 |
 | 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 / July 2006Bye Bye RawShooter Premium
"In a brief statement Adobe has announced that it has purchased the 'technology assets' of Pixmantec, the Danish company behind the RawShooter raw workflow and conversion application. Adobe states that this acquisition "strengthens Adobe's leadership position in raw processing" and that that Pixmantec's raw processing technology will be integrated into Lightroom and other Adobe products. RawShooter Premium will be discontinued although the Essential edition will continue to be available and support for existing RawShooter customers will be available from Adobe." "Adobe believes this acquisition will not have a material financial impact on the company." http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/06062602adobebuypixmantec.asp Hmmm, I wonder what that was all about then? Lightroom likely to have proven too appealing, so quit while you can? > "In a brief statement Adobe has announced that it has purchased the > 'technology assets' of Pixmantec, the Danish company behind the > RawShooter raw workflow and conversion application. Adobe states that Well, doesn't that just suck!? Now some form of this product will cost three times as much.  SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > "In a brief statement Adobe has announced that it has purchased the > 'technology assets' of Pixmantec, the Danish company behind the Great. Don't like the competition? Then buy it out and stop selling it. Looks like bye to my favourite RAW tool then. I'll still never use Adobe's RAW stuff. >> "In a brief statement Adobe has announced that it has purchased the >> 'technology assets' of Pixmantec, the Danish company behind the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Looks like bye to my favourite RAW tool then. > I'll still never use Adobe's RAW stuff. Killing 2 birds with one stone? I think this also has something to do with taking a shot (a broadside, even) at a major competitor here. It would seem that Corel use the Rawshooter engine in their PaintShop Pro product, which as we all know, is a great deal more value for money than Photoshop is. Anyone for Bibble? ;-) [snip] > I think this also has something to do with taking a shot (a broadside, > even) at a major competitor here. It would seem that Corel use the > Rawshooter engine in their PaintShop Pro product, which as we all know, > is a great deal more value for money than Photoshop is. [snip] I believe they use ImageGear toolkit in PSP X itself? Then they supply RSE as an additional product. SignatureBarry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ > "In a brief statement Adobe has announced that it has purchased the > 'technology assets' of Pixmantec, the Danish company behind the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > available and support for existing RawShooter customers will be > available from Adobe." We Mac people don't care. I've used RSE on a PC briefly and didn't like it. I guess you have to use the right kind of computer when editing images. :-) > > "In a brief statement Adobe has announced that it has purchased the > > 'technology assets' of Pixmantec, the Danish company behind the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it. I guess you have to use the right kind of computer when editing > images. :-) I guess now Lightroom will be just as bad. :-) Of course, those PC guys still haven't been able to even try Lightroom.... >>> "In a brief statement Adobe has announced that it has purchased the >>> 'technology assets' of Pixmantec, the Danish company behind the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I guess now Lightroom will be just as bad. :-) Of course, those PC guys > still haven't been able to even try Lightroom.... ROTFL With Mac a dead/dying breed I'm in absolutely no hurry to try the VW of computing. >>>>"In a brief statement Adobe has announced that it has purchased the >>>>'technology assets' of Pixmantec, the Danish company behind the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > With Mac a dead/dying breed I'm in absolutely no hurry to try the VW of > computing. Dying, yeah, right. Final Cut Pro setups are the fastest growing editing stations on the market. And at my employer of 300,000 people we're rolling out Macs left and right. 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 > Dying, yeah, right. Final Cut Pro setups are the fastest growing editing > stations on the market. And at my employer of 300,000 people 300,000 employees??? Who the hell do you work for? The Red Army? > > Dying, yeah, right. Final Cut Pro setups are the fastest growing editing > > stations on the market. And at my employer of 300,000 people > > 300,000 employees??? Who the hell do you work for? The Red Army? Might as well be considering the bureaucracy around here. http://www.hoovers.com/ge/--ID__10634--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml Greg >> I guess now Lightroom will be just as bad. :-) Of course, those PC guys >> still haven't been able to even try Lightroom.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > With Mac a dead/dying breed I'm in absolutely no hurry to try the VW of > computing. While I am a dedicated IBM Compatible computer user -- and indeed, I earn my living developing software for this platform, I can honestly say that the Mac OS and its hardware platform is definitely NOT a dying breed. In fact, its adoption rate has been growing and a large retailer like Best Buy has taken notice and is testing a program in consideration of again selling Apple computers chain wide. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >>> I guess now Lightroom will be just as bad. :-) Of course, those PC guys >>> still haven't been able to even try Lightroom.... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > notice and is testing a program in consideration of again selling Apple > computers chain wide. Until Steve Job's gets over his arrogant "must control everything" attitude and finally does a full port of OSX so it will run on any Intel platform OSX and Macs will continue to trail far behind the Wintel platform. As with you, I've been a dedicated Winteler and also make my living on the platform but I can tell you without hesitation that if I could buy a copy of OSX today and put it on one of my Dell's I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm certain that Steve and Apple could grab a huge market segment if IT directors could deploy OSX w/o going thought the expense of replacing all their hardware. SignatureRob "A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing" >>>> I guess now Lightroom will be just as bad. :-) Of course, those PC guys >>>> still haven't been able to even try Lightroom.... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > directors could deploy OSX w/o going thought the expense of replacing all > their hardware. That's what he thought when he released NeXTStep as a shrink-wrapped product. We all know how that turned out. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) On 6/27/06 6:42 AM, Robert R Kircher, Jr. posted the following: > Until Steve Job's gets over his arrogant "must control everything" attitude > and finally does a full port of OSX so it will run on any Intel platform OSX > and Macs will continue to trail far behind the Wintel platform. Macs do not trail behind the Wintel platform; never have, unless your sole criteria is unit sales. As with > you, I've been a dedicated Winteler and also make my living on the platform > but I can tell you without hesitation that if I could buy a copy of OSX > today and put it on one of my Dell's I'd do it in a heartbeat. As would tens of millions of others. But it isn't going to happen. Apple has not aspired to be a software only company. I'm certain > that Steve and Apple could grab a huge market segment if IT directors could > deploy OSX w/o going thought the expense of replacing all their hardware. With the Intel Macs, that's possible today, to do so piecemeal without replacing everything at once, as you can run windows on the Macs that replace old equipment, and make transitions to OS X department by department. I don't know if it'll be wildly successful, but a number of folks on usenet have said they got their first mac cause they can now boot directly into Windows if need be, or run pretty fast in emulation, also if they need to. But those are individuals, not IT depts. SignatureJohn McWilliams > Macs do not trail behind the Wintel platform; never have, unless your sole > criteria is unit sales. ROFLMAO!!! I absolutely love this typical response. In business, what matters is unit sales. How many other "better" consumer technologies have eventually failed do to the lack of market share? Hmmmm anyone remember Betamax? Sony sure does. > As with >> you, I've been a dedicated Winteler and also make my living on the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > replace old equipment, and make transitions to OS X department by > department. The problem with this is again I have to replace my current investment in hardware. Sure I could do that with mactels but that binds me to one manufacture and in big companies and the government that's not what a responsible IT department wants. I would never be able to convince any of my bigger clients that this would be a good move. They want to know that the next time the contract comes up or its time to change hardware they can choose from multiple vendors. Steve is an arrogant SOB and if it weren't for the success of gadgets like the iPod Apple wouldn't have a pot to piss in. There is no good techical reason for OSX NOT to run on current Intel hardware. The only reason now is (the same as its always been) Steve's refusal to give up any sort of control over the environment. So fine if that the way he wants it he and Apple will always be second best even if the platform is technically the best. Its a damn shame because, even as a Wintel user I'm convinced that Mac OSX is a better OS and platform especialy for photo/vidobut I have to make a living so as long as Wintel has the market share I'm a wintel kind o' guy. That's the realities of life. -- Rob On 6/27/06 12:03 PM, Robert R Kircher, Jr. posted the following: >> Macs do not trail behind the Wintel platform; never have, unless your sole >> criteria is unit sales. > > ROFLMAO!!! I absolutely love this typical response. In business, what > matters is unit sales. Absolutely flat out wrong. What matters is profit, and over a long term. In the intermediate, cash flow and reputation are king. When these things are done well, shareholders become happy, which in some folk's eyes, is the ultimate thing of matter. How many other "better" consumer technologies have > eventually failed do to the lack of market share? Hmmmm anyone remember > Betamax? Sony sure does. Apple's hardly failing, and not due solely to the iPod, as you wrote in the part I deleted. (May respond to the last half later, but I think your facile concept of business is important.) By comparing Betamax to the Macintosh, you are of course re-emphasizing market share, and that a superior technology lost out to marketing and mass use. Yet it also implies that Mac is the superior technology, not what you intend, I'm pretty sure. Now, would you like to look at seriously high end products that have a minute market share? Dozens come to mind, and some, like Rolls Royce, are so ethereal that I don't include it in a comparison list of Mac v. PC. SignatureJohn McWilliams > On 6/27/06 12:03 PM, Robert R Kircher, Jr. posted the following: >>> Macs do not trail behind the Wintel platform; never have, unless your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are done well, shareholders become happy, which in some folk's eyes, is > the ultimate thing of matter. LOL You continue to invest in Apple... I've already made a fortune with Microsoft. > How many other "better" consumer technologies have >> eventually failed do to the lack of market share? Hmmmm anyone remember [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mass use. Yet it also implies that Mac is the superior technology, not > what you intend, I'm pretty sure. This is exactly what I intended. > Now, would you like to look at seriously high end products that have a > minute market share? Dozens come to mind, and some, like Rolls Royce, are > so ethereal that I don't include it in a comparison list of Mac v. PC. Remind me, who own Rolls now? Or are you actually saying that the Mac is the "Rolls" of computer platforms... LOL That's funny. John, here is the simple fact. Steve Jobs has held that company back from being the king of the personal computer world for years due to his own arrogance and stubbornness. If I were a stock holder I'd be pissed. Meanwhile Bill Gates/ IBM/ Intel have done everything business right to secure the market. All I am simply stating is that if Steve would get off his high horse and make a few simple changes to his platform he could really give Wintel a run for it's money and in many markets truly take over. As an apparent Mac user and assumable a share holder I'd think that's what you'd like to see happen. SignatureRob "A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing" On 6/27/06 1:57 PM, Robert R Kircher, Jr. posted the following: >> On 6/27/06 12:03 PM, Robert R Kircher, Jr. posted the following: >>>> Macs do not trail behind the Wintel platform; never have, unless your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > LOL You continue to invest in Apple... I've already made a fortune with > Microsoft. Great. I wasn't touting either stock. >> How many other "better" consumer technologies have >>> eventually failed do to the lack of market share? Hmmmm anyone remember [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > This is exactly what I intended. All righty, then! >> Now, would you like to look at seriously high end products that have a >> minute market share? Dozens come to mind, and some, like Rolls Royce, are >> so ethereal that I don't include it in a comparison list of Mac v. PC. > > Remind me, who own Rolls now? Or are you actually saying that the Mac is > the "Rolls" of computer platforms... LOL That's funny. Nah, I was not saying that. Too extreme a niche market. I held off bringing up any particular example of clearly superior products having a small market share because there's too much to argue over any given example. > John, here is the simple fact. Steve Jobs has held that company back from > being the king of the personal computer world for years due to his own [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > an apparent Mac user and assumable a share holder I'd think that's what > you'd like to see happen. I rather think the boat to dominate unit sales sailed years ago, and will never be won by Apple. I also believe that the new Intel Macs are a step in the right direction. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > On 6/27/06 12:03 PM, Robert R Kircher, Jr. posted the following: >>> Macs do not trail behind the Wintel platform; never have, unless your [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > minute market share? Dozens come to mind, and some, like Rolls Royce, > are so ethereal that I don't include it in a comparison list of Mac v. PC. So you're saying that one should buy a Mac as a status symbol? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > So you're saying that one should buy a Mac as a status symbol? Not needed, you and your clone buddies make the smallest differences important ones. > >> So you're saying that one should buy a Mac as a status symbol? > > Not needed, you and your clone buddies make the smallest differences > important ones. Well, now, you claim to fling poo and now you've shown that you do so, so clearly you are the weakest link. g'bye. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > > > >> So you're saying that one should buy a Mac as a status symbol? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, now, you claim to fling poo and now you've shown that you do so, so > clearly you are the weakest link. g'bye. Whadda mean?? g'bye >> > >> >> So you're saying that one should buy a Mac as a status symbol? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Whadda mean?? g'bye Oh, how cute, a little boy and his sock puppet. Since you don't grasp the concept, <plonk> you and the domain you rode in on. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Steve is an arrogant SOB and if it weren't for the success of gadgets like > the iPod Apple wouldn't have a pot to piss in. There is no good techical > reason for OSX NOT to run on current Intel hardware. The only reason now is > (the same as its always been) Steve's refusal to give up any sort of control > over the environment. So fine if that the way he wants it he and Apple will > always be second best even if the platform is technically the best. Granted, Jobs is an a.shole. But there's nothing in it for Apple to make OS X run on PCs. There's too much oddball hardware they'd have to support. Then you'd end up with a cluster f.ck like Windows, having to support every do-dad out there. >> Steve is an arrogant SOB and if it weren't for the success of gadgets >> like [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > support. Then you'd end up with a cluster f.ck like Windows, having to > support every do-dad out there. LOL... That is such an old and antiquated excuse. How bout we try to come up with some more up to date excuses. SignatureRob "A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing" > > Granted, Jobs is an a.shole. But there's nothing in it for Apple to > > make OS X run on PCs. There's too much oddball hardware they'd have to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > LOL... That is such an old and antiquated excuse. How bout we try to come > up with some more up to date excuses. It's the truth. Right now, Apple determines what hardware they support...and unlike M$, they also make computers. What would be the point of having to support every do-dad that someone makes? Screw 'em...buy a Mac. >> > Granted, Jobs is an a.shole. But there's nothing in it for Apple to >> > make OS X run on PCs. There's too much oddball hardware they'd have to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > support...and unlike M$, they also make computers. What would be the > point of having to support every do-dad that someone makes? Oh this is such a bogus excuse and usually comes from Mac neophytes who haven't torched a PC in years or ever. There's no need to "support every do-dad" as you put it; Microsoft doesn't. Simply stick within the provided compatibility list and don't buy substandard parts. SignatureRob "A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing" > Oh this is such a bogus excuse and usually comes from Mac neophytes who > haven't torched a PC in years or ever. There's no need to "support every > do-dad" as you put it; Microsoft doesn't. Simply stick within the provided > compatibility list and don't buy substandard parts. I have to touch PCs every day unfortunately. There's even one about six feet away from me. And I have earned a living through IT work for many years. What you need is to get your head out of your a.s and develop an understanding of the computer industry. Stop reading Dvorak would be a good start. >> Oh this is such a bogus excuse and usually comes from Mac neophytes who >> haven't torched a PC in years or ever. There's no need to "support every [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > understanding of the computer industry. Stop reading Dvorak would be a > good start. ROFLMAO... Well now you've made an a.s of yourself like you usually do and brought this discussion right down to your name calling and condescending level. Randall I don't care to get into a resume battle with you but suffice to say I've been in the computer industry for years in both development and IT on multiple platforms including MAC for clients ranging from fortune 500 to Fed Gov. I have an excellent understanding of the computer industry. I will state again. Mac OSX promises to be the best personal computer OS on the market today but until Steve Jobs and Apple pull there collective heads out of there a.s, to parapharse your so eloquent and intelligent comment, Apple and Mac will be second best in the open market. SignatureRob "A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing" > Randall I don't care to get into a resume battle with you but suffice to say > I've been in the computer industry for years in both development and IT on > multiple platforms including MAC for clients ranging from fortune 500 to Fed > Gov. I have an excellent understanding of the computer industry. Such an excellent understanding, indeed, that you don't realise that MAC has next to nothing to do with Apple. Mac, on the other hand, does. Ta ra, Luke SignatureLincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET) Swansea City 2-2 Southend United We went up twice with Tilly and Brush >> Randall I don't care to get into a resume battle with you but suffice to >> say [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Such an excellent understanding, indeed, that you don't realise that MAC > has next to nothing to do with Apple. Mac, on the other hand, does. I'm sorry would it have been more clear to you if I typed it this way * Mac *? Look this is a photog NG not a computer NG, and since it's obviously imposable to have a civil and intelligent conversation about this subject I'm done with it. SignatureRob "A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing" >>> Randall I don't care to get into a resume battle with you but suffice to >>> say [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > imposable to have a civil and intelligent conversation about this subject > I'm done with it. It is in general impossible to have a civil and intelligent discussion on USENET which contains the terms "PC" and "Mac". Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> Randall I don't care to get into a resume battle with you but suffice >>>> to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It is in general impossible to have a civil and intelligent discussion on > USENET which contains the terms "PC" and "Mac". Yes John you are of course correct. :-/ SignatureRob "A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing" > >> Randall I don't care to get into a resume battle with you but suffice to > >> say [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm sorry would it have been more clear to you if I typed it this way * Mac > *? Yes. After all, shouting is known to be poor form. > Look this is a photog NG not a computer NG, and since it's obviously > imposable to have a civil and intelligent conversation about this subject > I'm done with it. That's a relief. As soon as people start waving their CVs around they've generally run out of points to make. Cheers, Luke SignatureLincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET) Swansea City 2-2 Southend United We went up twice with Tilly and Brush > I will state again. Mac OSX promises to be the best personal computer OS on > the market today but until Steve Jobs and Apple pull there collective heads > out of there a.s, to parapharse your so eloquent and intelligent comment, > Apple and Mac will be second best in the open market. So what is your business plan for such a genius idea? Where would the incentive be for people to buy a Macintosh? Where would the incentive be for Apple to support all kinds of hardware? True, OS X beats the crap out of Windows...but then, that's not difficult to do. Did you see in the news today that M$ is dropping the WinFS file system from Vista. And the turd sinks deeper in the bowl... Randall Ainsworth (rag@nospam.techline.com) wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems: > > > Granted, Jobs is an a.shole. But there's nothing in it for Apple to > > > make OS X run on PCs. There's too much oddball hardware they'd have to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's the truth. Right now, Apple determines what hardware they > support Really? Then why is it that I must download ATI video card drivers from ATI in order to make the card work on a Mac? Even if the ATI drivers are included in the OS-X distribution, they are still written by ATI. This is how *all* hardware works on *all* open platforms. The hardware designer is responsible for the driver. This is true for the Mac as well as Windows. The only difference between the two is how much is supported (and how well) by drivers distributed with the OS. SignatureJeff Rife | | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Workaholic.gif >>>> I guess now Lightroom will be just as bad. :-) Of course, those PC guys >>>> still haven't been able to even try Lightroom.... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >that Steve and Apple could grab a huge market segment if IT directors could >deploy OSX w/o going thought the expense of replacing all their hardware. Why put a great operating system on Dell Crap Hardware? Signature"One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana. One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana. Banana, banana, banana I will buy you a sweet banana. Shield, spear and knobkerrie, soldiers in war and peace, In war she fights with bravery, I will buy you a sweet banana. "Sweet Banana" Battle hymm of the Rhodesian African Rifles >>>>> I guess now Lightroom will be just as bad. :-) Of course, those PC >>>>> guys still haven't been able to even try Lightroom.... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Why put a great operating system on Dell Crap Hardware? Same hardware, except for the box and the power supply, unless you're contending that Intel runs a special fab just to make chips for Apple. But you're clearly engaging in Brainless Apple Advocacy, thus proving once again that Apple's "friends" are its worst enemy, so it seems that there is little to be gained by reading more of your posts. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>> I guess now Lightroom will be just as bad. :-) Of course, those PC >>>>>> guys still haven't been able to even try Lightroom.... [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >again that Apple's "friends" are its worst enemy, so it seems that there is >little to be gained by reading more of your posts. Not the chip but the rest of Dells are crap hardware. Signature"One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana. One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana. Banana, banana, banana I will buy you a sweet banana. Shield, spear and knobkerrie, soldiers in war and peace, In war she fights with bravery, I will buy you a sweet banana. "Sweet Banana" Battle hymm of the Rhodesian African Rifles > Until Steve Job's gets over his arrogant "must control everything" attitude > and finally does a full port of OSX so it will run on any Intel platform OSX [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that Steve and Apple could grab a huge market segment if IT directors could > deploy OSX w/o going thought the expense of replacing all their hardware. Dream on...it ain't gonna happen. Buy a new Intel-based Mac and you can run your crappy Windows. >> Until Steve Job's gets over his arrogant "must control everything" attitude >> and finally does a full port of OSX so it will run on any Intel platform OSX [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Dream on...it ain't gonna happen. Buy a new Intel-based Mac and you can > run your crappy Windows. ROTFL Now there is a smart move. Buy a slowed down Intel based Mac Then run Windows on a dog computer. Then call windows dog slow and a pig because it crashes on hdwe not properly matched. OTH run Mac happy HS, and just call the bugs special features, rock on and be happy! What I find amazing is that Steve Jobs has total control of the hdwe specs, total control of the OS yet no matter what version or platform they all have their "special features" that somehow never seems to be resolved. Yet fools still buy imperfect crapola when they should be the closest thing to perfection ever built. > Buy a slowed down Intel based Mac Slowed down? Guess again, Bozo. > Then run Windows on a dog computer. Windows runs faster on an Intel Mac than on a similarly equipped PC. > Then call windows dog slow and a pig because it crashes on hdwe not > properly matched. No, I'd just call it a dog...period. > OTH run Mac happy HS, and just call the bugs special features, rock on and > be happy! Bugs? I don't have to install a dozen updates every time I turn on the computer. > What I find amazing is that Steve Jobs has total control of the hdwe specs, > total control of the OS yet no matter what version or platform they all > have their "special features" that somehow never seems to be resolved. Yet > fools still buy imperfect crapola when they should be the closest thing to > perfection ever built. Sounds like the Pengiun mantra. >> Buy a slowed down Intel based Mac > > Slowed down? Guess again, Bozo. Ayup! >> Then run Windows on a dog computer. > > Windows runs faster on an Intel Mac than on a similarly equipped PC. ROTFL, now that makes a lot of sense, yeah a lot of sense! >> Then call windows dog slow and a pig because it crashes on hdwe not >> properly matched. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bugs? I don't have to install a dozen updates every time I turn on the > computer. You do not have to in Windows either. In fact there are far less updates for Windows the Linux distro's. The reason there are far fewer in Mac's are because there is far less interest in cracking/hacking the system and drum roll please, far less interest in fixing "feature sets". >> What I find amazing is that Steve Jobs has total control of the hdwe specs, >> total control of the OS yet no matter what version or platform they all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sounds like the Pengiun mantra. Doesn't matter nor does it detract from the point. Funny thing, if it wasn't for MS Mac's would never have taken off in the first place. > > Windows runs faster on an Intel Mac than on a similarly equipped PC. > > ROTFL, now that makes a lot of sense, yeah a lot of sense! Independent tests have shown it to be true, but feel free to continue burying your head in the sand. > You do not have to in Windows either. In fact there are far less updates > for Windows the Linux distro's. The reason there are far fewer in Mac's are > because there is far less interest in cracking/hacking the system and drum > roll please, far less interest in fixing "feature sets". OS X is not based in Linux. And apostrophes are not needed when making a noun a plural. The reason there are fewer security updates for OS X has nothing to do with market share. It has everything to do with how the OS is designed. (HINT: Installing software requires the admin password - Windows does not.) > (HINT: Installing software requires the admin password - Windows does > not.) Really....? my Windows install does. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > > (HINT: Installing software requires the admin password - Windows does > > not.) > > Really....? my Windows install does. Right out of the box, Windows will not ask for an admin password when installing software. The majority of users are either too lazy/stupid to change accounts, or are unaware of the danger and how to fix it. >>>(HINT: Installing software requires the admin password - Windows does >>>not.) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > installing software. The majority of users are either too lazy/stupid > to change accounts, or are unaware of the danger and how to fix it. Oh, yeah... okay... it's been so long I forgot about the default mode. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>> (HINT: Installing software requires the admin password - Windows does >>> not.) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > installing software. The majority of users are either too lazy/stupid > to change accounts, or are unaware of the danger and how to fix it. Randy, I run as Admin, never have I had a problem of any sort. Point? For piss poor ignorant, slow, stupid users then run as less than an admin in windows, or ......OSx. You might want to ask yourself why, if older mac crap were so great, why the sudden change to OSx. Was Steve playing you and others for a fool? Then ask yourself why you are using bloat ware. > You might want to ask yourself why, if older mac crap were so great, why > the sudden change to OSx. Was Steve playing you and others for a fool? Why did Microsoft switch from DOS to Windows? > Then ask yourself why you are using bloat ware. Sorry, I don't use Windows except at work. >> You might want to ask yourself why, if older mac crap were so great, why >> the sudden change to OSx. Was Steve playing you and others for a fool? > > Why did Microsoft switch from DOS to Windows? It was a collaborative effort with IBM I can still run DOS programs in any version of windows. I can run moat windows programs in other versions. Heck, in fact windows programs are so popular and useful that they can be run in most other OS's in their native format. >> Then ask yourself why you are using bloat ware. > > Sorry, I don't use Windows except at work. You are using bloatware at home, why? Then ask yourself why other OS's are emulating windows. Why is the linux kernel looking more n more like a windows kernel? >>> Windows runs faster on an Intel Mac than on a similarly equipped PC. >> >> ROTFL, now that makes a lot of sense, yeah a lot of sense! > > Independent tests have shown it to be true, but feel free to continue > burying your head in the sand. LOL, get real. If it was similarly equipped then both would run the same. How about pulling your head out of your ...? >> You do not have to in Windows either. In fact there are far less updates >> for Windows the Linux distro's. The reason there are far fewer in Mac's are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (HINT: Installing software requires the admin password - Windows does > not.) LOL, your ignorance is showing, Windows does require an admin user name and pword. It can be over ridden by the admin. I never said OSx was Linux or a variant. Market share does determine for the large part what interest there is in cracking/hacking an OS. When there are not enough systems there is little interest unless something of real value was residing on the computer. Let's face it, there is very little of value sitting on most Mac's. Apostrophes can be used at ones pleasure, or not. > LOL, your ignorance is showing, Windows does require an admin user name and > pword. It can be over ridden by the admin. Out of the box, Windows does not require any authentication to install software. > I never said OSx was Linux or a variant. Market share does determine for > the large part what interest there is in cracking/hacking an OS. It has nothing to do with market share. It has everything to do with the security model of the operating system. > When there are not enough systems there is little interest unless something > of real value was residing on the computer. Let's face it, there is very > little of value sitting on most Mac's. Have fun with your e-Machine. > Apostrophes can be used at ones pleasure, or not. It's a shame when cousins marry. >> LOL, your ignorance is showing, Windows does require an admin user name and >> pword. It can be over ridden by the admin. > > Out of the box, Windows does not require any authentication to install > software. Wrong. >> I never said OSx was Linux or a variant. Market share does determine for >> the large part what interest there is in cracking/hacking an OS. > > It has nothing to do with market share. It has everything to do with > the security model of the operating system. Wrong. >> When there are not enough systems there is little interest unless something >> of real value was residing on the computer. Let's face it, there is very >> little of value sitting on most Mac's. > > Have fun with your e-Machine. I don't think they've made e-machines in years. I've never owned one. >> Apostrophes can be used at ones pleasure, or not. > > It's a shame when cousins marry. I wouldn't know, and you found this out how? Did you learn this after you were arrested? You are wasting half of the toilet seat in your outhouse. > > Out of the box, Windows does not require any authentication to install > > software. > > Wrong. You need to educate yourself about computers. >>> Out of the box, Windows does not require any authentication to install >>> software. >> >> Wrong. > > You need to educate yourself about computers. What an idiot. Cannot keep on topic, eh? We were talking about an OS. Windows asks for a pword upon initial installation. Then they assume however incorrectly that you should be smart enough to know how to set up a system. If you aren't, too bad, not the fault of MS. Your logic is terribly faulty, and that's being terribly kind as I am assuming you have some logic. > We were talking about an OS. Windows asks for a pword upon initial > installation. Then they assume however incorrectly that you should be smart > enough to know how to set up a system. If you aren't, too bad, not the > fault of MS. Your logic is terribly faulty, and that's being terribly kind > as I am assuming you have some logic. Windows asks for a password when you install it. But unless you make some changes to the default security model, once Windows is up and running - no password is required to install software. The vast majority of Windows users are not technically astute enough to know that this isn't a good idea. OS X also asks for a password when installing. But even without tinkering with the default security model, you will still be prompted for the admin password when installing software. > Windows asks for a password when you install it. But unless you make > some changes to the default security model, once Windows is up and > running - no password is required to install software. The vast > majority of Windows users are not technically astute enough to know > that this isn't a good idea. Ignorant idiot. >> Windows asks for a password when you install it. But unless you make >> some changes to the default security model, once Windows is up and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ignorant idiot. Excellent rebuttal. If I'm ever in court, would you consider defending me? With that elegant logic and shining whit, I'm bound to get off. SignatureAndy On 6/30/06 3:28 PM, Andy Mulhearn posted the following: >>> Windows asks for a password when you install it. But unless you make >>> some changes to the default security model, once Windows is up and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Excellent rebuttal. If I'm ever in court, would you consider defending > me? With that elegant logic and shining whit, I'm bound to get off. Pun intended? <s> Signaturejohn mcwilliams > On 6/30/06 3:28 PM, Andy Mulhearn posted the following: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > <s> I see no pun. I see sarcasm and an overused but appropriate spoonerism, but no pun :) SignatureAndy > > Windows asks for a password when you install it. But unless you make > > some changes to the default security model, once Windows is up and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ignorant idiot. I'm the idiot for correctly describing the default behavior of Windows? >> We were talking about an OS. Windows asks for a pword upon initial >> installation. Then they assume however incorrectly that you should be smart [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > tinkering with the default security model, you will still be prompted > for the admin password when installing software. ROTFL, so you're saying that stupid Mac users entering their pword when they install software makes it more secure? What you are saying here seems strictly defensive arguments for continued stupidity when operating computers. Linux distro's can not only require a pword for the admin but also force a user to setup a user account with no admin capabilities. So why are you not using one of these? >> OS X also asks for a password when installing. But even without >> tinkering with the default security model, you will still be prompted [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > user to setup a user account with no admin capabilities. So why are you not > using one of these? Just wait. These will be the same people who complain about LUA in Vista. >>> OS X also asks for a password when installing. But even without >>> tinkering with the default security model, you will still be prompted [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Just wait. These will be the same people who complain about LUA in Vista. That's for sure, these are the self same inhabitants from the valley of stupids which complained so much that MS allowed an XP boot requiring no Pword if setup that way. Cynicor (j..tru.p.i.n...@speakeasy.net) wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems: > > Linux distro's can not only require a pword for the admin but also force a > > user to setup a user account with no admin capabilities. So why are you not > > using one of these? > > Just wait. These will be the same people who complain about LUA in Vista. Why? Most of UAP (User Account Protection, the new name for LUA once Longhorn became Vista) results in giving plain users *more* access. Thus, a plain user can install a printer driver. But, since the driver runs as Local System, this is yet another way for virus writers to get their code into at least somewhat privileged mode. The worst part about this particular thing is that if you share a printer, then the driver is automatically installed to other machines that connect to the share. Easy virus propagation. SignatureJeff Rife | "I feel the need...the need for | expeditious velocity" | | -- Brain > ROTFL, so you're saying that stupid Mac users entering their pword when > they install software makes it more secure? Well, PEBCAK is always a factor. But at least the question is asked before the software is installed. > Linux distro's can not only require a pword for the admin but also force a > user to setup a user account with no admin capabilities. So why are you not > using one of these? You penguins are so cute. When are you going to wake up and see that your techno-socialist OS is *never* going to have significance in the desktop market? > You penguins are so cute. When are you going to wake up and see that > your techno-socialist OS is *never* going to have significance in the > desktop market? Have you any idea just how ridiculous that sounds? There has to be 100 *nix desktop systems for every Mac sys, maybe more. With each "upgraded" Mac OS there are less users, but I suppose you'll say that is just weeding out the intelligent people, eh? > There has to be 100 *nix desktop systems for every Mac sys, maybe more. Read it again bright boy. I said that Linux will never have a significant impact on the desktop market. You penguins have the masturbatory fantasy of dislodging Windows as the dominant operating system. As crappy as Vista will be, Linux still won't make a dent. >> There has to be 100 *nix desktop systems for every Mac sys, maybe more. > > Read it again bright boy. I said that Linux will never have a > significant impact on the desktop market. You penguins have the > masturbatory fantasy of dislodging Windows as the dominant operating > system. As crappy as Vista will be, Linux still won't make a dent. It already has made a dent, pull your head out of your a.s and have a look around. > > We were talking about an OS. Windows asks for a pword upon initial > > installation. Then they assume however incorrectly that you should be smart [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > tinkering with the default security model, you will still be prompted > for the admin password when installing software. Windows 2000 and XP - the latest two iterations of the OS - after installation, and when the system boots up under its own steam, will ask for a password, which you can disable - but it does give the opportunity. Also one can assign users who do not have admin rights, and who will not be able to install subsequent software or make substantial changes to the system. Only a user with admin rights can install or change software or system settings. Further, PC machines have a password capability in bios, which if activated, prevents the machine from even booting until the password is supplied. Further still, while I'm on the subject, most of Windows' problems with security stem from its overwhelming market share. If OS X - or earlier - had half the attention from malware purveyors that Windows gets, the users of same wouldn't be as smug as they currently are with their system. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Further still, while I'm on the subject, most of Windows' problems with > security stem from its overwhelming market share. If OS X - or earlier > - had half the attention from malware purveyors that Windows gets, the > users of same wouldn't be as smug as they currently are with their > system. No, it has nothing to do with market share. It has to do with the pitiful design of Windows. >> Further still, while I'm on the subject, most of Windows' problems with >> security stem from its overwhelming market share. If OS X - or earlier [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, it has nothing to do with market share. It has to do with the > pitiful design of Windows. You have nothing to back that pitiful statement up. > > No, it has nothing to do with market share. It has to do with the > > pitiful design of Windows. > > You have nothing to back that pitiful statement up. Look at the design of Windows vs. the design of OS X. There's no contest. There was a guy that had an OS X box running for several days and asked people to hack into it. Nobody did. A Windows box, on the other hand, wouldn't have made it through lunch break. >>> No, it has nothing to do with market share. It has to do with the >>> pitiful design of Windows. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > people to hack into it. Nobody did. A Windows box, on the other hand, > wouldn't have made it through lunch break. Illogical and stupid. I can throw up a system for others to hack, crack, or otherwise bring down and sit there and laugh at all others for at least six months. Maybe by then someone might be interested enough to try and gain entry, but I doubt it. Even if some clown put up an OSx POS system on the net and put a 100K prize up for the first crack/hack it would take a few days or weeks and that would be only if they had enough of the source code needed to break it. What you as a full blown idiot fail to realize is that NT was out for several years before it was breached. Ever wonder why? Probably not, you could not get your pointy little head around the fact that there were not yet enough NT systems out there to generate the interest. > yet enough NT systems out there to generate the interest. Generating interest has nothing what soever with hacking systems - skills to do so. Try understanding machine language then Os's & GUI are relatively transitory and meaningless. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> yet enough NT systems out there to generate the interest. > > Generating interest has nothing what soever with hacking systems - > skills to do so. Try understanding machine language then Os's & GUI are > relatively transitory and meaningless. LOL, do you even have a clue about what you wrote? Just a little clue? Naw, didn't think so. :) I realize this is an OT thread, but please people, get a life! If might be fairer if y'all just poked fun at others photos where it doesn't really matter what you know, just an artistic opinion therefore it could not be classified as stupid, or ignorant. Well, theoretically at least since some of you would inject so-called factual opinions regarding technique and how to "properly" use that technique. A couple of you are just lame trolls, and I really do mean lame, possibly some of those lame skills are just due to your age factor and you'd be better off trying to remember stories to tell your grand kids. OOPS, my bad, cause you were neutered when you were young just to prevent such a calamity, sorry. :( > LOL, do you even have a clue about what you wrote? Just a little clue? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > A couple of you are just lame trolls, Pot, Kettle -Black. > and I really do mean lame, possibly > some of those lame skills are just due to your age factor and you'd be > better off trying to remember stories to tell your grand kids. OOPS, my > bad, cause you were neutered when you were young just to prevent such a > calamity, sorry. :( You should keep better records, then you would know 99.99% of spineless dick les dweebs like yourself, use aliases to spew their baseless opinions-in an effort to gain some sort of misguided recognition. Your a queer troll plain and simple. NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.109.119.84 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net I know enough. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> LOL, do you even have a clue about what you wrote? Just a little clue? >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Pot, Kettle -Black. Sorry dipshit, I didn't start this, and you just jumped in with another lame a.s to insert your pointy head into the fray without cause since you're just as stupid as the other MF'r. >> and I really do mean lame, possibly >> some of those lame skills are just due to your age factor and you'd be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > opinions-in an effort to gain some sort of misguided recognition. Your > a queer troll plain and simple. BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Like I'm going to keep records on dipshits. Sorry, pukehead, I've got better things to do then keep records on losers like you. Sides you sorry assed dweeb, your using a nym yourself, yet you complain about others? LMAO > NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.109.119.84 > X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net > > I know enough. You don't know jackshit you lame a.s MF, so you know how to read a little bit of the headers, BFD, if you had just a little bit of net sense then you'd know what you posted was worthless. Next thing we'll see here is you using the almighty PLONK, feel free if it gets you off like some of these other sorry assed old farts, hell, they'll all be dead soon enough, no need to plonk them, let the reaper have its way with them. Or.... you can just run along and MYOFB. ;) > > yet enough NT systems out there to generate the interest. > > Generating interest has nothing what soever with hacking systems - > skills to do so. Try understanding machine language then Os's & GUI are > relatively transitory and meaningless. What? hackers and malware mongers get their rocks off by compromising the most computers they can - those running on MS. Low-market-penetration systems have no reward for their mindset. Which is where Mac types are just plain lucky their system is relatively rare, like about 4% and shrinking of the market for computers. Otherwise they would find malware targeting the various Mac OS's. Mac software is not significantly more bulletproof than MS - it just that nobody fires bullets at it. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > > yet enough NT systems out there to generate the interest. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Colin D. The point was - if one is inclined to hack a system one will do so regardless. There are no other incentives beyond damaging systems? SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > What? hackers and malware mongers get their rocks off by compromising > the most computers they can - those running on MS. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Colin D. BS. What self-respecting hacker wouldn't have his rocks off as far as possible if he could claim that HE wrote the first real OS X virus? Just to shut up all of the Macisti that say there's never been one would be worth it. World fame. > What? hackers and malware mongers get their rocks off by compromising > the most computers they can - those running on MS. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > significantly more bulletproof than MS - it just that nobody fires > bullets at it. What is is you retards don't understand? OS X is secure, not because of their 5% market share, but because the operating system is designed better than Windows. >> What? hackers and malware mongers get their rocks off by compromising >> the most computers they can - those running on MS. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > their 5% market share, but because the operating system is designed > better than Windows. You are as ignorant as Greg. Besides, it has already been breached. Deal with it. >>> What? hackers and malware mongers get their rocks off by compromising >>> the most computers they can - those running on MS. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >You are as ignorant as Greg. Besides, it has already been breached. Deal >with it. Not weekly like MicroSerf... Signature"One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana. One, two, and the Depot RAR-O, I will buy you a sweet Banana. Banana, banana, banana I will buy you a sweet banana. Shield, spear and knobkerrie, soldiers in war and peace, In war she fights with bravery, I will buy you a sweet banana. "Sweet Banana" Battle hymm of the Rhodesian African Rifles > You are as ignorant as Greg. Besides, it has already been breached. Deal > with it. Define "breached." There are still no OS X viruses/spyware out in the wild. >> You are as ignorant as Greg. Besides, it has already been breached. Deal >> with it. > > Define "breached." There are still no OS X viruses/spyware out in the > wild. You cannot prove that you ignorant toad. Why should I define something you are unaware of, eh? Use your defensive network tools to verify your system is secure. What's that you say? Huh! Oh! you don't have any and if you did you wouldn't have the foggiest idea on how to use them? Yeah, your system is secure, count on it. ;) About the only thing you can really count on is that I am not feeding you or any other user any malware via the Usenet. A review of my headers would show you why. But don't feel too smug in your newfound knowledge as I do not always post with this box/sys/whatever. Oh, and regarding spyware? LOL what tree did you fall out of. The minute you loaded up that system and hit the net you were being traced, some of the info resides on your computer and some resides on servers that you hit. So do not feel so smug about not being spied on, and that is only the least of it. > >> What? hackers and malware mongers get their rocks off by compromising > >> the most computers they can - those running on MS. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You are as ignorant as Greg. Besides, it has already been breached. Deal > with it. Funny that I get branded as ignorant by a trool never the less, when I stated originally that hacking skills have nothing to do with interest in hacking.....that the skills to do so are non relative to the interest in actually following through and hacking any system. I really wasn't advocating any one system...however My take is this: If a man can make it -a man can break it. End of tire kicking session. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >>>> What? hackers and malware mongers get their rocks off by compromising >>>> the most computers they can - those running on MS. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > in hacking.....that the skills to do so are non relative to the interest > in actually following through and hacking any system. You are ignorant, and you are wrong. There are a few purists, but even most of them abide by the weight of importance to an issue. > I really wasn't > advocating any one system...however Yes you were. > My take is this: If a man can make it -a man can break it. End of tire > kicking session. No sh.t sherlock. >> yet enough NT systems out there to generate the interest. > > Generating interest has nothing what soever with hacking systems - > skills to do so. Try understanding machine language then Os's & GUI are > relatively transitory and meaningless. Your assertion is the sort that is typically made by one who has no first hand knowledge of machine code, operating systems, or hacking. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message