 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006Apple makes Macs run Windows XP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4880022.stm Interesting topic..... Discussion on!!!!! Just dying to see all you ms/apple freaks go nuts lol > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4880022.stm > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** > ---------------------------------------------------------- Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will be able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will still only be able to run Windows Apps. Not earth shaking, but quite nice for us Apple loyalists. Plus it's going to put a LOT of pressure Microsoft after just announcing that VISTA is delayed yet again. If they don't watch out, they'll lose a solid sliver of market share this holiday buying season when people figure out they can buy another PC and run most stuff - or buy a MAC and run anything they like. > Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will be > able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will still only > be able to run Windows Apps. Having said that, why would I want to run anything other than WinXP on my computers when it continues to perform flawlessly? > > Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will be > > able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will still only > > be able to run Windows Apps. > > Having said that, why would I want to run anything other than WinXP on my > computers when it continues to perform flawlessly? Count your blessings and be happy, you're one of the very few. Greg > > > Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will be > > > able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will still only [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Count your blessings and be happy, you're one of the very few. "Blessings" have nothing to do with it. I simply run it on certified hardware (as recommended by Microsoft), keep updates up to date, and stay away from sex (and other malicious) sites. And I have several hundred of my clients with PCs I've supplied and setup the same way - they don't have any issues either. >>>>Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will be >>>>able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will still [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > And I have several hundred of my clients with PCs I've supplied and setup > the same way - they don't have any issues either. Like I said, count your blessings. We have 12 full time deskside techs for 600 PC users backed by a team of 6 deskside engineers at HQ backed by a team of dedicated TAMS at Microsoft and Dell. And we have only one full time deskside tech for 80 Mac users, and he ends up helping with the PCs, and we have no deskside engineers at HQ for Macs, and no special deals with Apple. You're very lucky, or your users aren't networked and don't run anything other than Notepad. Greg  Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > You're very lucky, or your users aren't networked and don't run anything > other than Notepad. What a load of bollocks. Every last one of them is networked and every last one of them is left on 24/7 and used for a variety of tasks (including eMail / wordprocessing / spreaksheet / dos programs / proprietary software, and more) from 8am to 5pm > What a load of bollocks. Every last one of them is networked and every last > one of them is left on 24/7 and used for a variety of tasks (including eMail > / wordprocessing / spreaksheet / dos programs / proprietary software, and > more) from 8am to 5pm Get your head out of your a.s. > > What a load of bollocks. Every last one of them is networked and every last > > one of them is left on 24/7 and used for a variety of tasks (including eMail > > / wordprocessing / spreaksheet / dos programs / proprietary software, and > > more) from 8am to 5pm > > Get your head out of your a.s. Randall, how old are you? >> What a load of bollocks. Every last one of them is networked and every >> last [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Get your head out of your a.s. Into the killfile with your vitriol. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>>>>Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will be >>>>>able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will still [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > and we have no deskside engineers at HQ for Macs, and no special deals > with Apple. In 1996 I did magazine layout on a network of macintosh computers. I've never seen a network with as many problems, or as slow, or that needed as much tech assistance. My point isn't that mac's suck. I don't think they do. My point is you're living some kinda pie in the sky dream if you think your life would be easier, if only you had a network of macs. You'd have just as many headaches, except perhaps viral related. And if mac were ever to command 95% of the market share, every hacker in the world would be gunning for them, same as Windows, and if there's a door with a lock, it can be picked, so don't give me any sh.t about superior security on macs. It seems to me that most mac lovers are delusional. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > In 1996 I did magazine layout on a network of macintosh computers. I've > never seen a network with as many problems, or as slow, or that needed as > much tech assistance. That was before OSX SignatureWith or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. > > In 1996 I did magazine layout on a network of macintosh computers. I've > > never seen a network with as many problems, or as slow, or that needed as > > much tech assistance. > > That was before OSX I've never had a problem with networking since Apple os7.6, and you could get two macs talking to each other a lot quicker, and network printers a lot quicker and easier than with a windows machine. In some ways sharing is a bit trickier now with osX, but still less of a black art than windows sharing. SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. > "Blessings" have nothing to do with it. I simply run it on certified > hardware (as recommended by Microsoft), keep updates up to date, and > stay away from sex (and other malicious) sites. BINGO!!! We have a winner! That's why picking the *PROPER* hardware and paying a small premium upfront is key for any OS to run properly and reliably. The people that use Supermicro and Intel based systems are immune to the majority of these problems we hear whined about. > And I have several hundred of my clients with PCs I've supplied and > setup the same way - they don't have any issues either. Again, the key here is you know what you are doing and have each system configured properly to avoid these perceived pitfalls that the clueless worry so much about. Rita > > "Blessings" have nothing to do with it. I simply run it on certified > > hardware (as recommended by Microsoft), keep updates up to date, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > configured properly to avoid these perceived pitfalls that the clueless > worry so much about. Couldn't agree more - what's so hard to understand about "if you run ANY software on flaky / non-compliant hardware then it's going to be unstable?" >> "Blessings" have nothing to do with it. I simply run it on certified >> hardware (as recommended by Microsoft), keep updates up to date, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > immune > to the majority of these problems we hear whined about. You're not implying that AMD based systems are prone to problems that Intel systems are not, are you? This is not meant to start a flame war but specifically noting *Intel* based systems seems to imply that anything else will lead to problems. AMD systems are just as stable as Intel systems. >> BINGO!!! We have a winner! That's why picking the *PROPER* >> hardware and paying a small premium upfront is key for any OS to run [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > anything else will lead to problems. AMD systems are just as stable > as Intel systems. Hell no! Why would I have to make that implication when the Intel processor is the number one choice of knowledgeable system builders and integrators? Granted, the AMD is *ALMOST* up to Intel in performance and reliability standards for mission critical applications, but has a long way to go before it will even be considered a contender in the professional IT world. Rita >Granted, the AMD is *ALMOST* up to Intel in performance and > reliability > standards for mission critical applications, but has a long way to go >before >it will even be considered a contender in the professional IT world. Sorry Rita, this is not even close to the truth... I'll assume you're qualifying your statements around workstation performance for graphics/video editing, CAD, etc where the slightly superior floating-point math of Intel is advantageous. In the datacentre, AMD's only really challenge right now is keeping up with demand for the Opteron x64. Sun's line is selling like hotcakes -- you can use standard racking for blade-type performance, with lower electrical costs and better heat footprint. My corporation is in the process of throwing out the Dell and IBM blade cabinets in favour of these Sun/AMD solution, since the TCO is sooo much better. > In the datacentre, AMD's only really challenge right now is keeping up > with demand for the Opteron x64. Sun's line is selling like hotcakes > -- you can use standard racking for blade-type performance, with lower > electrical costs and better heat footprint. My corporation is in the > process of throwing out the Dell and IBM blade cabinets in favour of > these Sun/AMD solution, since the TCO is sooo much better. They'll be back to an Intel platform within 12-24 months and the person(s) that procured the AMDs will most likely be updating their resume for the purpose of finding another job. Rita >>> BINGO!!! We have a winner! That's why picking the *PROPER* >>> hardware and paying a small premium upfront is key for any OS to run [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > before > it will even be considered a contender in the professional IT world. You just lost what little credibility you had there. AMD 64 bit processors have blown away Intel processors in the professional IT world. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > You just lost what little credibility you had there. AMD 64 bit > processors have blown away Intel processors in the professional IT > world. It can't even follow in the shadows of the Xeon let alone the Itanium2. True AMD has Intel beat for cheap throw away boxes, but not for anything mission critical. Rita >>> BINGO!!! We have a winner! That's why picking the *PROPER* >>> hardware and paying a small premium upfront is key for any OS to run [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > before > it will even be considered a contender in the professional IT world. So knowledgable system builders don't use AMD processors? That's laughable. It's this dismissal type of attitude that's making it difficult for AMD to make inroads but they are and their superior products will win out in the end. > So knowledgable system builders don't use AMD processors? That's > laughable. It's this dismissal type of attitude that's making it > difficult for AMD to make inroads but they are and their superior > products will win out in the end. Why, if you had a "superior" product would someone's dismissal attitude affect AMD in the slightest? For Christ's sake, Apple wouldn't even select the deadened architecture that AMD offers. And if Apple doesn't want AMD why would you expect anyone with a shred of knowledge and their reputation on the line to make that career changing choice? AMD is just a niche market for gamers, toys, and other novelty type boxes. Rita >> So knowledgable system builders don't use AMD processors? That's >> laughable. It's this dismissal type of attitude that's making it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > market > for gamers, toys, and other novelty type boxes. I've worked with an IT guy who has this "dismissal" attitude. No AMD system would ever get into our office for no reason other than "I want Intel". The fact is that we would faster desktops than we do now, we wouldn't have been shackled with the outrageous cost of Rambus RAM years ago (yes we still use those old P4 1.8 ghz systems) making it too expensive to upgrade RAM, and we'd have some extremely fast servers. All for less money. AMD is not a niche market supplier. They continue to gain market share and are making inroads into server systems that they haven't before. Their "deadened architecture" as you call it offers better performance than Intel does at a lower price. It's Intel who has the deadened architecture. They had to ramp up clock speeds on their aging processors in order to keep up with the performance level of the lower clock-speed AMD processors. "Rita ? Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >>> BINGO!!! We have a winner! That's why picking the *PROPER* >>> hardware and paying a small premium upfront is key for any OS to run [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> anything else will lead to problems. AMD systems are just as stable >> as Intel systems. >Hell no! Why would I have to make that implication when the Intel processor >is the number one choice of knowledgeable system builders and integrators? >Granted, the AMD is *ALMOST* up to Intel in performance and reliability >standards for mission critical applications, but has a long way to go before >it will even be considered a contender in the professional IT world. Don't confuse conservatism with technical knowlege. ---- Paul J. Gans > You're not implying that AMD based systems are prone to problems that Intel > systems are not, are you? This is not meant to start a flame war but > specifically noting *Intel* based systems seems to imply that anything else > will lead to problems. AMD systems are just as stable as Intel systems. While I think that AMD sucks, they are not more susceptible to viruses/spyware than Intel. The real crap is the software (Windows). >> You're not implying that AMD based systems are prone to problems that >> Intel [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > While I think that AMD sucks, they are not more susceptible to > viruses/spyware than Intel. The real crap is the software (Windows) Mac would have done better to go with AMD rather than Intel. AMD is the performance leader. > AMD systems are just as stable as Intel systems. In my experience AMD don't have the same safety margin (eg overclockers always seem to be able to over-clock intel chips by a higher percentage). The two seem to start out equal but as dust starts to accumulate on fans + inlet and exhaust ports + inbetween cooling fins and temperatures start to rise we typically see less stability from the AMD camp. Every few years we build a system with an AMD CPU to see if anything has changed - and every couple of years we stick with Intel. >> AMD systems are just as stable as Intel systems. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Every few years we build a system with an AMD CPU to see if anything has > changed - and every couple of years we stick with Intel. The current crop of AMD processors run cooler than the Intels, this type of problem is a non-issue now. I've been running AMDs for years and have never experienced a stability issue resulting from heat or anything else. And I have no stability issues with Win XP period, it is one solid OS. WinXP running badly is an urban legend on par with 'macs are easier to use'. While I like the build quality of most Macs, and repsect the stability/security of BSD unix underneath an Apple GUI, its still just a PC. Use the right tool for the job. It might be a mac, it might be a Dell box, or it might be a PDA. The irony here is that Apple is now selling Intel based machines that can run windows -- they're PCs, with a differentiating feature of being able to run OS/X. Its one thing, for the moment, that Dell can't compete with. > WinXP running badly is an urban legend on par with 'macs are easier to > use'. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > able to run OS/X. Its one thing, for the moment, that Dell can't > compete with. Agreed, the windows based pcs that give trouble are generally the ones that the company has bought cheap, they try to run XP with 256mb of ram, 40 gig harddrives, have Outlook as their email client, and only allow Internet Explorer for use on the web. All of this is asking for problems. I got off an old mac a year ago, and besides being able to run my scanners again (OSX is misserable with even 3 year old hardware esp Nikon LS2000), I have far less down time with XP. Tom >> WinXP running badly is an urban legend on par with 'macs are easier to >> use'. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that the company has bought cheap, they try to run XP with 256mb of > ram, 40 gig harddrives, have Outlook as their email client, So what do you recommend for an email client on an Exchange system? > and only > allow Internet Explorer for use on the web. All of this is asking for > problems. The big problem with Explorer these days is that the defaults are locked down so tight that it won't show most Web pages. > I got off an old mac a year ago, and besides being able to > run my scanners again (OSX is misserable with even 3 year old hardware > esp Nikon LS2000), I have far less down time with XP. > > Tom Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > The big problem with Explorer these days is that the defaults are locked > down so tight that it won't show most Web pages. No. It's not a "big problem with explorer". It's a totally non-existent issue. Perhaps, with the possible exception of some of the security features kicking in to protect your PC from some of the "tricks" they come up with on sex and hack sites. >> The big problem with Explorer these days is that the defaults are locked >> down so tight that it won't show most Web pages. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > kicking in to protect your PC from some of the "tricks" they come up with > on sex and hack sites. Then why have I had to systematically relax the security to be able to get into major corporate sites? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >> The big problem with Explorer these days is that the defaults are locked > >> down so tight that it won't show most Web pages. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Then why have I had to systematically relax the security to be able to get > into major corporate sites? Because your major corporate sites are actually porn sites. > -- > --John > to email, dial "usenet" and validate > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> >> The big problem with Explorer these days is that the defaults are > locked [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Because your major corporate sites are actually porn sites. For certain values of "porn" I guess. >> -- >> --John >> to email, dial "usenet" and validate >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > The irony here is that Apple is now selling Intel based machines that > can run windows -- they're PCs, with a differentiating feature of > being able to run OS/X. Its one thing, for the moment, that Dell can't > compete with. Yeah, I just love it! All these hardcore Mac users will have to make up new excuses as to why an Apple is superior to a PC. Poetic Justice! I don't understand why people feel that Dell needs to "compete" with anyone? A Dell workstation is most likely on every government desk and in the field from DOD to DHS. Apple is nothing more than a gnat buzzing around Michael Dell's ear. If this gnat makes too much noise Dell will swat it. Rita >> The irony here is that Apple is now selling Intel based machines that >> can run windows -- they're PCs, with a differentiating feature of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > from DOD to DHS. Apple is nothing more than a gnat buzzing around Michael > Dell's ear. If this gnat makes too much noise Dell will swat it. We bought 21,000 Dell desktops and laptops in the last 18 months and sourcing is considering switching to HP because our Optiplex GX620s and Latitude D610s are blue screening at an alarming rate, about 1 in 5 during this deployment. Pathetic. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > We bought 21,000 Dell desktops and laptops in the last 18 months and > sourcing is considering switching to HP because our Optiplex GX620s > and Latitude D610s are blue screening at an alarming rate, about 1 in > 5 during this deployment. Pathetic. Let me guess, you are using the 620s with the ultra small chassis? If these are the ones than I agree with you since these are dogs and suffer heat related problems as you are experiencing, especially with the power supply. Keep them cool and you won't have a single issue. As for HP, don't think they will be any better since I've seen some real dogs from HP as well. Seriously, if you bought 21,000 of these things I'm sure you have an on-site service contract and they will be replaced next day. Customers as large as you will have Dell bending over backwards in 24-hours or less to rectify any problems you have. Since you are a company that has the potential to buy in decent quantity I would have your IT/purchasing dept contact a HP rep and have them send over ten boxes for you to evaluate. Yes, Dell and HP do this if you can prove to them that you have the ability to purchase in quantity. As for the laptops, I find it hard to believe you are having issues with them. Again, put in a service request with your tag number and get the damn things repaired or replaced. Rita > > We bought 21,000 Dell desktops and laptops in the last 18 months and > > sourcing is considering switching to HP because our Optiplex GX620s > > and Latitude D610s are blue screening at an alarming rate, about 1 in > > 5 during this deployment. Pathetic. > > Let me guess, you are using the 620s with the ultra small chassis? Yes, and I absolutely love the form factor. > If these > are the ones than I agree with you since these are dogs and suffer heat > related problems as you are experiencing, especially with the power supply. > Keep them cool and you won't have a single issue. Thanks, I'll pass that along to my co-workers. > As for HP, don't think > they will be any better since I've seen some real dogs from HP as well. > Seriously, if you bought 21,000 of these things I'm sure you have an on-site > service contract and they will be replaced next day. Customers as large as > you will have Dell bending over backwards in 24-hours or less to rectify any > problems you have. We already switched our PC-based servers from Dell to Compaq. Mostly for the better remote management features. > Since you are a company that has the potential to buy in decent quantity I > would have your IT/purchasing dept contact a HP rep and have them send over [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > them. Again, put in a service request with your tag number and get the damn > things repaired or replaced. Actually we're having more problems with the D610s than we are the desktops. As a favor to a VP here who doesn't want to have his laptop re-imaged or replaced by deskside support I am currently trying to troubleshoot a Stop 0x000000D1 DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL bluescreen for him. Most likely culprit on XP is either USB-related or memory-related. Just started looking into it last night. Greg > Actually we're having more problems with the D610s than we are the desktops. > As a favor to a VP here who doesn't want to have his laptop re-imaged or > replaced by deskside support I am currently trying to troubleshoot a Stop > 0x000000D1 DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL bluescreen for him. Most likely > culprit on XP is either USB-related or memory-related. Just started looking > into it last night. I'd take a close look at the installed drivers. You can also use msconfig to reconfigure what's started at boot time. And what's the bet that it's a non-WHQL-certified driver - you know - the ones that give you the little message "STOP - THIS DRIVER DOES NOT CONTAIN A MICROSOFT DIGITAL SIGNATURE etc" message when you attempt to install the device? >>Actually we're having more problems with the D610s than we are the > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > MICROSOFT DIGITAL SIGNATURE etc" message when you attempt to install the > device? If so it's a driver provided by Dell, approved by our Microsoft Techical Account Manager, and installed by Dell. Hopefully the problem is gone but so far I'm blaming the problem on a corrupt swap file. His laptop hasn't blue screened since I deleted and recreated his swap file last night as suggested by Microsoft. Something I've never had to do with OS X, BTW. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > If so it's a driver provided by Dell, approved by our Microsoft > Techical Account Manager, and installed by Dell. This is totally irrelavant since *YOU* have a problem and need to find a solution. Stop wasting time pissing in the wind with casting blame. > Hopefully the problem is gone but so far I'm blaming the problem on a > corrupt swap file. His laptop hasn't blue screened since I deleted > and recreated his swap file last night as suggested by Microsoft. > Something I've never had to do with OS X, BTW. I agree with you that it's a swap file error. Boot in "Safemode" and Defrag. This usually cures it. Also, improper shutdowns can cause this problem. Let me let you in on a little secret I learned a long time ago. I'll admit I'm very lazy and always try to find a quick and simple solution. That said, keep in mind that if you have an error there is a great likelihood that someone else had the problem before you. So, enter the error message in Google and you will get a multitude of answers. Pick the one that best suites your situation. From personal experience I found that a Safemode Defrag would cure your problem. If it doesn't there are many more solutions on Google to include "zeroing" the HD. Remember, a great technician's job is to fix a problem as quickly and efficiently as possible, not reinvent the wheel. Research! Rita >> Actually we're having more problems with the D610s than we are the > desktops. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > MICROSOFT DIGITAL SIGNATURE etc" message when you attempt to install the > device? Yeah, never had a single problem with those... SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>> The irony here is that Apple is now selling Intel based machines that >>> can run windows -- they're PCs, with a differentiating feature of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Latitude D610s are blue screening at an alarming rate, about 1 in 5 during > this deployment. Pathetic. I sure as hell wouldn't expect HP to do any better. They've made nothing but trash since the 90's/ SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > I don't understand why people feel that Dell needs to "compete" with anyone? > A Dell workstation is most likely on every government desk and in the field > from DOD to DHS. Apple is nothing more than a gnat buzzing around Michael > Dell's ear. If this gnat makes too much noise Dell will swat it. I couldn't have put it better myself. Compete with Apple? Pfffffffft - As a platform, Apples market share is about the only thing less than the margin of error in most surveys. >> > Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will be >> > able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will still only [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Count your blessings and be happy, you're one of the very few. Sorry, I manage a support team that takes care of over 5,000 desktops, 99% of which run XP. It's very good. Two things I believe to be true: Windows isn't as bad as people think, and Linux/Unix/Mac aren't as good as people think. > Greg > >> > Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will be > >> > able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will still only [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > isn't as bad as people think, and Linux/Unix/Mac aren't as good as people > think. Do you manage any Macs? I thought not. Greg > Do you manage any Macs? I thought not. Very few people do because there is such a small number of them. >> Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will >> be able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will >> still only be able to run Windows Apps. > > Having said that, why would I want to run anything other than WinXP > on my computers when it continues to perform flawlessly? This great news has brought Apple's stock up 10% today! Finally, Apple has seen the light and is coming over to the Intel/Windows camp. As for XP, I never thought there was another OS out there since it's the most secure and stable OS known to mankind. My XP box stays on 24/7/365 without a hiccup. Rita > >> Well, the primary point seems to be that in a year or so, Macs will > >> be able to run virtually ANY software. While Windows users will [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > most secure and stable OS known to mankind. My XP box stays on 24/7/365 > without a hiccup. Count your blessings and be happy, you're one of the very few. Greg Hi Rita, who said: My XP box stays on 24/7/365 without a hiccup. Yes, Great! And, interested to know if it has: a direct connection to the net, is behind a hardware firewall (or at least a NAT router), is running a software firewall other then the built in one, is used for email (with any form of outlook) and, could you guess how many security patches you load per month? (Yep, a reply to that _is_ too much work - glad your machine has been ok.) > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > Hi Rita, who said: > My XP box stays on 24/7/365 without a hiccup. I can answer for my machines ... > Yes, Great! And, interested to know if it has: > a direct connection to the net, > is behind a hardware firewall (or at least a NAT router), Are all connected to the net via a NAT & firewalled router. > is running a software firewall other then the built in one, No. > is used for email (with any form of outlook) Every last one of them. > and, could you guess how many security patches you load per month? None - the PC loads and installs them itself - and has done for many years. So, I run an old Mac, a win 95 box (never quits, also the print server), and two win2k boxes, and sometimes (increasing) Linux. I use a NAT/Router, and ZoneAlarm software firewall, AVG, and never patch the OS - why add new bugs on to the old ones...pretty soon some app or driver won't work. I use Mozilla or Firefox for browsing with safety settings, and Mozilla will pretend to be IE for picky sites. I use Thunderbird for email and turn off auto-loading of pictures and turn off Java script for email. So, my browser and my email clients are not risk-vectors. The most critical flaw for Win2k SP2 and XP (and anything newer) is the EULA. Microsoft grants itself permission to interact with YOUR computer, including disabling other software on YOUR machine. The second most critical flaw is the software's built in capabilities. Their software firewall can be programmatically turned off! Full socket support is a DDoD risk. "Features" in IE are proven highly risky, even without bugs. Default settings turn on way too many services, The default user has full permissions. The typical time for an unconfigured/patched box hooked directly to the net is something like 15 minutes. So, how does the new user get their patches? (Google for: unprotected windows internet minutes ) This is unacceptable. I could really see triple booting a Mac laptop: OSX for most of the time WinWhatEverIsTheOldest that will work, for the one app I have to have (of the month/client), and turn off all net access. And Linux as I move more and more operations to Open Source. Tom > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > > So, I run an old Mac, a win 95 box (never quits, also the print server), > and two win2k boxes, and sometimes (increasing) Linux. I use a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Tom I just wish I had a dollar for every piece misleading / alarmist / end-of-the-world dribble that people write. With all these "dangers" and "security holes", why is it that neither myself or any of my customers are being affected by them? Never. It just doesn't happen. The worst it's ever been is on the odd occasion someone opens an infected attachment. Personally I think in the vast majority of cases it's scaremongering drummed up by IT theorists to boost their egos and in many cases sell more copy. > I just wish I had a dollar for every piece misleading / alarmist / > end-of-the-world dribble that people write. With all these "dangers" > and "security holes", why is it that neither myself or any of my > customers are being affected by them? Never. It just doesn't happen. > The worst it's ever been is on the odd occasion someone opens an > infected attachment. YOU GOT IT!! Hell, you're greedy! I could be happy with a penny for each one of them. > Personally I think in the vast majority of cases it's scaremongering > drummed up by IT theorists to boost their egos and in many cases sell > more copy. It's just monkey-see-monkey-do syndrome that is parroted from one clueless person to the next. But, I do agree with you that there are massive amounts of money to be made from all of this artificial paranoia. Usually you will see a person that has a vested interest in the competition do their best to try to tear down MS. Rita > It's just monkey-see-monkey-do syndrome that is parroted from one clueless > person to the next. But, I do agree with you that there are massive > amounts > of money to be made from all of this artificial paranoia. Usually you will > see a person that has a vested interest in the competition do their best to > try to tear down MS. I have a vested interest in making sure MS products work. We have 12 full time deskside techs for 600 PC users backed by a team of 6 deskside engineers at HQ backed by a team of dedicated TAMS at Microsoft and Dell. And we have only one full time deskside tech for 80 Mac users, and he ends up helping with the PCs, and we have no deskside engineers at HQ for Macs, and no special deals with Apple. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > I have a vested interest in making sure MS products work. Once properly configured, MS products are so reliable that your techs will think they are the Maytag man catching ZZZZ everyday. > We have 12 full time deskside techs for 600 PC users backed by a team > of 6 deskside engineers at HQ backed by a team of dedicated TAMS at > Microsoft and Dell. And we have only one full time deskside tech for > 80 Mac users, and he ends up helping with the PCs, and we have no > deskside engineers at HQ for Macs, and no special deals with Apple. Fair enough. Out of the 12 of you what is really the problem with the 21,000 Dells you guys have? I'm sure one of you came up with the answer other than "it's Dell junk and we can't get it to work." You fix one and the other 20,999 units will be a snap. Rita > > I have a vested interest in making sure MS products work. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Fair enough. Out of the 12 of you what is really the problem with the > 21,000 Dells you guys have? I am no longer one of the 12 as I am now an internal customer of local deskside support. Me and my two current co-workers are responsible for our servers, on-air devices and edit stations. > I'm sure one of you came up with the answer > other than "it's Dell junk and we can't get it to work." Dell has just been replacing them and has been examining the ones we've sent back. Don't know yet what the RCA is. Greg > We have 12 full time deskside techs for 600 PC users backed by a team of > 6 deskside engineers at HQ backed by a team of dedicated TAMS at > Microsoft and Dell. And we have only one full time deskside tech for 80 > Mac users, and he ends up helping with the PCs, and we have no deskside > engineers at HQ for Macs, and no special deals with Apple. So what you're saying is 1 engineer per 33 PCs and 1 (part time) engineer per 80 macs? If that were the case then there's 1 of 2 possibilities: (1) You've bought non-complient hardware / software and setup it up and continue to maintain it in an incompetent fashion, or (2) The Macs really do require a lot less support. If (b) were true then the Macs TCO would be soo soo sooo much better they would have wiped PCs off the planet by now. The reality is however that the Macs are a failure - their market share has declined to the point of being practially non-existent and the switch to being able to run Wintel code is their last desperate attempt to survive. If those figures you've given me are accurate, I'd suggest that you've got some serious issues you need to get sorted. I personally look after several hundred PCs all by my lonesome - it's just not an issue. > > We have 12 full time deskside techs for 600 PC users backed by a team of > > 6 deskside engineers at HQ backed by a team of dedicated TAMS at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So what you're saying is 1 engineer per 33 PCs and 1 (part time) engineer > per 80 macs? To be fair it's 50 PCs per deskside tech, the 6 desktop engineers are responsible for a much larger PC population and they do things like creating SMS installer packages, managing SMS, and similar stuff in addition to being resources for the 12 deskside techs. > If that were the case then there's 1 of 2 possibilities: > > (1) You've bought non-complient hardware / software and setup it up and > continue to maintain it in an incompetent fashion, or Dells pre-imaged with our corporate image which was approved by our Microsoft TAM. Try again. > (2) The Macs really do require a lot less support. Clearly. > If (b) were true then the Macs TCO would be soo soo sooo much better they > would have wiped PCs off the planet by now. Uhhh, you have no clue about inertia, do you? The only reason OS X hasn't completely turned the marketshare around in the last 2 years is application inertia, that is the wealth of business apps that are written around MS products. > The reality is however that the > Macs are a failure - their market share has declined to the point of being > practially non-existent and the switch to being able to run Wintel code is > their last desperate attempt to survive. That must be why we're buying FCP Macs left and right for video editing, and managers in other departments are buying Macs for Photoshop, etc. because they're sick of malware ridden XP boxes. And the benefits of running reliable systems far outweigh the drawbacks of not being able to run corporate apps, they can always keep a PC in the corner for that. Greg >> > We have 12 full time deskside techs for 600 PC users backed by a team >> > of 6 deskside engineers at HQ backed by a team of dedicated TAMS at [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > application inertia, that is the wealth of business apps that are written > around MS products. Well, there's the little issue of manageability. >> The reality is however that the >> Macs are a failure - their market share has declined to the point of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > because > they're sick of malware ridden XP boxes. If your XP boxes are "malware ridden" then your administrators are clueless buffoons. > And the benefits of running > reliable systems far outweigh the drawbacks of not being able to run > corporate apps, they can always keep a PC in the corner for that. And XP running on a Mac is going to change this how? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >> > We have 12 full time deskside techs for 600 PC users backed by a team > >> > of 6 deskside engineers at HQ backed by a team of dedicated TAMS at [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > And XP running on a Mac is going to change this how? I don't know about you, but I give up - these "Mac radicals" live in their own self-perpetuating alternate-reality. Totally oblivious to the real world. When Apple and their OS finally disappear from the planet they'll probably all switch to Linux - still spouting off at "evil Microsoft" and their "bug-ridden virus-infected security-holed" products that the majority of the rest of the world run without problems everyday. > I don't know about you, but I give up - these "Mac radicals" live in their > own self-perpetuating alternate-reality. Totally oblivious to the real [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "bug-ridden virus-infected security-holed" products that the majority of the > rest of the world run without problems everyday. I just think that's really funny. First you talk about other people being oblivious to the real world, and then you make a statement that could only come from being totally oblivious to the real world. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I don't know about you, but I give up - these "Mac radicals" live in >> their own self-perpetuating alternate-reality. Totally oblivious to the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > oblivious to the real world, and then you make a statement that could only > come from being totally oblivious to the real world. Actually it's a realistic assessment of Mac advocates and Linux advocates, and we heard the same crap from BeOS advocates before that outfit went under, and there are still a few out there who are expecting a resurgence of OS/2. Hell, I got it the other day from some guy who thinks that the VAX is going to make a comeback. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Actually it's a realistic assessment of Mac advocates and Linux advocates, > and we heard the same crap from BeOS advocates before that outfit went > under, and there are still a few out there who are expecting a resurgence > of OS/2. Hell, I got it the other day from some guy who thinks that the > VAX is going to make a comeback. BeOS didn't go under, they got bought out. >> Actually it's a realistic assessment of Mac advocates and Linux >> advocates, and we heard the same crap from BeOS advocates before that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > BeOS didn't go under, they got bought out. Depends on how you define "went under". They don't exist anymore regardless and before you say "PalmOS 6", that OS was stillborne and 7 if it ever happens is going to be Linux. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > I don't know about you, but I give up - these "Mac radicals" live in their > own self-perpetuating alternate-reality. Totally oblivious to the real > world. I'm not a Mac radical. Other than supporting our FCP edit stations at work, and using my home Mac for iTunes and Photoshop I use OpenBSD on this laptop. And when I'm forced to I use XP at home on my Dell D600 laptop that constantly loses it's wireless connection to my AP, something that NEVER happens with my OpenBSD laptop or my Mac. The XP wireless stack is the most braindead thing I have ever seen. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > I'm not a Mac radical. Other than supporting our FCP edit stations at > work, and using my home Mac for iTunes and Photoshop I use OpenBSD on > this laptop. And when I'm forced to I use XP at home on my Dell D600 > laptop that constantly loses it's wireless connection to my AP, > something that NEVER happens with my OpenBSD laptop or my Mac. The XP > wireless stack is the most braindead thing I have ever seen. This sounds more likely to be an incorrectly setup wireless connection parameter in either the laptop or the AP. And what's really amazing is if you are very unhappy with XP's wireless management it just takes a couple mouse clicks to shut it off and use the one that comes with the wireless client. No offense, but I'm starting to get suspicions of what technical ability you really have. A good technician will find a solution whether by researching or asking for help. A good technician WILL NOT bash and complain about a product and act like it's the manufacturer's fault. There's no shame in saying you don't know. Rita >> I'm not a Mac radical. Other than supporting our FCP edit stations at >> work, and using my home Mac for iTunes and Photoshop I use OpenBSD on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > client. No offense, but I'm starting to get suspicions of what technical > ability you really have. I've already used my channels at work to talk to our MS TAM and tier 3 support at Dell. When using XP's wireless management Microsoft blames my problem on too many other APs in the area, I can see 22 from my home. And the only suggestion from Dell was to use the latest Intel ProSet drivers and exclude the other APs from my configuration, which I've done to no avail. Do you really think I sit around without asking for help from my vendors? Try again. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > I've already used my channels at work to talk to our MS TAM and tier 3 > support at Dell. When using XP's wireless management Microsoft blames [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which > I've done to no avail. See, we are starting to get to the bottom of this. If you are seeing 22 APs then your problem is clearly RF interference and not so much a software/driver issue. Depending on the signal strength of these 22 APs you might not be able to cure this unless you solder an "SMA" connector to the wireless client and put a horizontally polarized directional high gain antenna on it. You will need to do the same to the AP if you don't have a connector on it. An easier solution would be to migrate to 802.11a if wireless is a must. Personally, I would ditch the wireless for a hardwired connection. > Do you really think I sit around without asking for help from my > vendors? Try again. Hey, I've seen "technicians" with a lot more experience and smarts beyond both our capabilities do worse than that. Knowledge is only as good as to how well you apply it. Rita > No offense, but I'm starting to get suspicions of what technical ability > you really have. There is a trend I notice in these kind of discussions. Windows advocates first point out that *their* systems work perfectly. Well, of course they do; you have the technical ability to make them do so. Then, when someone is experiencing a problem, they blame the person, and try to explain in some deep technical voodoo how to fix it. Well, sure, you know how to do that. But, you know, most people (a) don't know how to do that, (b) don't want to know how to do that, and (c) have absolutely no reason why they should ever need to know how to do that. I can't fix my car's engine; that doesn't mean I shouldn't drive, or that I'm not good at it. It means I don't care to learn about that because I see no benefit in the massive amount of time it would take to make it worth it versus bringing it to the dealership. Windows people, on the other hand, value their skills very highly. They are, after all, both hard-won and valuable. They like knowing how to do that, and they like the fact that other people don't know how to do that. Not necessarily or even often because they like to feel superior, but because they genuinely like to help people, and this lets them do that. And this is why they like Windows -- it allows them to be an expert, to be better at something than anyone else they know, something that a lot of people need. Now, look at Mac people. No, in fact, look at Mac people who *are* highly technical and *do* have the knowledge and skills for that sort of thing. I'm quite sure I could set up Windows so that it would run just fine; but I don't want to. I am responsible for a whole bunch of systems at work; I do this stuff all day; so my own systems are Macs because I *don't* have to worry about that stuff. I can sit down and just use them and not have more of the same stuff I do at work. That they are Unix systems helps a great deal; I didn't use Macs until OS X came along, but it was a great relief to "switch" from Solaris workstations where I had to be a sysadmin at home as well as at work. And, when people come to me with their computer trouble, which as I'm sure you know from your own experience is quite often, my response is usually "I have no idea how to help you." And it's usually true. I don't know how to fix most Windows problems, nor do I care to. When I sit down at the computer I want to *use* it, not tinker with it, and when I'm in a social situation the last thing I want to talk about is computers. But then, on the vanishingly rare occasions that I have problems with my systems, I fix them. Others would still need help once in a blue moon, but not very often. My advice? Get a Mac, plug it in, turn it on. Anyone can master that. I'm a great advocate of the idea that one should absolutely *not* have to know or care anything at all about how computers work in order to do useful work with them. That is, after all, exactly what we expect of just about every other product we use on a regular basis. They should just work. Technical ability shouldn't enter into it. Apple has gotten closer to that than anyone else so far. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com 8< > But, you know, most people 8< There is something rather pathetic about watching someone who is clearly in a minority, pretending to be the majority. Remember what happened to King Canute? My advice to you is, get yourself some scuba gear! :o) SignatureI have no evidence for stating the above, but this is usenet, so I don't need any. <SNIP> > But then, on the vanishingly rare occasions that I have problems with > my systems, I fix them. Others would still need help once in a blue [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > shouldn't enter into it. Apple has gotten closer to that than anyone > else so far. So, what you are saying is that Mac users are nothing but mindless appliance users that don't have a clue or want one about the appliance they operate? And Macs are so reliable and trouble free that Apple doesn't offer tech support because their customers don't need it? You sold me, I'm crushing all my PCs and going Mac. Rita > So, what you are saying is that Mac users are nothing but mindless appliance > users that don't have a clue or want one about the appliance they operate? > And Macs are so reliable and trouble free that Apple doesn't offer tech > support because their customers don't need it? You sold me, I'm crushing > all my PCs and going Mac. I doubt you would post to this group if you could not talk computers. SignatureCarry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com > So, what you are saying is that Mac users are nothing but mindless appliance > users that don't have a clue or want one about the appliance they operate? > And Macs are so reliable and trouble free that Apple doesn't offer tech > support because their customers don't need it? That's the ideal to which computers aspire. Every time a normal user has to care how his computer works, any more than he has to care how his car engine or microwave oven works, we, the experts, have failed him. Apple certainly isn't there, either, but they've managed to get closer. What other industry expects its customers to know so much about the inner workings of the products, and yet still deal with so many problems? Do you know how to fix your television? Dishwasher? Air conditioner? Would you accept any of the above if they required of you what a computer does, in terms of maintenance and expertise? I think not. You expect those things to work, and not to break unless you do something very wrong. If they do break in the normal course of operation, you swear never to buy one of the same brand again. A good one is one that works for its entire expected lifetime without ever having a problem, and without ever forcing you to care how it works. It seems that most people who *don't* want the same thing from computers are the experts. Why could that be? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > There is a trend I notice in these kind of discussions. <snip insightful stuff> works for me :) SignatureCarry me caravan take me away, take me to Portugal take me to Spain,Andalucia with fields full grain. I have to see you again and again. www.gregblankphoto.com >> I don't know about you, but I give up - these "Mac radicals" live in >> their own self-perpetuating alternate-reality. Totally oblivious to the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > something that NEVER happens with my OpenBSD laptop or my Mac. The XP > wireless stack is the most braindead thing I have ever seen. Are you sure that it's not a hardware problem? Further, why are you running a wireless connection to your desktop? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>I don't know about you, but I give up - these "Mac radicals" live in >>>their own self-perpetuating alternate-reality. Totally oblivious to the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Are you sure that it's not a hardware problem? Positive. I've used 4 different wireless cards on the two Windows XP machines and they all exhibit the same problem. > Further, why are you running > a wireless connection to your desktop? Don't know what you're asking. I have my gf's XP desktop, my XP laptop that she uses, my OpenBSD laptop, and my Mac all connecting wirelessly to my AP. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>>>I don't know about you, but I give up - these "Mac radicals" live in >>>>their own self-perpetuating alternate-reality. Totally oblivious to the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Positive. I've used 4 different wireless cards on the two Windows XP > machines and they all exhibit the same problem. And have you tried a different AP? >> Further, why are you running >> a wireless connection to your desktop? > > Don't know what you're asking. I have my gf's XP desktop, my XP laptop > that she uses, my OpenBSD laptop, and my Mac all connecting wirelessly > to my AP. I'm asking because it makes no sense to me to run on a shared-access security hole that has 54 Mb _at best_ when you can run hardwired at 1000 Mb. > Greg Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>I don't know about you, but I give up - these "Mac radicals" live in >>>>>their own self-perpetuating alternate-reality. Totally oblivious to the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And have you tried a different AP? Why? You are a silly clueless moron. Two other OSes on two different sets of hardware have no problems with the AP. Why would I f.cking throw out the baby with the bathwater? >>>Further, why are you running >>>a wireless connection to your desktop? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > security hole that has 54 Mb _at best_ when you can run hardwired at 1000 > Mb. Yet again you pronounce your cluelessness. Please tell me you're not responsible for more than a handful of computers. Why would I need GigE when I have only a 6Mbps connection to the internet? Have you never heard of IPSec? Forgetting about IPSec because I doubt it's necessary for a home network have you really heard of any WPA cracks yet? And yet you're still walking around your house or office trailing a cable? Shared-access security hole? Are you stuck in the early days of WEP? Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > Shared-access security hole? Are you stuck in the early days of WEP? While I generally would agree with you when it comes to Mr. Clarke's ideas and statements as emanating from the clueless camp, he does have a valid point. Yes, wireless is more secure than it was just a couple years ago even with all the latest security measure. Wireless security today is still highly vulnerable to being compromised. Granted, it's not as easy as it was in the WEP days, but a person that has a bit of determination and some time on their hands can do it. That said, the only way to 100% secure a wireless network is to turn the radio off in the AP when not in use. My home wireless network gets toggled on/off via a toolbar icon I created for such a task. I can toggle it on/off from any one of the hardwired computers while I can only use the "off" option from any one of the wireless units for obvious reasons. Always go by the old adage of if you broadcast it over the air it can be intercepted and deciphered. Years back everyone thought spread spectrum was the answer. Boy, were they wrong. Rita > If your XP boxes are "malware ridden" then your administrators are clueless > buffoons. So you tell me how our Win2k and XP machines are being infested with spyware when the users don't have admin rights, IE's security settings are locked down enough to allow ActiveX on internal websites but not on external sites, and we're running the Antispyware beta ALONG WITH the enterprise version of Spysweeper ALONG WITH ISS' Proventia Desktop along with NAV. You'd be solving a problem that Microsoft hasn't yet solved for one of their largest customers. The only thing that has reduced the problem is increasing usage of Firefox. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >> If your XP boxes are "malware ridden" then your administrators are >> clueless buffoons. > > So you tell me how our Win2k and XP machines are being infested with > spyware when the users don't have admin rights, What rights _do_ they have? Power Users can install software too you know. Are you giving that privilege to people who don't have a legitimate need for it? > IE's security settings > are locked down enough to allow ActiveX on internal websites but not on > external sites, and we're running the Antispyware beta ALONG WITH the > enterprise version of Spysweeper ALONG WITH ISS' Proventia Desktop along > with NAV. Those between them are worse than any malware that's out there. You haven't said anything about a firewall. You _do_ have a firewall do you not? Is the spyware in question installed from ActiveX? Are you showing network traces consistent with the behavior of spyware or is it just all your antivirus crap telling you about it? If the latter false positives are common ocurrances--are you sure it's not a false positive? > You'd be solving a problem that Microsoft hasn't yet solved > for one of their largest customers. The only thing that has reduced the > problem is increasing usage of Firefox. What specific malware are you getting? Generic solutions don't fix specific problems. Also, are your machines configured to _not_ try to boot from a diskette or CD if one is in the drive at power up? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>If your XP boxes are "malware ridden" then your administrators are >>>clueless buffoons. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Are you giving that privilege to people who don't have a legitimate need > for it? We dropped power users over 2 years ago. >>IE's security settings >>are locked down enough to allow ActiveX on internal websites but not on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Those between them are worse than any malware that's out there. Sure dude. I'll have our security admins drop all that stuff soon as I get to work today. > You haven't > said anything about a firewall. You _do_ have a firewall do you not? Uhh, yes, we have firewalls and a heavily proxied network. We're doing a smart filter on the proxy to blackhole sites known to have malware. That stops about 75% of the problems. > Is > the spyware in question installed from ActiveX? Who knows. > Are you showing network > traces consistent with the behavior of spyware or is it just all your > antivirus crap telling you about it? You have no clue, do you? After a user complains about their PC slowing down most of our deskside support guys run a nice little utility called Hijack This that shows you everywhere bad stuff can start from, the Run keys, BHOs in IE, win.ini, etc., and many nasty self-mutating pieces of malware show up in the run keys and BHOs. > If the latter false positives are > common ocurrances--are you sure it's not a false positive? There are no false positives. Zero. The user calls the helpdesk when their computer starts slowing down. NAV is the only app we have that is configured to report to a central console and thankfully we haven't had any recent old school worms or viruses. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message