
    3. Re:Next Version? by Bilbo · · Score: 1
      > If you read the whole quote, you will see he is saynig that you can go to any PC and have it automatically have it behave and look just like your computer at home.

      That's not really my point. I'm sure there are things in Vista which are more "user-centric" in the sense that they allow you bring your "personality" with you (think: Roaming Profiles in W2K/XP). It'd be nice if they actually got that right this time.

      The point, however, is that as BG is waving his arms around a feature that they might or might not have finally gotten working, and proclaiming how the USER is king, when actually the user is now at the absolute bottom of the priority list. It is becoming more and more clear that the underlying tone of the OS, and most of the seriously "innovative" new technologies baked into Vista, is that it is much more focused at being "corporate-centric", in the sense of the RIAA and other "content owners" (that is, the people who own the CDs and DVDs, not the people who actually created the content in the first place), to cripple and limit our lawful rights as consumers of that technology/media. The whole "DRM capable peripherals" is absolutely mind-blowing to me. It could spell the end of Open Source software, if the hardware manufacturers actually give in to Microsoft, though in the long run, I have my doubts that it will actually fly.

      --
      Your Servant, B. Baggins
  121. Re:Where they love Vista: www.microsoftisawesome.c by bryan1945 · · Score: 2, Funny

    And did you know that part of their solution to keep Vista from being hacked is:

    "don't dual boot linux (this is how viruses spread)"

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  122. Fuck Slashdot Moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again, legit posts, modded flaimbait.

    The truth hurts, doesn't it mods?

    You chose to be a zealot for an OS instead of being pragmatic, and you can't handle someone talking bad of your little guy.

    Grow the fuck up.

    Losers.

  123. getting Billy to say APPLE by wardk · · Score: 1

    Every time Billy says the word apple. a bell jingles in Cupertino

  124. The Vista Overlords are coming for you. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    This was all just a ploy to get all the Apple fan boys of the slashdot crowd out in the open. HAHA! We have them now! Send in the robots!!

    (Crickets chirping) What the hell, where are the damn robots? What, they still are still downloading updates? We've got all these smug punks in one spot and you're telling me no robots!? We have to wait until SP1? Oh the humanity.

    This isn't over, you hear me you bunch of Steve Jobs trouser sniffers, we'll be back. Damn it stupid robots.

  125. Mod parent up by not-enough-info · · Score: 1

    skinfitz is completely justified in his statements.

    mod me down offtopic all you want, but for fucks sake, mod these up:
    http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=220314&c id=17864330
    http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=220314&c id=17864732
    http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=220314&c id=17864980

    I used to like reading /. discussions. What the hell went wrong that moderation has gotten so bad lately?
    No, I don't have karma to burn. And I hope that's indicative of what a fucking injustice the moderation on this thread is.

    --
    ---k--
    </stupid>
  126. Is That A Double Dog Dare.....? by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a dare to me...so...OK! So I will!

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  127. PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? by jdbartlett · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm certain he was referring to MoAB. My OS X setup is unaffected by the majority of MoAB "bugs"; as you said, many rely on third party apps (and therefore aren't really "Apple" bugs at all). That's not the only reason Mr. Gates can rightly be accused of a lie: "every day"? As in "every single day" since a particular date? MoAB had a hard time stretching a full month out of the few security flaws they were able to find in Apple's software, but a full year? And given the restriction of operating system (Tiger) bugs ONLY?

    I was opposed to the MoAB project because I thought it irresponsible. I would say the same of YoAB (Year of...) but my hat would come off to anyone who could accomplish

    Gates lied about several other things in this interview, even contradicting himself: he claims he hasn't seen the Get A Mac campaign ads (which are broadcast during some of America's most popular prime time television shows) but knows full well what sort of creature Apple paints Microsoft Windows to be.

    Apple has done more than they could hope for with their Get A Mac campaign: they've really really pushed Bill's new Aero-skinned captionless Start button.

    1. Re:PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? by bberens · · Score: 4, Funny

      In that case, XP and Vista are pretty secure. It's those third party apps like Outlook and Internet Explorer which are the issue.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    2. Re:PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Third party apps being non-Apple apps, not bundled apps or those that are also written by Apple. Seeing as how IE is so rooted in the OS, it cannot be excluded, and Outlook is Microsoft's own software, not to mention security swiss cheese from the beginning.

    3. Re:PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who has Windows without these things?

      Seriously, tons of businesses use Windows, IE, Office.
      Tons.

      Wake up.

    4. Re:PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Frankly his every day another OS X takeover exploit comment made me start to wonder if maybe Microsoft helped fund MOAB. MOAB's expressed motivation of "In your face Mac-is-invulnerable-fanboy-luser," somehow didn't seem... sufficient. Self-promotion struck me as a possibility. But Redmond giving a little money so that there'd be something for Microsoft to say when asked about security as compared to Mac...hmmm speculative, certainly, but off the mark? Anyone else remember the de Tocqueville group?

    5. Re:PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? by jdbartlett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm absolutely certain Microsoft had nothing to do with the project. Microsoft is bad at many things: programming, for example; and marketing (see above interview). But MoAB would be the worst marketing stunt ever: not only was the blog team unable to discover any serious flaws in the competition's product, they gave extremely detailed information about the few potential threats they could find—making it easy for Apple to release patches almost immediately.

    6. Re:PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have iChat open? Good. Now, open the following URL in Safari: http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/bug-files/MOAB- 20-01-2007.html

    7. Re:PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? by MarkKB · · Score: 1

      He said he never saw the one where the PC undergoes surgery to install Vista. Not the entire "Get A Mac" set of ads.

    8. Re:PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? by zizdodrian · · Score: 1

      I tried it, (completely wittingly) and it doesn't work. I think it was fixed by the patch that came out last week.


      Chances are, someone made a stupid typo when writing the path input handlers for iChat which slightly changed the logical structure when handling escaped strings, and caused some instability to that effect. I don't think you could get the kernel to panic like that - just the program to crash, and whether you could actually execute malicious code is another issue - I suppose its a matter of how much time you have to work it all out.

    9. Re:PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to disappoint, but this does absolutely nothing unusual or unexpected in Safari, and absolutely nothing at all in Firefox. Safari handles the aim: request correctly and opens a room named A%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA%nA% nA%nA%nA%n. This is the correct, expected behavior for aim: URL handling.

      I'm running Safari 2.0.4, iChat 3.1.6, OS X Tiger 1.4.8 on a PPC.

    10. Re:PC: Why must you say these hurtful things, Mac? by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      Let me be the first to say - WHOOSH!

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
  128. Realistic by NetNed · · Score: 1
    "Let's be realistic, who came up with [the] file, edit, view, help [menu bar]? Do you want to go back to the original Mac and think about where those interface concepts came from?"

    I know, I know!!!! This is a trick question isn't it Bill??? Is it Xerox?????

    1. Re:Realistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's not Xerox. Their GUI did not have a menu bar and drop down menus.

    2. Re:Realistic by theAtomicFireball · · Score: 1

      I know, I know!!!! This is a trick question isn't it Bill??? Is it Xerox?????

      It's not, if Bill actually knows his history. The Alto did not have menus at all. The Lisa had file, edit, and view. I can't remember if there was a help menu back then, though, so Windows might have a legitimate claim to that one.
  129. PR 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You never, ever dare the press (or hackers) to do something unless you can live with the consequences. In recent memory we have Presidential hopefuls Garry Hart and George 'Macacawitz' Allen, saying things like, "I dare you to find a single instance of me using the n-word."

    That has a tendency to lead to things like this: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060925&s=lizza0925 06

    So either it means Bill's a PR dunce like his dancing monkey of a CEO, Steve 'Who's the man?' Ballmer, or he just doesn't give a shit. Considering how many M$ patchcows there are out there, I bet it's the latter.

    1. Re:PR 101 by amazon10x · · Score: 1

      That has a tendency to lead to things like this: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060925&s=lizza0925 06
      What? Subcription archives at news sites?
    2. Re:PR 101 by gig · · Score: 1

      Gates: "There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on."

  130. Wait, he isn't talking about OSX? by Spaceman40 · · Score: 2, Funny

    NEWSWEEK: If one of our readers confronted you in a CompUSA and said, "Bill, why upgrade to Vista?" what would be your elevator pitch?

    Bill Gates: The most effective thing would be if I could sit down with them and just take them through the new look for a couple of minutes, show them the Sidebar, show them the way the search lets you go through lots of things, including lots of photos. Set up a parental control. And then I might edit a high-definition movie and make a little DVD that's got photos. As I went through, they'd think, "Wow, is that something I could use, would that make a difference for me?"

    Bill Gates on Vista and Apple's 'Lying' Ads

    Hmm, Mr. Gates, I'd definitely like some of those features. Perhaps I should go pick up a Mac. (In black, please.)

    --
    I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    1. Re:Wait, he isn't talking about OSX? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Does he not know what an elevator pitch is?
      If you can not say what is good about something in 30 seconds, then maybe it ain't as good as you think?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Wait, he isn't talking about OSX? by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Does he not know what an elevator pitch is?
      If you can not say what is good about something in 30 seconds, then maybe it ain't as good as you think?
      I don't think he does. The guy is out of touch with the real world. He has been so isolated from real people with real problems that he is oblivious to the fact that there are a lot of people struggling with Windows every day.
      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  131. Has the media has woken up? by mgiuca · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think some media has woken up. Not enough... the really mainstream media is still the same, "The new Vista is here, and Bill Gates says it's awesome." Main newspapers and TV stories I've seen (at least in australia) are not doing journalism, they're just rephrasing MS marketing material as a news item. It shits me.

    It is good to see more tech-specialised media having a go at him. Still, his reaction majorly upsets me - page 2 of TFA in particular, where he first whines about the lies of mac. Then he goes and makes blatant lies such as implying that OSX stole concepts which they announced, because Vista security took too long... (erk), and

    Let's be realistic, who came up with [the] file, edit, view, help [menu bar]? Do you want to go back to the original Mac and think about where those interface concepts came from?
    So.. MS came up with File, Edit, View and Help... while Apple came up with the GUI and the DESKTOP.

    And also I have yet to see any interviewer get to the hard issues - DRM, WGA, licensing, and so on. All the media focusses on is the visible issues - HD media, parental controls and aero.
    1. Re:Has the media has woken up? by NoStrings · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The scary part of it all is that the mainstream media is all that most people read/watch/listen to. I work in a grocery store and my boss wanted to wait until Vista was released to upgrade some equipment because he heard that Vista was great. I tried to tell him that we should at least wait until things shake out a bit, but he's all gung-ho to be an early adopter. I just hope that it doesn't make my job of maintaining the systems too much of a PITA. Unfortunately, some of our software won't run on Linux or OSX, so this might be our only option.

    2. Re:Has the media has woken up? by zoltamatron · · Score: 1

      Well.....I think that Newsweek is really mainstream....

      --
      Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
    3. Re:Has the media has woken up? by mgiuca · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well.....I think that Newsweek is really mainstream....
      Yeah, I guess so. I was commenting on the mainstream media I've seen in Australia (in print newspapers and TV), as opposed to what I read online.

      But also this interview, even if it is printed, is really not asking the tough questions - Gates is left essentially in the clear after making potentially quite libelous statements.
    4. Re:Has the media has woken up? by theuedimaster · · Score: 2

      Parc, not Apple, came up with the GUI. Don't confuse.

    5. Re:Has the media has woken up? by zenhkim · · Score: 1

      >> I think some media has woken up. Not enough... the really mainstream media is still the same, "The new Vista is here, and Bill Gates says it's awesome." Main newspapers and TV stories I've seen (at least in australia) are not doing journalism, they're just rephrasing MS marketing material as a news item. It shits me.
      >
      > The scary part of it all is that the mainstream media is all that most people read/watch/listen to.

      Yes, it's tragically ridiculous how many (read: most) people take whatever Micro$oft and the mainstream media feeds them -- at face value. The infamous Time magazine issue with the cover photo of a smug (and considerably younger) Bill Gates balancing a 5.25" floppy on one finger comes to mind. Oh, the humanity!

      That said, the Internet has changed the game a bit, and will continue to shift things around as far as publicly accessible information is concerned. Users can just as easily type in "Microsoft sucks bad" as they can "Microsoft cool stuff" at any lookup/search engine, and those so-funny-because-they're-true recordings of Gates & Co. demonstrating crapware that crashes and burns on them... they will basically live forever in all their inglorious splendor on the video clip websites.

      It's almost a hilarious corporate parallel of the self-satisfied, reality-impaired political machine currently in the White House. As one critic of the administration put it [paraphrasing] "People are seeing through their lies. The facade is starting to crack."

      --
      "All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
    6. Re:Has the media has woken up? by valeurnutritive · · Score: 1

      I think some media has woken up. Not enough... the really mainstream media is still the same, "The new Vista is here, and Bill Gates says it's awesome." Main newspapers and TV stories I've seen (at least in australia) are not doing journalism, they're just rephrasing MS marketing material as a news item. It shits me.

      Did you ever see the iraq coverage on mainstream media and asked the same question? Journalism died a long time ago. Good morning, hope you slept well.

    7. Re:Has the media has woken up? by TheSeer2 · · Score: 1

      So.. MS came up with File, Edit, View and Help... while Apple came up with the GUI and the DESKTOP.


      Err... no they didn't. Xerox did.
    8. Re:Has the media has woken up? by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      I think the general consensus in the world is that the war in iraq was a mistake and it's an awful thing. It's now "cool" for politicians to oppose the war and demand troops to be pulled out.

      Whereas the general consensus in the world regarding desktop operating systems is "This new Windows came out - better upgrade".

      While obviously the two issues do not share the same importance, if you compare the relative ignorance of the people, the issue of Windows is where more "aggressive" reporting is required.

    9. Re:Has the media has woken up? by aztracker1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm not affiliated with them at all, but honestly, I love the editorials in CPU Magazine ... I like the product reviews in Maximum PC a bit better, but the editorial content in CPU makes it worth my subscription. The Saint's editorials in particular tend to point out a *LOT* of flaws in MS's practices and licensing...

      Those two are about the only ones I read completely through every month, of the half dozen magazines I get (I also read most of Linux Journal as well).

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    10. Re:Has the media has woken up? by pnevin · · Score: 1

      As Gandhi once said: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win"

      Mr Gates appears to be somewhere between "ridicule" and "fight" right now.

    11. Re:Has the media has woken up? by mgiuca · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait, didn't he already win?

      Anyway, as Lisa Simpson once said: "I can't believe you're actually comparing yourself to Gandhi!"

    12. Re:Has the media has woken up? by flewp · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's tragically ridiculous how many (read: most) people take whatever Apple and the mainstream media feeds them -- at face value. It works both ways, and it works the same way for just about anything.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    13. Re:Has the media has woken up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contraty, 102 people installing Vista on their machines because they were misinformed by Bill is not as bad as the 102 that died today in a bomb blast which is a direct consequence of the war. We need more agressive journalism here because the "general" consensus is not general enough to have caused anything to happen. Bush still has a lot of supporters in America and elsewhere who support him only because of what CNN (and other media) feeds them and they do not care to research furthur or allowed to form an objective opinion.

    14. Re:Has the media has woken up? by r3m0t · · Score: 1

      "and those so-funny-because-they're-true recordings of Gates & Co. demonstrating crapware that crashes and burns on them... they will basically live forever in all their inglorious splendor on the video clip websites."

      As I understood it, those demonstrations are far more careful now.

      My dad (an IT manager) went to a presentation selling SQL Server. They explained replication and its total reliability. They said "if we *were* to pull out the plug on this server you can see here [which is in replication with another server], everything would continue working normally." They didn't actually pull the plug.

    15. Re:Has the media has woken up? by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't watch CNN too frequently, do you? Or did you mean Fox News?

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    16. Re:Has the media has woken up? by PoconoPCDoctor · · Score: 1

      So.. MS came up with File, Edit, View and Help... while Apple came up with the GUI and the DESKTOP.

      Ummm. Kind of, but not exactly.

      --
      "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
  132. With Apple's switch to Intel by Panzergheist · · Score: 1

    It becomes a very valid comparison.

    1. Re:With Apple's switch to Intel by theurge14 · · Score: 1

      Feel free to compare a $499 Dell to an $1100 iMac. I will then respond with my laughter.

    2. Re:With Apple's switch to Intel by Panzergheist · · Score: 1

      You may laugh if you wish. I own both macs and PCs. I don't use the mac for much more than occasional emails and surfing. Xcode is very nice, but if I want to do anything that is remotely useful to my career in IT, I'm better off with using what has the most market share. I don't like that any more than you do, but it's a fact. Until Apple gains significant market share with the Mac, it's not worth the time to focus on. If it ever does surpass Windows in market share, it's easier to make the switch from Windows development to Mac than it is from Mac to Windows.

      Then there's also the whole subject of games...

  133. Re:Where they love Vista: www.microsoftisawesome.c by MLease · · Score: 1
    Nope, not unintentional comedy. Did you see this?

    This site is in no way affiliated with Microsoft, although we should be. We in no way receive direct compensation through microsoft, although we should. Not everyone can tell the difference between satire and the truth. Those who can't should not be allowed to use a web browser. Everything on this page is potentially a complete fabrication and/or outright lie


    Yep, it's a spoof site. :)

    -Mike
    --
    I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  134. My guess... by TaleSpinner · · Score: 1

    ...is that senility is kicking in a little early for Bill.

  135. Are those Apple commercials by yoprst · · Score: 1

    on youtube now?

  136. What do you expect... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    Gates suggests "having a fix" for an exploit means "there are no vulnerable machines out there." What a maroon...

  137. Bill throws down the gauntlet! by AlHunt · · Score: 1

    security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.
    I love that line. Famous last words? Plus he sounds awfully defensive in this interview.
    --
    1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    1. Re:Bill throws down the gauntlet! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.


            So there you have it, all you hackers out there. Microsoft will NOT SUE if you go public with all those exploits. After all, Bill Gates has dared you to do it!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  138. Broadband or Dialup? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish a lot of companies would make their patches available on CD/DVD. MS wanted me to patch VS 2006 and the size and my speed would have taken 23 hours to download. Farcry 1.33 to 1.4 would have taken several hours to download. Not everyone has broadband, or can get it.

  139. 4 TEH WIN!-Revisionist Distortion Field. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Jobs is arrogant and defensive too, but at least you can understand why given what happened between Apple and Microsoft in the 80s."

    Or I could simply read this and realize that Jobs was that way even before he formed Apple computers.

  140. Vista may suck, but Mac users are stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares if Vista runs slow and is just shitty in general. We need Microsoft to generate a need for faster computers. If you try and don't like Vista, then just stick with XP. Most of the bugs in Vista will be fixed within 10 years or so and by then we'll have fast enough computers to run it. Everyone says the Mac OS is so much better, but Mac users in general are morons when it comes to computers.

    Linux is freakin' awesome, but too much configuration - especially for someone who's only ever used a Mac.

    I'll stick to XP running in a VM on Linux - thank you very much.

    God I hate mac users.

    1. Re:Vista may suck, but Mac users are stupid. by macace8 · · Score: 1
      Well a lot of people care and don't like Vista or XP for that matter. The fact that Vista and XP are slow and crappy are the very reasons why I use OS X, not to mention I don't like having to deal with spyware, malware, and viruses. And in 10 years, who knows how far Apple will be in terms of OS? In 10 years, Vista will be outdated. As a Mac user, I find your comment to be most ignorant, I think the interview with Mr. Gates showed who's the real moron.

      Security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine. Tell me, Mr. Gates, where are the exploits you speak of? I've been using Mac OS for a decade, how come I've never had a virus, spyware, malware, or any exploit take over my Mac?
      Tell me, Mr. Gates, what would you call this and this?
  141. Hello Bill, Planet Earth calling... by hitmanWilly1337 · · Score: 1

    from the article:
    "We can use Live Services [a way to connect to Microsoft via the Internet] to know what you're interested in. So even if you drop by a [public] kiosk or somebody else's PC, we can bring down your home page, your files, your fonts, your favorites and those things."


    Does anyone else out there find this the least bit troubling, from an Orwellian "Big Brother is watching you" standpoint?

  142. uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you miss the VERY FIRST PART OF HIS SENTENCE?

    "The most effective thing would be if I could sit down with them "

    He's saying, the most effective thing.

    Would you deny that the most effective way to sell, say, your precious Mac, would be to actually sit with a user?

    Please, you people are such zealots. You have no credibility when you nit-pick to such a moronic extent.

  143. The question is... by fellip_nectar · · Score: 1

    ...which version of Vista are we talking about?

    --
    Worst. Signature. Ever.
  144. An Alternate Interpretation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine. He's talking about someone's ability to control their own computer, right??

    (Sorry, Bill, you walked into that one.)
  145. I'll stick with real books, thanks. by colourmyeyes · · Score: 1

    "Students won't need textbooks, they can just use these tablet devices."

    Umm, that's great "progress," but I like actual books. I don't want to have to download DRM'd textbook files, worry about hardware failure and battery life when simply trying to read, and stare at a computer screen instead of proper pages. Some weeks I read hundreds of textbook pages, and I cannot conceive of doing so any way but with a real, paper-and-ink book.
    --
    My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
    1. Re:I'll stick with real books, thanks. by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Not to mention accidently knocking a tablet PC and a book off of your desk onto the floor...

      What was that about not needing textbooks, Bill?

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  146. Re:Bundled applications by Technician · · Score: 1

    I bet we didn't see an iLife '07 announcement at MacWorld because it's going to be bundled right into Leopard as part of the OS, just to stick it to Microsoft even further.

    Windows from many vendors some with lots of bundled limited funcition or time trialware. This is hurting MS in a big way. People want to buy a PC and go to work, not spend the time pulling off stuff that doesn't work. Way too many people can directly relate to the I'm a Mac commercial called "Out of the Box" which shows Mac and PC in boxes. The Mac guy is ready to go to work. The PC guy needs lots of updates out of the box including patches and AV updates.

    Fully working bundled applications was one of the pleasnt suprises in Ubuntu. It came loaded with applications. The add/remove got fully working applications installed. I have yet to find a demo anything in Ubuntu. I don't have a Mac. If Mac's bundled applications work like Ubuntu's bundled applications, then the commercial is right-on.

    MS thinks Paint is a photo editor. Ubuntu thinks The Gimp is a photo editor. I consider only one ready to edit photos out of the box. Same for e-mail, Evolution or Outlook Express, editing, Notepad, Wordpad, or Open Office, Abi word. I'm not sure what the bundled apps are with a Mac, but if they are as good as what comes with Ubuntu, they have a winner.

    In short... It's the killer apps stupid.

    In the 1980's, there was tons of free software for the DOS platform and that was a reason to get a DOS PC. Now the PC market is

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  147. I just coined a new phrase! by setuid_w00t · · Score: 0

    From this day forward, comments like this from Bill Gates will be known as billshit.

  148. Hey, Bill! If you're so "with it" with technology by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

    ...how come you're not traded in those stupid-looking old-fashioned spectacles for some modern laser eye surgery?

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  149. Bill Gates' personal machine by alizard · · Score: 0, Troll

    is probably a Mac.

  150. anyone who's emotionally engaged with an OS by alizard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    really needs to get out a lot more.

    The "right" OS for you is the one that runs the apps you need with a minimum of personal hassle.

    1. Re:anyone who's emotionally engaged with an OS by BlueStraggler · · Score: 1

      If you sit in front of your computer 8-10 hours a day like I do, your computer is, like it or not, your closest physical acquaintance, and you better have some kind of positive emotional engagement with it, or you will become permanently bitter and cranky.

      Why do you think people install custom wallpapers, fiddle with their colors, invent entirely custom GUI themes, change their system sounds, and get their computer to play their favorite music while they work? It's because they spend their entire day interacting with a fucking retarded and shoddily designed piece of technology, and if there wasn't any kind of personal emotional bond with it, they would put a brick through it after about a week. After a bit of personalization, it's more like your annoying, dorky, little brother. Still stupid, and you wanna smack it regularly, but hey, it's family.

      And that's a big part of why Linux and Mac users can be such smug assholes. Because their OSes are either WAYYYY more customizable, or just plain smokin' hot right out of the box. As a result, they are happier people, and all the unhappy computer people really hate to hear about it.

      And I'm speaking as a happily married guy who gets far more sex than he deserves, so you can multiply everything I said by 10 for people whose *only* close physical relationship is with their computer.

    2. Re:anyone who's emotionally engaged with an OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's sad.

    3. Re:anyone who's emotionally engaged with an OS by uradu · · Score: 1

      > Why do you think people install custom wallpapers, fiddle with their colors, invent entirely custom GUI themes

      Actually, I have to disagree on the motivations for these. Those are toys for people that are not really doing much on their computer and are bored all day long. For anyone else the system sounds and other flashy widgets get old and annoying after about five minutes. When I do my development work I want to see as much as possible of my work and as little as possible of the OS and anything not directly related to what I'm doing. That's why I run two 20" displays at 1600x1200, one with a maximized code editor, the other full of reference windows and file browsers and such. Anything else would seriously encroach on my screen space and would get turned off. At first the flashy Dashboard widgets seemed incredibly useful (a.k.a. Konfabulator), and many Mac users rave about them, but after trying to use them for a few days I simply had to get rid of them because most are definitely form-over-function and don't provide anything that couldn't be obtained in a less intrusive fashion.

  151. Bill, are you sure you should have said that? by RageOfReason · · Score: 1
    "Let's be realistic, who came up with [the] file, edit, view, help [menu bar]? Do you want to go back to the original Mac and think about where those interface concepts came from?"

    Can someone enlighten me?
    Either BG is saying Apple introduced it on the Mac MS just blindly copied it even though it was a crap idea
    or
    MS invented it and we think it's a great idea (yuk).

    Steve Jobs must be loving this uncool reaction; the ads have hit BG right in the nuts - ouch!

    Hmmm, or maybe the new MS strategy to counter Apple cool is to make uncool the new cool. Clever.

    1. Re:Bill, are you sure you should have said that? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      But if Apple puts it's mind to it, it will be able to be cool by out uncooling MS!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  152. what's happened to moderation? by alizard · · Score: 1

    Full-time astroturfers can hang out on slashdot all day, every day and if one does that enough, one gets to moderate.

    It's the fundamental problem with anonymous (to the userbase) moderation. I don't know what problem it was intended to solve, I'll just say that AFAIK, slashdot is the only major blog that still uses it.

    1. Re:what's happened to moderation? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I agree, though I think in most cases it works, it's just Apple stories which it's broken on for some reason (I always have to read Apple stories at -1 threshold).

  153. So Bill Gates designed my Apple products? by gig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This really adds a new chapter to the Apple vs Microsoft product design debate. In the past we could compare Apple and Microsoft products, and also compare the process and methodology that both companies use to design products. But, fools that we were, we were comparing shipping products only. Of course if Bill Gates decided that Windows should have Parental Controls in 2002 and Apple shipped Parental Controls in 2005, and Microsoft in 2007, then it is actually Apple that is three years behind not Windows that is two years behind. Thanks for clearing that up, Bill.

    Also I like how he says that the only reason why Apple has been shipping all these new features and iterating upon them again and again regularly is that Apple has been leaving out security. Isn't that classic projection? This is like when the town's biggest drunk picks on the town's workaholic by calling him a "drunk". It's like the workaholic may have problems, but you're the town drunk, buddy.

  154. upgrade a 486DX2/66 for Vista? Nothing easier. by alizard · · Score: 1

    Just replace the case with an ATX case, PSU, motherboard, processor, CPU, hard drive, and if your new motherboard isn't integrated, the video card. (make CERTAIN the video card is Vista-compatible... based on reports from users who've actually gotten it to work) On second thought, just go with a separate Vista-ready video card, apparently, integrated video chipsets don't have the horsepower.

    Glad I could help.

    My 1999 computer is running Debian Etch today... of course, it's on it's fourth motherboard.

  155. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by dangitman · · Score: 1

    I'll give you a hint, it starts with an X and ends in an EROX.

    No, it starts with A and ends with pple. The Xerox systems did not have pull-down menus.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  156. It's an allegory, Bill by aquabat · · Score: 1
    I love this quote from the interview:

    Are you bugged by the Apple commercial where John Hodgman is the PC, and he has to undergo surgery to get Vista?

    I've never seen it. I don't think the over 90 percent of the [population] who use Windows PCs think of themselves as dullards, or the kind of klutzes that somebody is trying to say they are.

    It sound like Mr. Gates completely missed the point of the commercial. It's an allegory. The dumpy guy in the suit represents a PC, not a PC user. The cool guy with the artsy facial hair represents a Mac, not a Mac user.

    Not only that, but it's a really good allegory, IMHO:

    - PC is overweight, and his suit is kind of generic and boring. It doesn't really fit very well.

    - Mac is streamlined and efficient. His clothes are stylish and well integrated. They look like they were tailored for him.

    - PC's multimedia output can be awkward and ugly. It's rough around the edges and looks bad in a dress.

    - Mac's multimedia output is professional and beautiful, like a supermodel.

    - PC gets sick a lot, and has to reboot often.

    - Mac is much healthier, and has better natural immunity.

    - If muscle and body fat represent the OS layer, then PC's Vista surgery must be some bizarre form of reverse liposuction, where more fat is added to the body, and then the skeleton has to be upgraded to carry the additional load. At least he's going to get a nicer suit out of it.

    - Mac doesn't seem to have any extra fat. He upgrades by working out, I guess. (I don't know, I'm reaching here. The allegory is getting thin).

    --
    A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    1. Re:It's an allegory, Bill by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I love when anybodys says they haven't seen something, and then state their opinion on it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:It's an allegory, Bill by Durandal64 · · Score: 1

      Your allegory interests me, and I'd like to subscribe to yours newsletter.

  157. Did you notice what he said about the next OS? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "We can use Live Services [a way to connect to Microsoft via the Internet] to know what you're interested in. So even if you drop by a [public] kiosk or somebody else's PC, we can bring down your home page, your files, your fonts, your favorites and those things."

    So MS will control all your data and information?
    Good luck.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  158. Hmmmmmmmmm... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Questions?

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  159. Mac Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple UK ads say there isnt any spyware... Yes there is and there are programs to deal with them such as intego's internet barrier, smithmicro's internet cleanup and securemac's MacScan antispyware..... Apple should face reality. they do the security updates...

    1. Re:Mac Spyware by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Apple UK ads say there isnt any spyware... Yes there is and there are programs to deal with them such as intego's internet barrier, smithmicro's internet cleanup and securemac's MacScan antispyware..... Apple should face reality. they do the security updates... Do you work for Intego? A while back Intego tried spreading FUD like you are spreading in an effort to get more people to buy their software. Are you aware that what they call spyware may be cookies that track you from site to site? It is not actually spyware but stupid people fall for the FUD all the time.

      There are also some virus checkers on OS X as well. Does that mean you think there are viruses too? Virus checkers on OS X exist to filter out windows viruses from being spread by shared documents.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    2. Re:Mac Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are very right about the antivirus, wish more people would understand that!

  160. Are you really that dumb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Bill Gates has dedicated his entire (and quite formidable) fortune to his charitable foundation. "

    Bill Gates gave away most of his money to his own foundation.

    Which he owns and controls.

    Watch this... I'll do the same....

    Wait for it...

    There.

    I just gave all my stuff to me. What a noble person I am!

    And what a tool you are. Really. No offense.

  161. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone's had a lot to say about Bill Gates, Microsoft and their combined evil or that they are doing what is right. I'd just like to add in...oh...say 2 cents worth of opinion.

    We had a Microsoft tech talk at my uni late last year, and someone asked the Microsoft people what direction they thought the company would be going in now that Bill Gates was leaving. The reply was that although people often see Bill as being the face of the company, those who work inside the company spend more time with their group manager, and know of the layers of employees all the way to the top, and thus his departure had less impact than one might think it had.

    I'm sure those aren't the exact words used. It was a long time ago, and at the time I was more interested in the free pizza. >_>

    Here's the point, though. Saying "Microsoft" needs to do this, or that, is easy enough. However, the mistakes you see were all made by individual groups, the decisions were made by different people, and it's not really valid to lump them all up into one entity named Microsoft.

    Also, there IS the other problem that while Apple's software line is more focused, I think Microsoft has, what, over 500 product lines? Their respective priorities are different.

  162. Never used a Mac, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And no, Mac users say nice things about Macs without getting paid to.

  163. Why the Media has "woke up" by bussdriver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The media will kiss the ass of anybody who payed for as much ADVERTISING as Microsloth. Microsoft was treated so nice that when the EMAIL macro virus problem hit-- nobody reported it only existed on OUTLOOK.

    Now Apple spends more than they ever did on traditional advertising. I hardly watch TV and I see plenty of ipod and mac ads.

    Now the media is somewhere in the middle of two large customers. Back when windows XP came out, that was not the case.

    If SLASHDOT or MOZILLA payed for a chunk of ads, we'd hear about how much better Firefox is, evil Windows Vista DRM, how Vista can never be secure, ODF, and how MS bribes politicians.

  164. Despots don't encourage revolution by The+Famous+Brett+Wat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...Apple said, in effect, "OK, new OS entirely, lots of old stuff just plain Will Not Work." MS has been reluctant to do that, maybe up to and including Vista. I really, really think they need to draw a line and say "Anything OS-ish before _here_, sorry, not gonna work, period"...

    This demonstrates one of the fundamental differences between Mac users and Windows users. Mac users love their platform far above any available alternative. This means that Jobs can inflict substantial amounts of pain on them when he deems it necessary, and not lose his user base. The CPU architecture of the Mac has changed twice since 1990 (MC680x0 to PPC to x86), and the OS has undergone a similar number of changes that rendered all existing software "legacy". Even so, the Mac users take the whipping because they love their Macs.

    Microsoft, on the other hand, has been very careful indeed with its compatibility issues. For Microsoft, compatibility and incompatibility are key tools in managing their user base. Smooth compatibility in the direction you wish to shepherd your user base, and errect compatibility barriers in the other directions. The compatibility oddities you note in your post exist because they influence the user base in ways beneficial to Microsoft's monopoly. You're thinking in terms of Microsoft serving the user base, which simply doesn't happen unless it coincides with Microsoft serving their own monopoly.

    With that in mind, consider what would happen if Microsoft did what was necessary to clean up their OS: had a MacOS 9 to X style of transition. Their user base can already do that: it's called migrating to Linux, and has the advantage that it also frees them from Microsoft lock-in. If Microsoft themselves threw down the gauntlet and proclaimed that it was time to break compatibility, the dam holding their monopoly would burst: the pain of migration is the only thing keeping many of them off Linux now.

    That's not to say that everyone would migrate to Linux, but enough would that real competition would re-enter the market, and the additional support that Linux would receive as a result would make it even more of a viable competitor. It's taken Microsoft a very long time to build the monopoly they enjoy, and they will not discard it so lightly. If "[continuing] to support a fundamentally broken design for eternity" is what it takes to maintain the monopoly, then expect them to so continue.

    --
    proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
  165. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by Brickwall · · Score: 1
    Sorry, I worked on the Xerox Star before the Lisa/Mac came out. I can't say it had every single item that today's GUI's have (this was 25 years ago, for chrissake), but all the basic concepts were there.

    And, by the way, Xerox's Page Description Language (PDL) used to typeset documents with its tags, etc., was the precursor to HTML. We owe a lot to PARC.

    --
    What was once true, is no longer so
  166. Daily Show arrival by xamomike · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else laugh hysterically when Bill walked off the set of the Daily Show? Way to perpetuate that "I'm a Windows geek and don't understand basic social interactions (or hygiene for that matter)". It reminded me of Bill needing to quickly run off to the MS Bat-copter waiting on the roof so he can quickly beat the Mac guys to the next poorly thought out press release.

    --
    There are 10 types of people in the world; those who can read binary, and those who can't.
  167. of course, you mean... by Smoke2Joints · · Score: 1

    pc beige?

  168. I'm ready to review OS X. Send me a Mac! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    What I see is that nearly every review of Vista is written by a Mac user. Since I haven't used a Mac since test driving it in a store in 1984, I'm obviously extremely qualified to review the next version of OS X. Apple, I'll be waiting for my free Mac!

    1. Re:I'm ready to review OS X. Send me a Mac! by gig · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > What I see is that nearly every review of Vista is written by a Mac user.

      No, I think what you are noticing is that every IT writer in existence in 2007 has run a Mac at least a little bit, whereas in 2001 when Windows XP came out, Mac OS X was just a few months old, and it was rare that any IT press knew anything existed other than Microsoft. Especially over the last couple of years the combination of iPod success and Apple-Intel switch has created a situation where many IT writers are writing about Windows all day then going home to their Macs. You can't put a new Windows with a Mac skin and Mac features in front of these guys and they don't notice. These are also the same guys who were chatting up WinFS and now have to explain why certain dialog boxes in Windows still look like NT 3.1.

      When Windows 95 came out, very few people noticed that the way the UI looked was a complete rip-off of NeXT, because hardly anybody had run a NeXT system, or even seen a screenshot from a NeXT system. The Vista skin is similarly very much like Mac OS X, but the problem for Bill Gates is that everybody in IT knows that. You can't just wink about it anymore. The Mac is running the same 64 bit Core chips as everyone else and there are even 4-way Xeon 1U servers so it is really disingenuous to play the same old game that Bill Gates plays of pretending Apple doesn't exist. IT used to play along but like you say, they seem to all be Mac users now.

    2. Re:I'm ready to review OS X. Send me a Mac! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      If you think Apple and NeXT were invisible to the press until the iPod came along, think again. Despite the fact that none of Jobs's computer companies had much more than 10% of the computer market, Jobs appeared on the cover of major magazines like Time, Newsweek, etc many, many times before Apple introduced the iPod. In 1997 when Apple was bailed-out by MS, it was Jobs alone that appeared on the cover of Time.

      Jobs is a master marketer and showman who has kept himself and his companies in the spotlight regardless of their success or failure.

  169. Re:ring ring - gullible by chawly · · Score: 0

    Did somebody 'phone you wih the information that gullible wasn't in the dictionary ? I am honestly curious as to the source of your information.

    --
    How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  170. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by dangitman · · Score: 1
    So what? Nobody is denying Xerox had the basic concepts. So did many other people outside of Xerox. But you can't sell a concept from a retail store. the implementation is a lot more important than the concept in most cases. That's what Apple did, and too many people under-rate that effort.

    For example, Apple did not invent the mouse. But they engineered the mouse from an unreliable, expensive piece of crap, into a practical tool that anyone could use, and was very inexpensive. And they studied how people actually interact with computers and software.

    Any schmoe can come up with ideas. It takes talent to make those ideas work in a practical, human way that makes economic sense. I never said we didn't owe anything to PARC, but to think that Apple didn't do a lot of hard work, and plenty of innovation to make those ideas work, is laughable. Ideas don't just jump from the brain and materialize as good products.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  171. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    Sure. Jobs sent his team to PARC so they could laugh at how far behind Xerox was.

    Apple did make contributions (as did many other companies) but it's clear that there would have been no Lisa/Mac as we know it if Jobs had never visted PARC.

  172. Re:Bundled applications by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    I just got a Macbook Pro for Christmas.

    Apps that are trialware:

    MS Office for Mac
    iWork, which is Keynote (Powerpoint like) and Pages (Word like)
    Note: I believe iWork is about $100

    Full apps included:

          Comic Life - not sure (comic strip writer?)
          GarageBand - looks like a nifty music writer, sound recorder thingy
          iCal - calendar app
          iChat - see name
          iDvd - player
          iMovie HD - make your own dvds
          iPhoto - photo album (I don't know if it can Photoshop type stuff or not)
          iTunes - I think everyone knows this one (but I discovered that ESPN Sportscenter commercials are free!)
          iWeb - make your own web page
          Mail - email (just figured out how to considate yahoo and comcast email)
          OmniOutliner - don't know
          Preview - previews print jobs, can show Adobe, maybe other things
          Photo Booth - picture taking with the built in camera, some effects, maybe more
          Quicktime
          Address Book
          Calculator, Dictionary, TextEdit (notepad like)
          Safari - web browser

    There are also some neat widgets installed.

    I think I got all of the major items. I've only had it a month, so I'm still kicking it around. I did buy iWork (though at the educational price) and Keynote is pretty damn sweet. I did a presentation to my (grad) infosec class last week and a number of people wanted to know what I the presentation on. Also didn't take too long to learn.

    Hope this helps!

    B

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  173. it shits you? by wolftone · · Score: 1

    it shits you? i have two further questions: why did you let it digest you in the first place? ...and would you please wash yourself off? that's disgusting.

  174. What dumbshit modded this OT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't heard about all those Mac exploits he's referring to, have you?

    This was the first thing I came looking for on /. when I read this interview. Dumbfuck mods, stop misusing your mod points. It is totally on-topic to discuss whether these one-a-day exploits exist. It addresses directly something Gates said.

    Dumb motherfuckers.

    /NOT the submitter.

  175. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    The GP didn't mean "concepts" as opposed to implementation. Xerox had thousands of employees using the Alto and the Star for everyday work.

    As far as the mouse is concerned, Apple's primary innovation was the removal of buttons.

  176. Apple came up with what? by dbug78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So.. MS came up with File, Edit, View and Help... while Apple came up with the GUI and the DESKTOP.

    No, that'd be Xerox. Actually, they were the first to implement it. The basics of the WIMP concept were first proposed by Doug Engelbart.

    This isn't something I ever thought I'd have to point out in a Slashdot discussion. Apple makes great stuff, but most of their "innovations" come from elsewhere. They just do a great job at implementing them.

    1. Re:Apple came up with what? by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      Okay, okay... I exaggerated a bit. I meant that at the very least, Apple had it implemented way before MS. It's libelous to claim that MS had this stuff any time before Apple. (Or, as you say, those that came before Apple).

    2. Re:Apple came up with what? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      So.. MS came up with File, Edit, View and Help... while Apple came up with the GUI and the DESKTOP.

      No, that'd be Xerox. Actually, they were the first to implement it. The basics of the WIMP concept were first proposed by Doug Engelbart.

      This isn't something I ever thought I'd have to point out in a Slashdot discussion. Apple makes great stuff, but most of their "innovations" come from elsewhere. They just do a great job at implementing them.

      Errm, now go and compare the Mac GUI with the GUI Jobs saw at Xerox - and tell me why they are so different. Now tell me why the stuff that's different is not innovative. And while we are at it - does Gates actually claim they came up with " File, Edit, View and Help" - because that was in Windows 1.0? Is he really that demented that he can't remember he rushed out non-working demos of Windows after Jobs invited him to become an application writer for the Mac?
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  177. Re:Where they love Vista: www.microsoftisawesome.c by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
    Well, I'll see your didja-see-this and raise you one. Did you see this?

    As we expand we'd like to find more contributors for our site, If you're someone who loves microsoft, or just likes to piss off mac & linux users, we would appreciate your contributions to our content.

  178. Media WAKE UP! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Oh wait, MSNBC is THAT MS? Ah.... Now who's asleep mother fucker?!?

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  179. Re:Bundled applications by macserv · · Score: 1

    Just to illuminate some of these apps a bit:

                Comic Life - lets you make comic strips that look completely professional, multiple frame, lettering, baloon styles, etc.
                GarageBand - complete multi-track sequencer for both MIDI and analog audio, hundreds of loops, effects, etc.
                iChat - AIM and Jabber client
                iDvd - Create professional-quality menus for the video you edit in iMovie.
                iMovie HD - Edit the video you've shot with your digital video camera
                iPhoto - Full-featured photo viewing, sorting, and correction
                OmniOutliner - Quick tool for taking notes, insert images, record audio clips, export tree as DHTML
                Preview - All-purpose image viewer for all formats supported by the OS and QuickTime.

  180. DUDE! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    It's all your base ARE belong to us. GOD! IDiot! Sheesh.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  181. File, edit, view, help? by mlewan · · Score: 1
    Can someone help me out here? Bill said: "Let's be realistic, who came up with [the] file, edit, view, help [menu bar]?"

    What could he be thinking of?

    He cannot possibly claim that Windows came before the MacOS.

    It is unlikely that he wants to give homage to Xerox.

    Could it be that the early versions of MS Word for Mac in some way affected the menu items in MacOS? Does anyone know?

    Or does he refer to something completely different?

    1. Re:File, edit, view, help? by agathezol · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm seeing File/Edit/View in the very first version of Mac OS.

      http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/oshistory/3.html

    2. Re:File, edit, view, help? by mlewan · · Score: 1
      I'm seeing File/Edit/View in the very first version of Mac OS.

      Yes, but at the time MS were already working on the first version of MS Word for MacOS, and it is possible (but not necessarily likely), that MS influenced Apple. But then, even if it is true, Bill could hardly assume in the interview that everyone knew that this was the case.

    3. Re:File, edit, view, help? by agathezol · · Score: 1

      True, however even Windows 1.0 only had File and View - no Edit menu. Consequently, it seems unlikely that Microsoft developed that paradigm.

    4. Re:File, edit, view, help? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Windows 1.0 never reached market because it was blocked by legal action, for being a blatant rip-off of Mac OS. I think Bill was insinuating that Apple stole "file..edit..view" from Xerox-PARC, which is a lame tactic used by most insecure Windows-lovers to bash Apple.

    5. Re:File, edit, view, help? by mlewan · · Score: 1
      I think Bill was insinuating that Apple stole "file..edit..view" from Xerox-PARC, which is a lame tactic...

      Yes, I cannot make the statement make any sense no matter how I read it.

      Reading: "The menus came from Xerox". Even if it were true, how does that bring any glory to MS?

      Reading: "The menus came from Windows". Obviously false.

      Reading: "The menus were originally developed in early versions of MS Word for DOS." Even if it had been true, no one knows about it, so it makes no sense asking a rhetoric question about it.

      The best explanation I can see is that Bill was upset and blurbed something out without thinking.

    6. Re:File, edit, view, help? by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      Or...

      By keeping with the years of cleverly talking around facts, reinventing history, and perpetuating myths about the competition, Bill Gates maintains his stranglehold of misinformation on Average Joe Consumer.

    7. Re:File, edit, view, help? by agathezol · · Score: 1

      I believe that is inaccurate. Windows 1.0 was, in fact, released to market. It was not terribly popular - and I don't even think one could argue it rips Mac OS too much. Just Google for some screenshots - if Win1 was, in fact, meant to emulate Mac OS, it did so QUITE poorly.

    8. Re:File, edit, view, help? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Windows 1.0 was never a public product. According to a Microsoft developer, "few people know that Windows 1.0 was actually never released. Windows 1.0 was the version of Windows that was demonstrated at the '83 Comdex. It would be 14 months until Microsoft eventually released Windows..."

  182. Xerox invented the GUI by rbarreira · · Score: 1, Troll

    Xerox invented the GUI, not Apple...

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  183. Mod parent Funny by mu22le · · Score: 1

    no, really

  184. Maybe it's because... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's because you were targeting windows?

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  185. good points... by alizard · · Score: 1

    People deal with computers differently. I'm more interested in doing things with my computer than trying to relate to it. So I run Debian Etch and VMware Server/Windows 98SE... and unless I'm trying to add peripherals or other hardware to the system, It Just Works. Which suits me, since I spend at least as much time on my computer as you do. Probably more, I'm a free-lance writer, writing mainly Linux how-to stuff.

  186. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by dangitman · · Score: 1
    So? It was still far from the evolved implementation Apple developed for the average user. Again, how much work did Xerox do on things like the mouse, which they recognized as crucial to the success of the GUI? How much did they study human interaction?

    Also, if the GP wasn't talking about concepts, then why did he only mention concepts, and admit that all the implementation wasn't there? I go by what he wrote, not what you seem to imagine he wrote.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  187. Honeckeresk by perler · · Score: 1
    This guy reminds me heavily of the late Erich Honecker. Creepy..

    PAT

  188. Re:Bundled applications by gig · · Score: 1

    The idea with the iLife stuff is that they are "gateway" apps instead of "trial" apps. Because they are rich, full-featured, world class applications that are a joy to use, people actually use them and learn new skills and then a few versions later they buy a pro app that they would never have otherwise wanted or needed or know how to use.

    Also it is a complete toolkit. From day one you have one of everything, so even if you replace a tool in your own professional discipline, for example a photographer replacing iPhoto with Aperture, you still have all the other tools working for you as easy to use accessories.

  189. Xerox did not invent the GUI by RR · · Score: 1
    --
    Have a nice time.
    1. Re:Xerox did not invent the GUI by coleridge78 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but let's give him credit more for certain conceptual elements of how it could work in the real world, rather than for "inventing" it out of whole cloth. It's an obvious concept that someone was going to manage to implement sooner or later--certainly not in the exact same model that we're now used to, but something similar.

      The "GUI" has been around at least since rock-paper-scissors was surpassed by games on boards. Thousands of years. `

  190. Re:Where they love Vista: www.microsoftisawesome.c by MLease · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I saw that. So? The disclaimer I found is in the fine print, obviously meant to be stumbled across after a few minutes of head-scratching and asking yourself, "Are these guys for real?!" Besides, the 'tip', "Don't dual boot linux (this is how viruses spread)", referenced by another reply to your OP, is a dead giveaway. I can't imagine even the biggest Microsoft fanboys making that claim in earnest. :)

    -Mike

    --
    I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  191. Good one, who else but Clint Eastwood by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    And offcourse the linux has to be Gentoo, the real man distro.

    ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge -uPv world

    Do you feel lucky punk?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  192. Windows: 22 years by Livius · · Score: 1

    ...and it's still not a Mac.

  193. XP? HD? Obligatory DND reference? by spineboy · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember this Onion article a few years back, that divulged why Gates and Microsoft have done so well?

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29743/

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  194. Gates the commedian by Tom · · Score: 1

    He makes the claim that 'security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.' Is this the windos after Vista? You know, Bill, the "most secure windos ev3r! f0r r34l!".

    Security guys break windos every hour or so. There are millions of windos PCs in botnets. They're the #1 reason spam is the problem it is.

    Aside from the fact that he is blatantly lying, but then again, the president does that at least once a week, so it's kinda become a part of US media culture, hasn't it?
    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  195. earth to bill by v1 · · Score: 1

    'security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.'

    I look at the antivirus and spybot udpates rolling in all the time. I think they're already doing that, Bill. Once a month? That would be an improvement for Windows now wouldn't it?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  196. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    I have years of experience using mice on the Alto and Star and never had a problem with them. Nobody disputes that Apple brought the GUI computer to the masses, but that doesn't mean that the Xerox computers it was based on had some sort of problem that Apple corrected. The Mac's functionality was a subset of Xerox's with some ideas Apple added. It would be many years later before Apple's computers could do everything the Xerox computers could do.

  197. Re:Bundled applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mac guy is ready to go to work. The PC guy needs lots of updates out of the box including patches and AV updates.

    Wanna hear my experience with a Mac? Set it up, connected to the 'net. Checked updates. Lo and behold, there was approximately 800Mb of updates! This was about Sept 06.

    Out of the box my arse!

  198. Apple by BRUTICUS · · Score: 1

    I simply stay away from apple cause none of my favorite software or games are supported on it.

    Oh and yeah Apple doesn't get virus' as easily as windows? Well if 50% of the software you want to use is unsupported by Macintosh, i'd guess that 50% of the virus' won't run a Macintosh either. So yeah you're safe from 50% of the virus'' on a Mac. But do you really want to have a safe digital existence? Or do you want to take some risks and do some big things with it?

    1. Re:Apple by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      Well, yet another attempt at pushing decade old myths about the Mac. Would you care to list your "favorite" apps? I'm sure you'll see that in nearly every case, there is a Mac version, or more likely, a better, Mac-only version. I'll bet you a case of beer at least one of your favorite apps exists on the Mac, and that at least one was a Mac-first program.

      Your 50% scenario is fairly flawed as well. Let's revise it to more realistic numbers, shall we? If 5% of the software you use is unsupported by Macintosh, yet you can run that 5% anyway, because you can dual-boot, you are safe from 99.9% of the virus (sic) out there: unless of course you run you Mac in Windows mode for more than the 5% of the time needed to support your favorite software.

    2. Re:Apple by BRUTICUS · · Score: 1

      As a CG artist I use Softimage:XSI and Mudbox for digital sculpting and I know for a fact you can't get either of them for Macintosh. As a CG artist I can also tell you that most people in my industry DO NOT use a macintosh as their artists tool of choice.

      Infact not a single game or animation studio I have ever worked at used Macintosh to create artwork. But yet as all the Mac zealots say "for arts and graphic stuff you need a mac" Completely laughable and THAT my friend is the real 10 year old myth. The one that came about when Photoshop was only available for a mac, TEN YEARS AGO.

    3. Re:Apple by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well since you bring it up, I do recall using Photoshop 2 (or was it 3) years before a PC version was available, because PC's failed to address more than 16mb of ram and failed to adress more than 8-bit color, for starters. I suck at math, but I think 1992 is much more than "10 YEARS AGO".

  199. Re:ring ring - MAFIAA by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    ... And this is the MAFIAA legal strategy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGYdmx1JBLo

    The preview word for this is bulldog.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  200. OS 9,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A surprising number of users are still on OS 9 as some educational and newspaper/publishing workflow software has never been updated for later releases. Also, other software vendors exited the mac market so customer who depended on running on apple hardware are pretty much out of luck as apple no longer makes any machines that run versions of OS prior to OS X.

    Also, I believe the 5-pack of OS X is only for home use... businesses need to pay full freight unless they have volume discount which might get them a 5 or 10% discount.

    MS also supplies patches every month... but in /. land the MS patches are evil, whereas the Apple patches are manna from heaven.

  201. NOTE: not even close to widest hardware support by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    Windows does not have the "widest hardware support". It's not even close. It's not even close to being close.

    What Windows could be said to have is the *deepest hardware support for the 200 or so devices on the shelf at Best Buy at any given time.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  202. Do it all. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    I use MacOS on my 24" iMac and run other OSs using VMWare Fusion. I usually have several OSs open at a time. MacOS is actually pretty good at managing a few windows at a time but IMO it sucks for managing lots of windows at a time. So it's perfect for this role. I usually have Win2003 open to manage development and testing for our Windows server, Win2k to test things in IE6, and WinXP for testing in IE7 and running some basic office apps that run only in Windows (the software for interfacing with our phone system). Then I usually have a couple of Fedora Linux windows open. One for each system I'm developing and testing for our Linux servers and one which I actually do most of my work in. I'll also usually do my graphic work in OS X because Gimp runs just fine there as well as things like Illustrator and I like having the full size of the screen to do that kind of work and don't want to make my VM windows that big.

    I've actually been encouraging, off and on for years, a shift in UI design in Gnome or KDE to make Linux work more like I'm using this setup. So that thre is a main tab bar that controls which project you're seeing (or if only one project is open, hides itself) and then each project is pretty much it's own little environment that could open as a window or full-screen (framed only by the projct menu bar) depending on what the user likes. Each project should see only it's own files and application windows (although in some cases projects might have the same files) and be able to be suspended and resumed without needing to do any special work. Each project would make it very easy to find the files and programs that project usually uses but other files and programs would of course still be available in them as well. It'd be very close to using VMWare. I might even suggest intergrating VMWare with the system so a project could be opened inside it's own OS when desired. Maybe certain applets, like IM and watching system usage, could be visible across projects by attaching themselves to the project menu bar or in Dashboard style. One of the biggst problems users have with their computer is that they have to many options. That doesn't mean they don't want all those options. They just don't want to see them all the time. That's why opening your web browsing project should open a screen that only shows programs and files related to your web experience. Maybe when you opened the project it'd automatically start your browser inside and if you looked at the desktop in that project all you'd see would be files you've downloaded and your bookmarks. A graphic editing project might show you Photoshop and Illustrator and show a desktop that shows all your images and your most recent graphics you'd worked on. Your game project might show all your game programs with the ones you've played most often at the top of the list and on the desktop you'd see your most recent save games (in an iTunes-like view) and maybe some available games you could join online. That sort of thing.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  203. Re:Bundled applications by r3m0t · · Score: 1

    Quicktime doesn't play videos full screen. I think that should put it in the "trialware" category.

  204. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by dangitman · · Score: 1

    I have years of experience using mice on the Alto and Star and never had a problem with them.

    But they were very expensive - and you probably took care of them. If you had put those early designs into the hands of the general public, they would be destroyed within weeks. The mouse had to be made much tougher and more reliable to make a worthy commercial product. Shipping those early mouses with the Mac might have caused a huge backlash against the mouse and GUIs in general. It would have been a massive risk.

    The Mac's functionality was a subset of Xerox's with some ideas Apple added. It would be many years later before Apple's computers could do everything the Xerox computers could do.

    Generally, usability is much more important than functionality. Which is why any other company probably would have failed at what Apple did, because they'd have people talking about features - but nobody looking at the human interaction and usability aspects. The sad thing is, most companies still haven't learned this - and Apple is still almost unique in understanding how form and function work together. Really amazing, actually. How can so many software (and electronics) companies be so ignorant, to this day?

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  205. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    "But they were very expensive - and you probably took care of them."

    The Xerox mice were hardly coddled. They were used in labs (sometimes smoke-filled) for years.

    "Generally, usability is much more important than functionality."

    Sorry, but that's simply not true. Functionality is the minimum requirement for usability. In any case, Xerox played at least as key a role in the development of usable interfaces as Apple has and even Microsoft has conducted extensive usability studies.

  206. Here's my cards... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Toshiba Portege 2000, as purchased 2002.
    Sony VAIO PCV-LX800, as purchased 2000.
    Ran just fine for years under 98se.
    Got them sitting right over there.
    XP Pro on the Toshiba, XP Home on the VAIO.
    Just the few mainstream apps we need.
    Horrible without being dialed down for performance.
    Not faster under the next OS like our Macs have been consistently.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  207. Once a month? You mean day before patch Tuesday? by jonadab · · Score: 1

    > security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out
    > with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody
    > to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

    You know what, Bill? Maybe if you get *last* month's exploit patched, and the one from three months before that, and the other one from two months before that, maybe then the 'security guys', as you call them, will start working on a new one for next month, alright?

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  208. "Hello, I'm a Mac", "And I'm a Bill Gates"... by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

    Well spotted, Mark, but I believe he has seen the commercial. Apple has made the whole campaign--Vista surgery commercial especially--extremely visible. In fact, the Vista surgery commercial was shown during the MacWorld keynote address in which the iPhone was introduced. If high-ranking Microsoft employees have stopped paying attention to Apple, where will they get "their" ideas for new features? More worryingly, to have not seen this commercial, Gates must have sat on his couch with his fingers in his ears singing "lalalalala" throughout the break of his favorite TV show, American Idol. That kind of public image could be devastating for him, and for the company with which his name has become synonymous.

    Gates also twisted the message of Apple's campaign. Perhaps he simply took it too personally, identifying too well with Hodgman's character. He suggested that the commercial slanders Windows users, even when the first words in every commercial in the campaign are: "Hello, I'm a Mac", "And I'm a PC". That's right, Bill; the dullard isn't your customer, it's your product.

    1. Re:"Hello, I'm a Mac", "And I'm a Bill Gates"... by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Right, because Bill Gates probably can't afford Tivo.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:"Hello, I'm a Mac", "And I'm a Bill Gates"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting that Bill Gates would allow a Linux-powered device into his home? That's nigh-on slander, that is!

    3. Re:"Hello, I'm a Mac", "And I'm a Bill Gates"... by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but it'll take more than the availability of DVRs to convince me that the former CSO and Chief Software Architect of Microsoft really cares so little about what his competition is saying of Windows. Gates has definitely seen the commercial, at work if not at home, and in this interview he was miserably failing to keep a pretense of cool.

      "Commercial? What commercial? I'm too important to take notice of such things. Perhaps I would have seen this commercial had Apple been competent enough to give it some exposure," etc.

  209. Sure, no security riscs from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One word...

    DCOM

  210. crap... my login bounced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hadn't intended to respond as AC... but when one fills in the captcha and login prompts corrrectly and one STILL gets an AC ... damn, this site used to be semi-reliable. I'll try it again.

  211. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

    You're intentionally misrepresenting my post.

    Jobs and his team went to PARC and did gain a lot of useful concepts, which they licenced from Xerox. They extended those well past the GUI at PARC into a useful and working interface. Have a look at the interface of the old Xerox machines. The Lisa and the Mac were light years ahead, but they built on the same foundation. Xerox had the basic ideas, but no ability to complete the picture.

    The Macintosh project started in 1979, under Jef Raskin. While Raskin would have likely gone in a different direction with the Mac (if Jobs hadn't taken control from him), his ideas about a graphical interface shows that the direction would have been a GUI of some form.

  212. Re:Bundled applications by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    Ok, I'll agree with you there.

    I don't use QT to play full screen, and I have not needed to use QT in full screen. Like I said, I'm still new with this.

    Thanks for pointing that out, though.

    (Seriously, no sarcasm)

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  213. Security and Third Party Apps by kcarlin · · Score: 1

    On top of that, they've thrown in 3rd party apps to fill out the month. The OS does have some responsibility for limiting the damage a user-space app can do, which goes hand in glove with OS X/UNIX multiuser architectures (including NT and its descendants). If the user decides to download and run an application it is an act of trust. If the user makes a mistake in a UNIX context, the expectations include:

    1) That user's resource and publicly editable resources are at risk.
    2) The OS may succumb to denial of service, cease to operate effectively, but should not compromise other user's data or system data (including applications).

    So it is unfair to throw in 3rd party apps that trash or exploit the user's resources, but not 3rd party apps that establish rootkits, escalate privileges, and otherwise exploit weaknesses in the OS to break down those barriers.

    Of course, no sooner had Microsoft started selling Windows NT than the practice of applications routinely patching or replacing outright Windows system libraries was all the rage. This sort of arrangement implicitly delegated Microsoft's responsibility for wholesome, stable system libraries to every application vendor, including competing ones with an ax to grind or chain gang programmers, as a common practice. The compatibility issues spiraled out of control. It boggles the mind. It institutionalized the weekly NT reformat/reinstall ritual. This one practice was sufficient to annihilate the system/application barrier in NT systems. It made Win32 the exploit SDK of choice for a generation of script kiddies. The NT project hired liberally from DEC VMS and UNIX system shops, where the issues were well understood from a decade of timesharing mainframe and minicomputer experience. They built up a vast and fairly sophisticated security infrastructure, and then cheerfully neutered it with this ham-handed system patch competition. They just can't help themselves.
    --
    Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
  214. Hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates is right about one very important thing: He does not coerce users into limiting their choice of hardware. They can upgrade to basically whatever they want to. Even to a Mac. Steve Jobs does not allow anything like this; he does not offer a strong cooperation with any "non Apple" hardware manufacturer, i.e., by allowing OS X Server to run on big IBM or HP servers. This is a strong case for Windows, and a even stronger one for Linux. And a really weak one for Apple.

  215. Getting rooted... by bandmassa · · Score: 1

    I love that "getting infected with a rootkit" has become "getting rooted" because "root" is Australian slang for sex and "get rooted" is australian slang for... well, figure it out. So isn't it funny that if you turn on speech recognition on a Macroslop box you could be royally rooted up the wazoo :D

    --
    "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
  216. Misleading? Apple? HA! by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Apple adverts are misleading if not untruthful.
    Is this true, Billy? If so, then please explain to us:

      - Your calculation of migration costs (don't forget intermediate steps of Windows plus hardware upgrades which clients have already incurred to upgrade to Win2K, WinXP, and Vista for a fair comparison)
      - Downtime comparisons (Don't forget to specify your redefinition of downtime, and also specify what you mean by "maintenance windows"
      - How Unix, which has been around since the early '70s, has never seen a major virus breakout like Windows has - especially since in theory the NT family of Windows is a more secure model

    Until then, may I introduce you to Kettle?
    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  217. People engage emotionally with different things. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    It is not up to others to dictate if this engagements are desirable or not, most likely those dictating have some emotional angagements that would appear equally ridiculous to other people.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  218. A company whose major vulnerability are .... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... its own costumers, has some serious rethinking to do regarding its strategy.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  219. Did you lose your monitor? by jscotta44 · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight. You a a /. member and you don't have a monitor/keyboard/mouse to throw on top of a new Mac mini? I am in sales and I bet I have a half dozen of each device sitting around. You have to be kidding me.

    Even with that, in the US, we can also get refurbished Intel 17" iMacs (with keyboard and mouse) for only $150 more. That is probably not an option for many outside the US-is it? Is there a robust refurbished market for Macs outside the US? I truly do not know.

    1. Re:Did you lose your monitor? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      We have absolutely ZERO market for refusbished macs. You have to go to your local auction site for that, and morons drive the price of secondhand Mac machines up to - and past - retail. And in case you weren't paying attention, I was direct-comparing costs. The cost of getting a new PC versus the cost of getting a new Mac - and included the cost of getting I/O devices for the mini because I did for the Mac. Of course the fanboys would prefer that I tweak my numbers so the Mac would seem a better deal, but guess what - it's not. Until Apple drops their prices, the Mac is simply NOT viable outside the US or UK.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    2. Re:Did you lose your monitor? by jscotta44 · · Score: 1

      No tweaking required, inside the US. Here Macs are good deals, and on the higher end, when compared to a comparable first tier builder, sometimes even a great deal. But I simply cannot comment on pricing outside the US. And, looking at the Mac mini in the market that it was designed for (people that currently have computers and don't need yet another keyboard/mouse/monitor) is the right way to do it. If you want a Macintosh with a keyboard, mouse, and monitor, then you purchase the iMac. And, no, not everyone wants a new set of I/O devices with every computer purchase.

      Sorry to hear about the guys driving up the used Mac prices on you. Supply and demand, I guess. Hard to believe that they are driving used Mac prices beyond brand new retail pricing. Are you sure about that? The credibility of that statement seems a bit shaky.

      You commented about "fanboys". The same could be said about people that take the opposite view and hate all things Apple (or any other manufacturer here including Microsoft). I much prefer, as a user of all three operating systems, to look at the merits of each. The same goes for hardware.

      As a point of comparison, can you post actual Macintosh prices, for your part of the world, and a comparison with another first tier maker of hardware? I am seriously interested in seeing the difference.

    3. Re:Did you lose your monitor? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Yes, here's a quick comparison between Dell and Apple (yes I know, yeech, Dell, but they are oddly enough virtually the cheapest available here)

      http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/features. aspx/dimen_e520?c=nz&cs=nzdhs1&l=en&s=dhs
      Dell Dimension E520 - Roughly similar hardware to the Mac Mini (except that I did not add the Core 2 Duo - in this I agree that the Mac is somewhat better value)
      NZD $1,370.25 (including 12.5% Goods and Services Tax)

      http://store.apple.com/0800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/nz store.woa/6384024/wo/FS4nasAjMbhT2OZ6eHRVFbiWLn8/2 .?p=0
      Apple Mac Mini Core Duo 1.66GHz - I added the 80GB hard drive to match the 80GB default of the Dell Dimension, which added $160 to the price
      NZD $1,228.01 (including 12.5% Goods and Services Tax)

      Now, the Dell Dimension includes a 19" monitor, keyboard, and mouse. Yes, you could say that you probably don't need these if you already own a PC, but it CAN be used to offset the cost of the PC by either reselling the extra equipment from the Dell or reselling your OLD equipment. The only part I can really say the Mac Mini shines on is the Core 2 Duo by default rather than as an extra. But unfortunately, it doesn't quite make up for the fact that the total in terms of value just isn't good enough yet. Granted, the price of Apple equipment is NOT helped by the monopoly distributor (Renaissance) of Apple equipment, who up until recently drove prices so high that you'd be paying $2,000 for the same machine. Apple are improving this, but they still have a way to go - and MacBook prices are still beyond a joke (MacBook Pro low end model is $3,799 including 12.5% GST).

      In terms of driving prices beyond retail - people seeing "No Reserve" auctions think they're getting a deal at twice retail just because it's "No Reserve" - no helping idiots I guess.

      Fanboys - yes I agree. Apple fanboys are NOT the only sort. I've seen Microsoft fanboys too (granted, a lot of Microsoft fanboys can admit that Microsoft does make mistakes. I've seen a quite adamant Microsoft fan basically call segments of .NET complete crap for all the brokenness). I've also seen Linux fanboys (is it just me or are these the most rabid?) To be honest, I agree. Each OS should be assessed on it's merits and suitability for your purpose - I must admit, I really liked MacOS 8 (yes, call me crazy if you like) but haven't had a chance to have a go at Mac OS X - Mac machines are just too damned expensive to get one to play with it. I even admit to liking Vista better than XP. In terms of Linux, Fedora's a crap distribution, I like Debian or Ubuntu (no preference, either is good). I can safely say I don't favour any of the three over the other though - just whichever works for what I want to do (Vista not so good for anything graphics-y, OS8 not so good for anything games-y, and Linux not so good for much of what I want to do - but great for oddball stuff like servers, and secure internet browsing).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    4. Re:Did you lose your monitor? by coleridge78 · · Score: 1

      I guess I don't understand why you think the Mini loses that comparison. It has a much better processor, and advantages in things like FireWire and disk writing (that Dimension comes with DVD-ROM, which means not even CD writing--you need to upgrade to a combo drive), 802.11 wireless and Bluetooth. So it has much better hardware, an infinitely better software bundle (because there's none on the Dell), a longer warranty, and costs $150 less

      The Dell has a monitor, mouse, and keyboard, which if you don't have any laying around (which is the mini's target market, after all--those who do) equivalents can be had for around $150 (probably less if you're willing to look around and/or go refurb).

  220. Who cares... by Dretep · · Score: 1

    The most common OS in the world is still Windows, the most popular is Linux. Windows knocked out Apple over a decade ago, they only have Linux to contend with in the OS market now.

  221. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by gig · · Score: 1

    > And, by the way, Xerox's Page Description Language (PDL) used to typeset documents with its tags, etc.,
    > was the precursor to HTML. We owe a lot to PARC.

    No, that's bullshit.

    HTML is based on SGML, which is older than PARC.

    PDL is the precursor to PostScript and then PDF, not HTML.

    Further, HTML and the World Wide Web were created by Tim Berners-Lee alone on a NeXT workstation (co-designed by Steve Jobs) using NeXT's object-oriented rapid development tools (object-oriented programming being the "other" thing that Steve Jobs bought at PARC) which he credits for enabling him to even attempt to do the project because TBL is a physicist, not a coder.

    And Adobe was founded to do two things: make Mac software, and sell PostScript, because the guy who made it was one of Adobe's founders, who used to work at PARC.

  222. Re:*Pscht* Calling Pot, Kettle here, Come in Pot! by gig · · Score: 1

    > So what? Nobody is denying Xerox had the basic concepts.

    The mouse is like 20 years older than Xerox. Computer research didn't start there, neither did the GUI, or hypertext.

  223. They both get it wrong. by ultramatricity · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates' response to the "OS X" is more unique is basically this: "Who came up with the File, Edit, View idea?" This is about as silly as Apple (many years ago) claiming they had been ripped off because Microsoft decided to include a Recycle bin (ripping off their Trash can.) Which, while true, is trivial. That reponse side-steps the truth of the matter... that they did, in fact, take what they liked about the other guy's OS because the market liked it. Microsoft doesn't invent anything at all (otherwise, Windows would be running a modern OS "under the hood", not DOS.)
    He doesn't respond to the substantive similarities that they did, in fact, rip off from OS X (the ones users care about): the transparency[ish] app stuff, the search mechanism, etc.

    The problem, as I understand it, is that Apple does a uniquely inventive job of UI-work, which Microsoft then emulates. Microsoft's OS's (which are really one OS: DOS) don't convey "we're thinking of the user." They convey "we're thinking of ourselves by giving the user a couple of new things which they have to pay for if they want them." However, neither has done anything truly inventive in the actual OS, just in how you use it. Remember, the OS is more than the interface.

    In my opinion, the only company that has done anything inventive on the OS front in the last 3 years is Sun. The Solaris OE has: Zones (containers), ZFS (the near-zero administration, massively scalable zettabyte file-system), DTrace, a TCP/IP re-write aimed solely at performance, the new "milestone" changes, etc.

    Here's the problem with Solaris: nobody at Sun puts 10-seconds-worth of thought into the UI. If Solaris had the appearance (on the desktop) of EITHER OS X OR Vista, it would dominate the market entirely (well, they'd also have to get desktop manufacturers to ship, but...) Solaris "looks" like it hasn't been updated in 10 years, meanwhile carrying the payload of the most modern OS in recent history! Get a usable UI developed, Sun!

    The OS is not the UI! But people (including myself) do become attached to this or that UI feature of the OS. Just remember what the discussion is about at this point...UI's, not OS's.

  224. It's the branding, stupid by slyborg · · Score: 1

    Funny watching a bunch of geeks arguing advertising, and immediately going to the checklist to decide if the ad is "correct".

    These ads are *brilliant* marketing. They are different from most tech advertising, and thus catch the notice of viewers, and make points using language that completely avoids any heavy technological jargon, which in itself adds to the point Apple is trying to make about itself. When I see the Vista ads, I'm bored in about two seconds, they look eerily like classic IBM advertising from the late 90s. (Microsoft has become mid-70s IBM, the irony is extreme).

    These ads are mostly for Apple the brand, not OS X or even Mac hardware.

  225. Re:Where they love Vista: www.microsoftisawesome.c by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1

    Even if the "fine print" meant something, the site still isn't satirical. There's no perspective on the thing they're allegedly satirizing. In fact, they're just aping Windows fanboyism without tweaking or questioning it. Maybe that's for lack of talent or desire. Who cares? But satire it is not.