Re:Mac Installation Still Works Like That???
on
iWarez
·
· Score: 1
Yep. It's not quite that way on most Mac OS 9 apps, but Apple practically requires that Carbon apps are written in package format. The application and all its critical libraries are bundled in one quazi-file (it's actually a folder, but not to the OS proper).
Makes installation, moving, and removal great, but you still have to chase down the preferences (.plist) files. --
Um...did you actually look at the size of this thing?
This is nothing more than an ATX motherboard with an exceedingly large amount of space for expansion.
Apple failed at the Cube because it didn't really have an audience--it was powerful but not expandable (like the G4 towers) or cheap (like the iMacs) or portable (like the iBook or PowerBook). It was a great design--but it had no market since Apple covered them all for its area. You're right--Apple discontinued it for that good reason.
But a case like this--oh, boy, would IT have a market. I would pay up to $300 for this case alone.
ANY computer can get the job done today (just slap Linux on it if you have to)--now its a matter of aesthetics until someone places one with an artificial intelligence in a human-shaped form.
Get that man on Sony's computer design staff, or have him make these things on the side.
I say Sony because: 1) Apple already has a great designer, Jonathon Ive 2) Michael Dell wouldn't know a good case design if it appeared as a cow with a black turtleneck shirt and spoke to him--"Dude, your cases SUCK...!!!" 3) Gateway couldn't afford to do this change 4) HP and Compaq are too wrapped up in their mutual admiration society 5) Sony understands design is important, even for PC boxes
As a preferred Macintosh user, this PC case is the most ingenious design I've seen. Nice work. Where I can get one to replace the POS with the Athlon I just assembled? --
When it comes to illnesses that a vaccine cannot remove, I'm all for egg-sorting. Sure, this is a form of manual selection, but it gives that person's line a chance at extension--which is what life's all about. It wasn't as if none of the woman's eggs were free of the preemie Alsheimers and the doctors modified an egg. The woman's body did the job of making a better human-potentiate: science simply helped to identify it. Her body was the cure. Nature scores again, with an assist.
For this stuff, this technique should be great. But tayloring otherwise viable eggs without hereditary, life-diminishing issues--BUZZZ! That's a bad idea not just ethically, but also in God-playing. We can remove or add something that stops or starts a vital element--say, a protein that helps with a critical function. In that case--leave stuff alone.
I agree. It's more likely that additional protocols with greater extensibility than HTTP will simply be supported in a browser, or the OS (as MS does it, badly, in recent Windows versions).
So, instead of typing HTTP://, you might type in something else. I can go for that.
The only thing "proprietary" about Apple hardware is the chassis and motherboard. Everything else can be swapped out. Want a better HD? OK--go buy it from the same place you buy your PC drive--it's all IDE. Want a faster processor? OK.
Look, I've built my own PC recently too, and its a nice Athlon box. But my 3 year old Power Mac still has strength, durability, and reliability. I appreciate that you like choice, but understand that buying a Macintosh is a form of choice of the same type you would do when buying a BMW or Jaguar or even Porsche. You aren't paying the few extra bucks for those cars to get your hands greasy and swap out the engine and drive train every 2 years because it doesn't feel fast anymore. The logic is true for Mac OS hardware, too. It really has sufficient strength that foregoes having to swap out crap much, if at all.
Keep in mind--the items you buy for PCs are sold with competitive prices, but you have to be careful to not buy a bargain and find that you have a dreadful surprise. The commodity market is not perfect--there's lots of shit out there, and you know it. Purchasing an intergrated system such as Macs (the same logic applies to a high-end PC, too) saves me that hassle.
Look, the operating system is not even ONE FSCKING YEAR OLD.
How usable was Linux in its 1.0 versions? NOT DAMNED MUCH. Mac OS X, for its age, has LEGS, and its about to run pretty well. In comparison to Mac OS 9, I really appreciate an OS that HAS NOT CRASHED ONCE on my PowerBook since I installed it last March.
Cut the OS some slack. Like its Mac OS predecessors (which WERE optimized over time for speed--dammit, OS 9 is the culmination of 17 YEARS of development), OS X will be optimized over time.
This transition isn't new to Apple. When the new PowerPC chip arrived, a rift formed, too. Given that their third computer (the Mac Plus) was supported until about 1997 (11 years), cut them some slack. Most of us here are smart enough to keep 486s working, but that doesn't mean, in the interests of modernization, compatibility, and performance, that you SHOULD.
And, wasn't Windows 95 mostly useless on 486, requiring Pentiums for better performance? That, and RAM (not a big commodity back then) was needed to make the POS go anywhere.
I've no problems with any of the updates used since the last Final Candidate to the present, but I have an idea why some users may have problems.
STOP treating Mac OS X like Mac OS 9.
In Mac OS 9 you have broad discretion in moving things around--the Applications folder, default locations of items, even renaming the System Folder (Apple doesn't recommend this, and as a tech, I don't either).
Mac OS X is UNIX. Ask any experienced Linux user here what happens when you start treating your OS like a designers showhouse. The updates expect that the Apple-supplied applications and system files are precisely where the installer expects them. This is particularly hard on old hands of OS 9 who love to change things, but know little of UNIX.
Unless you really like repairing things that Apple placed somewhere for a reason:
--DON'T move any Apple-supplied apps from their locations. Your installer updates may balk. --DON'T use a lot of hacks, particularly ones that screw with the forbidden System folder of OS X (unlike the OS 9 System Folder, this is Apple's area--unless you really know what you are doing, stay out. The things you usually find in an OS 9 Sys Folder are found in your Home folder, in the Library folder.) --DON'T expect super performance on small hard drives with slower systems or low RAM. No matter what G3 or G4 you have, the more drive space and RAM you have, the better. OS X has a swap file, so some users may find much better performance by installing OS X and OS 9 on separate partitions. --DON'T give up on OS X. Good lord! It's not even ONE YEAR OLD. Linux had a much rougher childhood, but it has become of formidable OS as it grew up. OS X ia already doing great.
Apple can't for the same reason that the company that makes Kleenex can't allow others to use the name "Kleenex" to describe any tissue.
After getting a copyright, or an intellectual property, a company must defend it tooth and nail from ANY kind of predatory or even harmless knockoffs. If Apple doesn't and someone stole an appearance to make a commercial product, the courts may see Apple's inaction as abandonment of their IP obligation.
In other words, if it ain't your idea, expect to get a cease-and-desist.
1) it may violate their copyrights on the software, not only the game itself, but the GameBoy's 2) Legally, they're obligated to fight these items or they may lose exclusivity that copyrights grant (this is why the lawyers for "Band-Aid" and "Kleenex" pursue misuse of the name, else it becomes a generic name 3) It's possible that Nintendo has plans to do this themselves, and merely threatening a suit would gain them the technology by barely lifting a finger.
Besides, its a dog-eat-Mario world out there, and Sony and Microsoft are chomping. ..
First off, I assume you mean "limited" as in "smaller number of" rather than "ability."
Two, although Apple doesn't directly support all the results of this, the Darwin core (all the non-Aqua interface parts) runs on far more systems than OS X's G3 and G4 processor systems--including X86 processors. It's not perfect, but it's there.
I see your point, though. There may never be a "single" Linux distro because everybody loves to build and tweak, and the hardware variations are immense. Apple, as is their tradition, dispenses the "tweak," although you still can if you wanted to.
Sorry for repeating myself: OS X, for instance, gets rid of the dotfile dependency (or at least supplements their support in some instances) with NetInfo, a database for handling this stuff.
One other thing--OS X has its own file directory structure--User for usr, for instance, and a few other changes. Functionally, this is FreeBSD, but Apple's directory parallels allow mere mortals to grasp its naming. Doesn't make for smooth going for experienced UNIX heads, but a trip to the Terminal shows that what they need is indeed there. There are just symlinks to the common directories, I believe.
OS X is also one of the very, very few *nix systems that is CASE-INSENSITIVE.
What you appear to be describing is NetInfo, a Windows-registry-like component that more or less functions mostly in place of certain typical UNIX config files. It's a NEXTStep legacy, but, unlike the Registry, it somewhat sidesteps an otherwise nightmarish way to handle OS configuration. And, it doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you when you look at it. The Netinfo Manager application will be used commonly by most experienced UNIX users to reactivate the root process, which Apple switches off in OS X for security/safety reasons.
OS X is based on FreeBSD, albeit an older version. It's pretty damned nice for an older kernel.
All these comments on Linux vs. OS X (I should mention the iMac just to keep things remotely on topic) bring up two key suggestions:
1) For an OS that's not even ONE YEAR OLD, Mac OS X is a gem. A little modernizing and optimizing over the next couple of years, and OS X will be a formidable OS, even vs. the best distros.
2) Linux has been around for, what--11 years? It's come a long way and its a true OS with tons of fans--but consider what one company has done to make a new *nix OS and how relatively good it is at the start.
I love it when I see screenshots of users with Windows, VNC, Virtual PC, XDarwin and more just crankin' along on a PPC Mac. It shows, at the least, the fact that a Mac--even the "lowly, closed-up" iMac--is a very versatile system that you don't have to fight. Sure, you can buy a cheap PC or two--but if everything runs in a single box, why?
Re:Lets face it, Times are hard everywhere.
on
The Laid-off Techie
·
· Score: 1
It's still a simple formula that was just temporarily ignored by employers until the crash--no experience, no job. What you said.
I'm primarily a Mac tech with only Apple's internal hardware certification. My strength, in comparison to other PC techs around me, is that I have 15 years experience on Macs and 17 on PC technologies. No MSCE substitutes for experience. It also didn't hurt to know Macintosh technology--where there are very few techs.
The key word--diversify and gain experience. I rightly predicted a year ago that a lot of PC techs were going to have to change jobs, at the least. There was a glut of "certified" people with little experience. Sad to see that come true, but I take heart that the better jobs remain and are available to those who can prove they can do it.
I see Itanium's arrival as good as the PowerPC chip line for Apple. It is a step up. However, Itanium is slow to arrival because the PC hardware industry is highly resistant to change. It's a vicious symbiotic relationship, or, more simply put, an eternal tug-of-war.
The big changes in PC hardware are successful only when both Intel and Microsoft marketing convince others (both resellers and users) that having the new tech is the Big Thing--even if neither group really understands the tech and why they should buy into it. I still get questions about USB, which Microsoft and Intel began to support better after the debut of the first iMacs and their USB-only support.
Another factor may be cost. Are Itanium chips much more expensive than P4s or AMDs? If so, adoption will be further slowed. This is not a game of better tech (IMHO, other companies typically win that game over classic Intel motherboard architecture), but of commodity pricing. The best tech is NEVER achieved by the lowest bidder.
Re:Why this strange name ?
on
Inside the Itanium
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'd have to disagree with the use of titanium in some cases. True, a lot of companies are using the name for the cool factor, but Apple's application of titanium as its outer case for its professional PowerBook line is both aethestic and functional.
The PowerPC G4 chip is a hot beast (nothing like the P3 or P4, but hot enough) that the titanium is used in part as a heat sink. Apple's application of the metal seems to get lots of oohs and ahhs as a result of this blend.
What someone said--a primary security hole (something you drive side-by-side trucks through) are Windows applications. Visual Basic and, by extension, Outlook, are big culprits.
But many of the things that make Windows unsecure do extend at the OS level. Here on my Macintosh, my firewall is set to lock out IPs that try a NETBIOS check, as well as various port scans. It's also aware of the Code Red variants.
My Mac OS (9 or X) ignore them. As with Linux, my OS doesn't know or care for NETBIOS.
And OS X, as a better example for all the huff, is a *nix family OS--and still in its infancy compared to the older Linux distros and UNIX itself. A UNIX class OS is only unsecure in the magnitude of Windows when we open up all the elements of the OS that are normally closed by default--permissions, certain root access, and so on. Therefore, you have to be a Raving Buffoon(tm) to set Linux or any *nix for a fall.
Window's faults are inherent to perpetuate its market share as well as stupid coding. And now MS wants to "fix" it? Give us a break.
/.
I agree and disagree simultaneously to "Tech Professionals can't make a living supporting the platform."
OF COURSE there are plenty of Macintosh technicians (myself included) making an excellent living. But the IT industry is built on Microsoft's money machine and complicating the already-complicated. That includes certifications upon certifications, which serve more as a money machine than a true test of a technician's experience. There are plenty of MSCEs out there. My 15 concurrent years working and servicing both PCs and Macs make that certification almost moot.
The dark side of this is that, until recently, Apple didn't think about the cert cash cow either. Today, Apple provides two admin certs with a lot of possibility. The irony is that its class is too expensive for most techs, and no one's made a cert book on it (although I'm thinking about it).
SCSI is still nice (it's why Apple placed it as standard equipment in all Macs until 1999) but expensive (thus one of the reasons for the Mac's now-undeserved reputation as a very expensive computer). SCSI's cost was why Apple changed to IDE technology as standard in their desktop, starting with the Power Macintosh G3 Blue & White in 1999. You can still custom order SCSI support, but it's probably cheaper to do it yourself.
/.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. It's not quite that way on most Mac OS 9 apps, but Apple practically requires that Carbon apps are written in package format. The application and all its critical libraries are bundled in one quazi-file (it's actually a folder, but not to the OS proper).
Makes installation, moving, and removal great, but you still have to chase down the preferences (.plist) files.
--
Um...did you actually look at the size of this thing?
This is nothing more than an ATX motherboard with an exceedingly large amount of space for expansion.
Apple failed at the Cube because it didn't really have an audience--it was powerful but not expandable (like the G4 towers) or cheap (like the iMacs) or portable (like the iBook or PowerBook). It was a great design--but it had no market since Apple covered them all for its area. You're right--Apple discontinued it for that good reason.
But a case like this--oh, boy, would IT have a market. I would pay up to $300 for this case alone.
ANY computer can get the job done today (just slap Linux on it if you have to)--now its a matter of aesthetics until someone places one with an artificial intelligence in a human-shaped form.
Get that man on Sony's computer design staff, or have him make these things on the side.
I say Sony because:
1) Apple already has a great designer, Jonathon Ive
2) Michael Dell wouldn't know a good case design if it appeared as a cow with a black turtleneck shirt and spoke to him--"Dude, your cases SUCK...!!!"
3) Gateway couldn't afford to do this change
4) HP and Compaq are too wrapped up in their mutual admiration society
5) Sony understands design is important, even for PC boxes
As a preferred Macintosh user, this PC case is the most ingenious design I've seen. Nice work. Where I can get one to replace the POS with the Athlon I just assembled?
--
Rocky slope, this. Or, is it?
We know that heredity-based traits and illnesses cannot be corrected as a whole. Some of them include:
Cystic fibrosis
Hemoglobin-C trait
Sickle-Cell trait
When it comes to illnesses that a vaccine cannot remove, I'm all for egg-sorting. Sure, this is a form of manual selection, but it gives that person's line a chance at extension--which is what life's all about. It wasn't as if none of the woman's eggs were free of the preemie Alsheimers and the doctors modified an egg. The woman's body did the job of making a better human-potentiate: science simply helped to identify it. Her body was the cure. Nature scores again, with an assist.
For this stuff, this technique should be great. But tayloring otherwise viable eggs without hereditary, life-diminishing issues--BUZZZ! That's a bad idea not just ethically, but also in God-playing. We can remove or add something that stops or starts a vital element--say, a protein that helps with a critical function. In that case--leave stuff alone.
I agree. It's more likely that additional protocols with greater extensibility than HTTP will simply be supported in a browser, or the OS (as MS does it, badly, in recent Windows versions).
So, instead of typing HTTP://, you might type in something else. I can go for that.
--
The only thing "proprietary" about Apple hardware is the chassis and motherboard. Everything else can be swapped out. Want a better HD? OK--go buy it from the same place you buy your PC drive--it's all IDE. Want a faster processor? OK.
Look, I've built my own PC recently too, and its a nice Athlon box. But my 3 year old Power Mac still has strength, durability, and reliability. I appreciate that you like choice, but understand that buying a Macintosh is a form of choice of the same type you would do when buying a BMW or Jaguar or even Porsche. You aren't paying the few extra bucks for those cars to get your hands greasy and swap out the engine and drive train every 2 years because it doesn't feel fast anymore. The logic is true for Mac OS hardware, too. It really has sufficient strength that foregoes having to swap out crap much, if at all.
Keep in mind--the items you buy for PCs are sold with competitive prices, but you have to be careful to not buy a bargain and find that you have a dreadful surprise. The commodity market is not perfect--there's lots of shit out there, and you know it. Purchasing an intergrated system such as Macs (the same logic applies to a high-end PC, too) saves me that hassle.
Look, the operating system is not even ONE FSCKING YEAR OLD.
How usable was Linux in its 1.0 versions? NOT DAMNED MUCH. Mac OS X, for its age, has LEGS, and its about to run pretty well. In comparison to Mac OS 9, I really appreciate an OS that HAS NOT CRASHED ONCE on my PowerBook since I installed it last March.
Cut the OS some slack. Like its Mac OS predecessors (which WERE optimized over time for speed--dammit, OS 9 is the culmination of 17 YEARS of development), OS X will be optimized over time.
This transition isn't new to Apple. When the new PowerPC chip arrived, a rift formed, too. Given that their third computer (the Mac Plus) was supported until about 1997 (11 years), cut them some slack. Most of us here are smart enough to keep 486s working, but that doesn't mean, in the interests of modernization, compatibility, and performance, that you SHOULD.
And, wasn't Windows 95 mostly useless on 486, requiring Pentiums for better performance? That, and RAM (not a big commodity back then) was needed to make the POS go anywhere.
You speak like a lawyer, which I'm not. But you did clarify my points better. The gist is there.
I've no problems with any of the updates used since the last Final Candidate to the present, but I have an idea why some users may have problems.
STOP treating Mac OS X like Mac OS 9.
In Mac OS 9 you have broad discretion in moving things around--the Applications folder, default locations of items, even renaming the System Folder (Apple doesn't recommend this, and as a tech, I don't either).
Mac OS X is UNIX. Ask any experienced Linux user here what happens when you start treating your OS like a designers showhouse. The updates expect that the Apple-supplied applications and system files are precisely where the installer expects them. This is particularly hard on old hands of OS 9 who love to change things, but know little of UNIX.
Unless you really like repairing things that Apple placed somewhere for a reason:
--DON'T move any Apple-supplied apps from their locations. Your installer updates may balk.
--DON'T use a lot of hacks, particularly ones that screw with the forbidden System folder of OS X (unlike the OS 9 System Folder, this is Apple's area--unless you really know what you are doing, stay out. The things you usually find in an OS 9 Sys Folder are found in your Home folder, in the Library folder.)
--DON'T expect super performance on small hard drives with slower systems or low RAM. No matter what G3 or G4 you have, the more drive space and RAM you have, the better. OS X has a swap file, so some users may find much better performance by installing OS X and OS 9 on separate partitions.
--DON'T give up on OS X. Good lord! It's not even ONE YEAR OLD. Linux had a much rougher childhood, but it has become of formidable OS as it grew up. OS X ia already doing great.
Think of what this kid will do as a toddler.
Apple can't for the same reason that the company that makes Kleenex can't allow others to use the name "Kleenex" to describe any tissue.
After getting a copyright, or an intellectual property, a company must defend it tooth and nail from ANY kind of predatory or even harmless knockoffs. If Apple doesn't and someone stole an appearance to make a commercial product, the courts may see Apple's inaction as abandonment of their IP obligation.
In other words, if it ain't your idea, expect to get a cease-and-desist.
Nintendo is going after this technology because
1) it may violate their copyrights on the software, not only the game itself, but the GameBoy's
2) Legally, they're obligated to fight these items or they may lose exclusivity that copyrights grant (this is why the lawyers for "Band-Aid" and "Kleenex" pursue misuse of the name, else it becomes a generic name
3) It's possible that Nintendo has plans to do this themselves, and merely threatening a suit would gain them the technology by barely lifting a finger.
Besides, its a dog-eat-Mario world out there, and Sony and Microsoft are chomping.
..
The thing is OK and all, but I really prefer a three-footed version--
To answer The Obvious Comment:
What would a Beowulf cluster be like of these?
The Rockettes. The noise would be a bitch, but they'd be enough spare juice to light half of Manhattan.
First off, I assume you mean "limited" as in "smaller number of" rather than "ability."
Two, although Apple doesn't directly support all the results of this, the Darwin core (all the non-Aqua interface parts) runs on far more systems than OS X's G3 and G4 processor systems--including X86 processors. It's not perfect, but it's there.
I see your point, though. There may never be a "single" Linux distro because everybody loves to build and tweak, and the hardware variations are immense. Apple, as is their tradition, dispenses the "tweak," although you still can if you wanted to.
Sorry for repeating myself: OS X, for instance, gets rid of the dotfile dependency (or at least supplements their support in some instances) with NetInfo, a database for handling this stuff.
One other thing--OS X has its own file directory structure--User for usr, for instance, and a few other changes. Functionally, this is FreeBSD, but Apple's directory parallels allow mere mortals to grasp its naming. Doesn't make for smooth going for experienced UNIX heads, but a trip to the Terminal shows that what they need is indeed there. There are just symlinks to the common directories, I believe.
OS X is also one of the very, very few *nix systems that is CASE-INSENSITIVE.
What you appear to be describing is NetInfo, a Windows-registry-like component that more or less functions mostly in place of certain typical UNIX config files. It's a NEXTStep legacy, but, unlike the Registry, it somewhat sidesteps an otherwise nightmarish way to handle OS configuration. And, it doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you when you look at it. The Netinfo Manager application will be used commonly by most experienced UNIX users to reactivate the root process, which Apple switches off in OS X for security/safety reasons.
OS X is based on FreeBSD, albeit an older version. It's pretty damned nice for an older kernel.
All these comments on Linux vs. OS X (I should mention the iMac just to keep things remotely on topic) bring up two key suggestions:
1) For an OS that's not even ONE YEAR OLD, Mac OS X is a gem. A little modernizing and optimizing over the next couple of years, and OS X will be a formidable OS, even vs. the best distros.
2) Linux has been around for, what--11 years? It's come a long way and its a true OS with tons of fans--but consider what one company has done to make a new *nix OS and how relatively good it is at the start.
I love it when I see screenshots of users with Windows, VNC, Virtual PC, XDarwin and more just crankin' along on a PPC Mac. It shows, at the least, the fact that a Mac--even the "lowly, closed-up" iMac--is a very versatile system that you don't have to fight. Sure, you can buy a cheap PC or two--but if everything runs in a single box, why?
It's still a simple formula that was just temporarily ignored by employers until the crash--no experience, no job. What you said.
I'm primarily a Mac tech with only Apple's internal hardware certification. My strength, in comparison to other PC techs around me, is that I have 15 years experience on Macs and 17 on PC technologies. No MSCE substitutes for experience. It also didn't hurt to know Macintosh technology--where there are very few techs.
The key word--diversify and gain experience. I rightly predicted a year ago that a lot of PC techs were going to have to change jobs, at the least. There was a glut of "certified" people with little experience. Sad to see that come true, but I take heart that the better jobs remain and are available to those who can prove they can do it.
I see Itanium's arrival as good as the PowerPC chip line for Apple. It is a step up. However, Itanium is slow to arrival because the PC hardware industry is highly resistant to change. It's a vicious symbiotic relationship, or, more simply put, an eternal tug-of-war.
The big changes in PC hardware are successful only when both Intel and Microsoft marketing convince others (both resellers and users) that having the new tech is the Big Thing--even if neither group really understands the tech and why they should buy into it. I still get questions about USB, which Microsoft and Intel began to support better after the debut of the first iMacs and their USB-only support.
Another factor may be cost. Are Itanium chips much more expensive than P4s or AMDs? If so, adoption will be further slowed. This is not a game of better tech (IMHO, other companies typically win that game over classic Intel motherboard architecture), but of commodity pricing. The best tech is NEVER achieved by the lowest bidder.
I'd have to disagree with the use of titanium in some cases. True, a lot of companies are using the name for the cool factor, but Apple's application of titanium as its outer case for its professional PowerBook line is both aethestic and functional.
The PowerPC G4 chip is a hot beast (nothing like the P3 or P4, but hot enough) that the titanium is used in part as a heat sink. Apple's application of the metal seems to get lots of oohs and ahhs as a result of this blend.
Ack. Look at the price, and note the assumed performance in comparison to, say, RISC processors.
Next time somebody complains about the Mac OS and their PowerPC RISC processors, I'm going to beat them over the head with this Dell box.
What someone said--a primary security hole (something you drive side-by-side trucks through) are Windows applications. Visual Basic and, by extension, Outlook, are big culprits.
But many of the things that make Windows unsecure do extend at the OS level. Here on my Macintosh, my firewall is set to lock out IPs that try a NETBIOS check, as well as various port scans. It's also aware of the Code Red variants.
My Mac OS (9 or X) ignore them. As with Linux, my OS doesn't know or care for NETBIOS.
And OS X, as a better example for all the huff, is a *nix family OS--and still in its infancy compared to the older Linux distros and UNIX itself. A UNIX class OS is only unsecure in the magnitude of Windows when we open up all the elements of the OS that are normally closed by default--permissions, certain root access, and so on. Therefore, you have to be a Raving Buffoon(tm) to set Linux or any *nix for a fall.
Window's faults are inherent to perpetuate its market share as well as stupid coding. And now MS wants to "fix" it? Give us a break.
/.
I agree and disagree simultaneously to "Tech Professionals can't make a living supporting the platform."
OF COURSE there are plenty of Macintosh technicians (myself included) making an excellent living. But the IT industry is built on Microsoft's money machine and complicating the already-complicated. That includes certifications upon certifications, which serve more as a money machine than a true test of a technician's experience. There are plenty of MSCEs out there. My 15 concurrent years working and servicing both PCs and Macs make that certification almost moot.
The dark side of this is that, until recently, Apple didn't think about the cert cash cow either. Today, Apple provides two admin certs with a lot of possibility. The irony is that its class is too expensive for most techs, and no one's made a cert book on it (although I'm thinking about it).
/.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these... :)
SCSI is still nice (it's why Apple placed it as standard equipment in all Macs until 1999) but expensive (thus one of the reasons for the Mac's now-undeserved reputation as a very expensive computer). SCSI's cost was why Apple changed to IDE technology as standard in their desktop, starting with the Power Macintosh G3 Blue & White in 1999. You can still custom order SCSI support, but it's probably cheaper to do it yourself.
/.