Planning on buying Vista?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Garrot, Oct 13, 2006.

  1. Garrot

    ASAAR Guest

    Rubbish. Anyone with half a wit sees exactly what you're doing.
    ASAAR, Oct 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. A - buying components or a system expecting that they will work, and then
    expecting help when they don't. Photographic example: buying a 3rd party
    lens for a digital SLR.

    B - buying something knowing that it may not work, and then expecting the
    vendor(s) to fix the problem after the event. Photographic example: using
    a flashgun with too high a trigger voltage and damaging your new camera as
    a result.

    Was your situation (A) or (B)? Or something in between?

    I may not disagree with you about the possibility of a bugfix resolving
    the problems.

    David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Garrot

    Paul Allen Guest

    Sure you were. I think you're just arguing to be arguing, and I can't
    figure out what's motivating it. You're sharper than this.
    Talking about a "typical approach" is probably the wrong way to look at
    it. My problem with Win98 was a kernel bug. If I had found brain-
    damage like that in an old 2.2 or 2.4 Linux kernel I could have gone to and downloaded the latest version of my particular kernel
    to see if it fixed the bug. Microsoft made me buy a whole new
    "distribution" of the operating system.
    Nope, you're still insisting on missing the point. Recompiling the
    software is not even an option for most digital camera users because
    they use proprietary software. It *is* and option and a realistic
    expectation for digital camera users who use Linux or one of the other
    open source Unix platforms.
    Listen carefully. I don't really care if it irks anybody when Linux
    users talk about recompiling stuff. I don't expect Linux to ever be a
    mass-market OS that Ma and Pa Kettle would choose for their primary
    OS. All I want is software that doesn't suck and that can be fixed if
    the need arises. That obviously excludes Windows, since it both sucks
    and cannot be fixed when it breaks.
    Deliberate obtuseness. The hardware was and is fine. Windows was
    Running Windows 98 was not the primary requirement for the hardware.
    I chose particular components that would do what I needed under Linux.
    I expected a lot of trouble with Windows because it's always a lot of
    trouble. I didn't expect it to have a known bone-head coding error
    that Microsoft had known about for years and wasn't going to fix.
    That's what one gets when one deals with a monopoly. Generally screwed.
    Well, I think you're laboring the point because you just can't give
    it up, but let's not go there. :)

    I wouldn't have wanted a refund even if things worked like that in
    Seattle. I had exactly the hardware I wanted. It was unfortunate
    that Windows was broken and wouldn't run, but the machine ran fine
    without Windows. I was able to acquire a legal copy of XP Pro at
    no cost several months later and eventually got around to fighting
    through installing it. I boot it so seldom that it typically wants
    a half gigabyte of online updates each time. I avoid it as much as

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Oct 21, 2006
  4. Paul Allen wrote:

    Thanks for bearing with me on this one. I had simply wanted to establish
    whether the system was bought specifically to run Windows 98, and it was
    not. It is unfortunate that it didn't work, but at least you now have XP
    for the times you need it.

    Others have now also said that the Linux folk take a similar approach to
    bug-fixing, with older version of the OS or hardware not necessarily
    supporting the most recent applications or devices.

    Your need for XP Pro mirrors mine of Linux - I have it but boot it very
    seldom. I am not just Windows, though. I do have a FreeBSD system which
    works 24 hours a day, and very reliably. It has never needed an upgrade
    or reboot, but it is dedicated to a single task.

    David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2006
  5. Garrot

    Paul Allen Guest

    You're not thinking before you type. The Microsoft knowledge base
    article said if affected all machines with more than 512MB of RAM.
    Do you disbelieve Microsoft?
    I tire of word games. It was broken. I don't think you disagree.
    What are we talking about?
    What a silly question!

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Oct 21, 2006
  6. Paul Allen wrote:
    My own testing of Windows 98 in a 1GB configuration did not show a
    problem, but it was very limited testing. I have no specific reason
    either believe or disbelieve Microsoft.
    If the situation is that "to use 1GB memory, you need to enter a certain
    value in a certain file", is that really "broken"?
    In the circumstances which you described a short while ago, I agree it
    would not have been a sensible request.

    David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2006
  7. Only in *your* mind.

    Check out, for example, what revision level the Linux 2.4 kernel
    was at when the 2.6 kernel was released, and then look to see
    how many revisions of the 2.4 kernel have been released since,
    and see how many of the features first found in 2.6 have been
    back ported to 2.4.

    Or, alternately you can continue to obstinately ignore what people
    tell you and insist on rewriting what they say to fit you own bias.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 21, 2006
  8. No, that was what someone else in this thread said.
    That's useful to know, thanks. As I don't run that OS frequently, I will
    take your word for it. Does the same apply to application software, such
    as photo editors?
    Quite the contrary, I am asking with a view to learning more, and I am
    grateful for your information.

    David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2006

  9. ===============================================
    Macs have a lot of security issues too; It is just that the hackers
    don't give a shit about such a small number of machines and don't create
    viruses for them.

    U2. Mac OS X

    Multiple questions have been submitted asking whether the entire MacOS
    is a security risk. Of course not, any more than the entire Internet
    Explorer is a security risk. MacOS includes software that has critical
    vulnerabilities and Apple has a patch policy, described below, that do
    not allow us to be more specific in identifying the elements of MacOS
    that contain the critical vulnerabilities.
    U2.1. Description

    The Mac OS X was released by Apple in 2001 as a solid UNIX-based
    Operating System. Although Mac OS X has security features implemented
    out of the box such as built-in personal firewall, un-necessary services
    turned off by default and easy ways to increase the OS security, the
    user still faces many vulnerabilities.

    Mac OS X also includes the Safari web browser. Multiple vulnerabilities
    have been found in this browser and in certain cases exploit code has
    also been posted publicly.

    Apple frequently issues Mac OS X cumulative security updates that tend
    to include fixes for a large number of vulnerabilities with risk ratings
    ranging from critical to low. This complicates the tracking of
    vulnerabilities for this OS, and the best way to ensure security is to
    apply the latest cumulative patch
    U2.2. How to determine If You Are Vulnerable

    Any default or unpatched Mac OS X installations should be presumed to be

    The following procedure will check if there are new packages available.
    If you do not see any important packages patches available, you may be safe:

    1. Choose System Preferences from the Apple Menu.
    2. Choose Software Update from the View menu.
    3. Click Update Now.
    4. Check the items available

    To aid in the process of vulnerability assessment, you can leverage any
    vulnerability scanner.
    U2.3. CVE Entries

    CVE-2005-0126, CVE-2005-0418, CVE-2005-0970, CVE-2005-1331,
    CVE-2005-1337, CVE-2005-1342, CVE-2005-1721, CVE-2005-2501,
    CVE-2005-2502, CVE-2005-2507, CVE-2005-2518

    Safari: CVE-2005-1474, CVE-2005-2516, CVE-2005-2517, CVE-2005-2522
    U2.4. How to Protect against Mac OS X Vulnerabilities

    * Be sure to stay current and have all security updates for Apple
    products applied by turning on the Software Update System to
    automatically check for software updates released by Apple. Although
    different schedules are possible, we recommend that you configure it to
    check for updates on a weekly basis at least. For more information about
    how to check and run the Software Update System, see the Apple Software
    Updates webpage -
    * To avoid unauthorized access to your machine, turn on the
    built-in personal firewall. If you have authorized services running in
    your machine that need external access, be sure to explicitly permit them.
    * There are many excellent guides available for hardening Mac OS X.
    The CIS Benchmark for Mac OS X enumerates security configurations useful
    for hardening the Operating System. The actions suggested by the Level-1
    benchmarks documents are unlikely to cause any interruption of service
    or applications and are highly recommended to be applied on the system.
    Also, the Securing Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger white paper examines security
    features and hardening of Mac OS X.

    U2.5 References

    Mac OS X Vulnerabilities
    Apple Product Security
    Macintosh Security
    Security Announce
    CISecurity MAC OS X Benchmark
    Securing Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger
    Securing Mac OS X 10.3 Panther
    TheNewsGuy(Mike), Oct 21, 2006
  10. Garrot

    George Kerby Guest

    I do because some of my clients are stuck in the 20th century and I have to
    see what they do. It's a pathetic piece of shit tho...
    BTW: Reeboks and Weegens here, no open toes. Too ugly.
    George Kerby, Oct 21, 2006
  11. Garrot

    George Kerby Guest

    By responding?
    Git back to yer Grand Theft Auto...
    George Kerby, Oct 21, 2006
  12. No. Others have been trying to tell you how it is significantly
    different, and you keep twisting what they say back to the same
    utterly idiotic refrain that you started with. Hiding behind
    weasel words does not engender tender responses from people you
    insult when you twist words. (In particular, deleting details
    that you can't argue with and claiming it was "offensive", is
    not likely to save your reputation.)

    There is a *huge* difference in availability of the bug fixes.
    And you are hanging your hat on a fix being in what is called a
    new "version", and saying that is the same as with Windows. But
    that is semantics, not substance.

    The new version with Linux software is virtually *always* no
    more or less difficult or costly to obtain and install than is a
    simple bug fix only patch for an older version. That is true
    even with software that cost money, but of course most Linux
    software does not have a price tag for installation. There is
    simply *no* impediment to upgrading to a new version.

    With Windows software it almost always means paying for a new
    program, either at full price or at something close enough to be
    painful, compared to a free bug fix revision (that never happens
    in order to force purchase of new version). There is a serious
    monetary impediment to upgrading that is not there for simple
    bug fixes.

    You are correct that in both cases the software developers would
    just as soon everyone upgraded to the new version. With Windows
    software that desire is driven by the bottom line, *MONEY*,
    extracted from the user. With Linux software it is a desire to
    reduce the maintenance workload and provide better software to
    the user.

    One takes from the user and the other gives to the user, so I
    just don't see how you can continue saying the methods are the
    Check out the number of revisions to GIMP 2.2 since the 2.3

    As with the Linux kernel itself, we are talking multiple bug fix
    releases over a period of years after the next version release.

    Regardless, that is only a semantic difference, not one of
    substance. The xfig program does not do that, neither does
    groff, TeX, vi, Emacs, XEmacs or many other programs. There is
    no "support" for older versions, other than the release of a
    newer version. But that does not mean everyone has to pay an
    arm and a leg to remain current every time a bug is fixed!

    The "similar approach" is *not* between methods for release of
    new version of Linux or Windows software. The similar approach is
    in the ease of applying a bug fix update *or* migrating to a
    totally new version of a program. With Windows, it just doesn't
    work that way.
    Yes, it shows. Sort of like pulling teeth... you squirm and
    weasel, howl and screech, right up to the end.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 21, 2006
  13. The Apple commercials get it right; you have no clue.
    Randall Ainsworth, Oct 21, 2006
  14. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    I will not continue a conversation in this tone.
    David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2006
  15. You opted out of reasonable discussion at the start, why else
    do you think people are pointing out your deliberately obstinate
    Floyd L. Davidson, Oct 21, 2006
  16. Garrot

    Alan Browne Guest

    Read TheNewsGuy(Mike)'s post. Unlike your posts, his is informative.
    Alan Browne, Oct 21, 2006
  17. Garrot

    Alan Browne Guest

    It's funny that an Apple product uses Windows in factory testing. I
    understood that to mean that the iPod was being tested by factory test
    eqt. running Windows.

    Alan Browne, Oct 21, 2006
  18. Garrot

    Alan Browne Guest

    Not at all. Once the qualification testing is done (pre-production)
    which would include testing on Mac's, Windows and possibly other OS's,
    factory (serial unit) testing only needs to test the product to the
    point that shows there are no manufacturing flaws. The firmware in the
    unit doesn't change so if the hardware passes, every unit will be

    So I found it funny that an Apple factory uses Windows for production
    test equipment. Ironic. Could be, of course, that it's a contract

    Alan Browne, Oct 21, 2006
  19. Garrot

    Alan Browne Guest

    What I found funny is Randall's staunch (and wrong) Mac promotion and
    Windows bashing and an Apple factory using Windows as serial
    manufacturing test equipment. Ironic more than funny.
    See my reply to cjcampbell for more details.

    Alan Browne, Oct 21, 2006
  20. Garrot

    Alan Browne Guest

    Of course it's worthwhile and it's the main business computing platform
    for the entire planet. Perfection is the enemy of good enough.
    Alan Browne, Oct 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.