10.4.3 Security Broken. And we're a little surprised...

Please give comments on your experience with this version (in its corresponding section, your experience).

Please indicate the size (GB) of the download for those of us (56KBps) who cannot afford getting "fakes".

Please keep things civil. Only warning.

Dear Editors:

Please stop trying to antagonize Apple with your childish scorekeeping. What purpose does it serve to have a chip on your shoulder, egging Steve to knock it off?

 

Just give us the news without your neener neener I see your peener cheerleading.

Thank you.

Please keep things civil. Only warning.

i have to reply..

"only Warning" , whats that supposed to mean? We arent in grade school.

LOL .. anyways thanks for cheering me up, up until i read that, i was having a bad day.

Right now it seems the score is Apple: 2 (leaked) releases, Hackers: 2 releases. With Intel Macs likely on the way in January, it’s game point and Apple’s move.

Hi mashugly,

i agree with everything, but err... do you think it is wise to put this in some kind of "challenge"? Oh yes,

maybe it acutally is, but hey i like it peaceful

Oh please... STFU N00B.

 

You have almost no idea what you are talking about, yet are making some very pissy statements, so do not expect me to waste much of my time educating you here.

 

To make this really simple, to get the lastest and greatest versions of ATI and NVidia cards for a Macintosh, we have had wait at least six months after they have been introduced to the PC market.

 

Until a few weeks a go, when Apple updated the PowerMac line to the 970MP and began offering the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500, a true professional grade card was not even available for Macintosh.

 

Then of course, despite the fact Mac's just got PCIe, again notice we are talking about lag of about year or so here, we of course can not run two cards like ATI's Crossfire or NVidia's SLI.

 

Next we could consider that Apple was shipping the weeny NVidia Geforce 5200 as the basic card in most of the line, even including PowerMacs, until quite recently.

 

I am not going to bother saying anything about the numerous software issues here until you learn to do your f***ing homework before you open your cornhole.

Ohh, the big insults, I'm hurt!

Like I stated before

1) Windows platform out sell Apple, so the hardware and software companys put them first.

You keep tooting your own horn on what Apple does not have, and I'm just explaining what is offerd to Apple.

With Apple growing at a fast pace companys are willing to spend thier money and time to make products that are close to equal to what's out for the PC (windows) world.

2) my staement says's software also, where all you mention is hardware. Software is part of the tecnology and where Apple is able to stay ahead using great software to make apps work great.

3) Walk in to a media and /or graphics center and see what hardware and software you will see. It will be OSX. If not why would websites like this taking about getting OSX on a PC even exist?

4)3rd-party software and hardware companys are in the business of making money. That is the only reason Apple comes in 2nd when it comes to getting their software and hardware. But with Apple's great OS and pro apps, is what makes it "THE" OS used in graphics and Movies.

Having a fast motor does not mean you get there first down the track when your using cheap Rubber (windows OS) for tires.

So in short, before you go into your child mode and give a childish statment in the form of "I get mine first and it's faster then yours", do your homework of the over all preformance of the system for which Apple was primarily ment for, Productivity not Games.

I think that Apple hasn't implemented new protection in this release and woudn't bother with it too much.

In final release it should be a lot better. Even if it's cracked current Windows users would rather buy Mac because it's cheaper (if you want to build PC with harware as good as Mac hardware it will cost you a lot - my 2.6 Ghz Intel is much slower than 1.25 eMac). Their hardware will be optimised to work with OS X, just like IBM or DELL are optimised to run Windows. All home made cheap computers are slow because you can never get it right. If you want fast PC you have to get money out of your pocket and if you want fast PC with OS X it's just too expensive.

I'm waiting for PowerBook on Intel. It should be much faster than G4 and I hope Sid will releaase Civ 4 for Mac by that time

BTW did anyone tried to make a home movie from DV camera on PC? For all of you Mac users: "You don't know how happy you are!".

Solution: you have to try many video editing software just to see if they work on your PC and than start working. It's really getting frustrating.

I lost 3 hours on editing (Adobe Premiere works) and 2 DAYS on recompressing on DVD (trying about 10 different DVD authoring programs)!!! And there is no guarantee that it will work again the same way. That's PC world.

what about me?!

(if you want to build PC with harware as good as Mac hardware it will cost you a lot - my 2.6 Ghz Intel is much slower than 1.25 eMac). Their

I don't really agree. Mac OS X has been running very fast for me on Intel. A HT 2.8GHz P4 runs it notably faster than my 2GHz G5. And this is still beta software.

Calm down with the flaming, this is your 2nd warning.

OS X is a lot faster with 10.4.3 !

 

No more crash with iMovie and DV cam !

 

Xbench score 55 --> 110 !

 

If we can have 220 for 10.4.5 it will be good

so u can hook up a firewire dv cam, and use it to upload suff without a totaly uncool crash?

did u actually try it or are u just makin that up

i have to reply..

 

"only Warning" , whats that supposed to mean? We arent in grade school.

 

LOL .. anyways thanks for cheering me up, up until i read that, i was having a bad day.

Well, most people here seem to act like they are in grade school, so what do you expect me to say? Still stands, people should know how to act civil.

1) Windows platform out sell Apple, so the hardware and software companys put them first.

You keep tooting your own horn on what Apple does not have, and I'm just explaining what is offerd to Apple.

 

With Apple growing at a fast pace companys are willing to spend thier money and time to make products that are close to equal to what's out for the PC (windows) world.

Most companies (excluding design firms and movie production studios) have would never replace their equipment with Macs; Dells are cheaper and more useful to a company with employees who are used to working within the Windows platform. Those same companies aren't going to be paying their employees to go through a Mac training course (nor will they pay *for* the course).

2) my staement says's software also, where all you mention is hardware. Software is part of the tecnology and where Apple is able to stay ahead using great software to make apps work great.

Most software offered on Macs is no different than software offered on Windows. Excluding Apple's software (since it's only available on their platform, except iTunes), most software is offered on both. And it performs just as well on both. (I'm primarily talking about Adobe/Macromedia here.)

3) Walk in to a media and /or graphics center and see what hardware and software you will see. It will be OSX. If not why would websites like this taking about getting OSX on a PC even exist?

BS. You obviously don't work in graphic design, do you.

It's 50/50. Most companies that have Macs have older Macs running older software (ie OS9, three generations behind in Illustrator, etc) and newer PCs running Windows 2000 or XP and newer software (ie Adobe CS Suite 1 or 2). I worked for FedEx Kinkos for almost 5 years...I can assure you that from a company standpoint - Macs are being phased out. I worked at two branch locations - one had a graphite dual processor G4, the other had one of the new silver G4 systems (also a dual proc I believe). Kinkos *just within this year* upgraded to OSX and they're running...10.2 I think. It also runs like {censored} on their equipment.

Meanwhile they have 2.4 gig P4 Dells with a gig of ram using RAID running Win2k and Adobe CS1. I've spoken to several people at a corporate level about their Macs (including the Technology Systems Analyst for our region) and they've all said Macs are being phased out. Why? They're never used. Everything is run on the Windows boxes, including all the graphic design software. Not merely because it's a more recent version of the software on a higher end computer, but also because most employees aren't trained on Macs and/or don't like the Mac platform.

I left FedEx Kinkos in April and have since been working at a print shop...we have a 1.8g G5 which I upgraded with a gig of Corsair PC3200 ram (totaling 1250 megs of ram) and even with a clean install of Panther (10.39) my P4 3.0, gig of ram *built it myself* XP Pro box at home smokes this thing in Photoshop.

4)3rd-party software and hardware companys are in the business of making money. That is the only reason Apple comes in 2nd when it comes to getting their software and hardware. But with Apple's great OS and pro apps, is what makes it "THE" OS used in graphics and Movies.

What apps are better on a Mac?

Your lack of education shows.

I've used CS Suite on Mac and PC. It works equally well on both, but IME works better on the PCs I've used it on because the PCs are higher spec'd machines. Even still - if I was using a dual 2.7 G5 (which may be faster), the fact remains - the software works equally well on both. Quit acting like Photoshop is crippled on Windows and you can't save documents, but you *can* on a Mac.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Having a fast motor does not mean you get there first down the track when your using cheap Rubber (windows OS) for tires.

:censored2:

That's about the most typical of fanboy responses I've ever seen.

OSX is a good OS. Windows 2k/XP is a good OS. I've had good experiences - and bad experiences with both. I will say (with an honest and unbiased opinion) that I've had more problems with OSX than I have with Windows 2k/XP but that's *my experience*. Doesn't necessarily mean it's everyone's.

So in short, before you go into your child mode and give a childish statment in the form of "I get mine first and it's faster then yours", do your homework of the over all preformance of the system for which Apple was primarily ment for, Productivity not Games.

...and the Windows platform has plenty of productivity as well. And games. If you want to compare apples to oranges, then let's do it. Both offer productivity, but only Windows offers the most recent games. Therefore (using your flawed, swiss cheese analogies), Windows is the better platform.

I've seen better performance out of Windows boxes (custom built and manufactured) more than I have Apple boxes. I'm not talking about "my P4 has a higher clock speed than a G5 cpu", I'm talking about real world performance. I realize that people will try to say, 'hey, PPC G5 processors handle this and this and that better than an Intel/AMD processor will' and try and tie along "better performance" because of it. Well, again, my experience has been mostly sour on G5 computers.

That being said - I am planning on buying a dual processor PPC G5 next year when the Intel Macs come out (unless the Intel Macs are compared and found to outperform the PPC systems, which I doubt will happen)...I do plan on buying a PowerMac within the next year because they are good computers. It's nice to not have to worry about malicious ActiveX scripts and spyware/viruses...but anyone worth their salt knows that the only reason Macs aren't hit with more viruses is because they're the bottom of the barrel in terms of userbase and market share.

Most companies (excluding design firms and movie production studios) have would never replace their equipment with Macs; Dells are cheaper and more useful to a company with employees who are used to working within the Windows platform. Those same companies aren't going to be paying their employees to go through a Mac training course (nor will they pay *for* the course).

Nah, what course? Most of them work with Excel, Word and Outlook. You don't need a course for that, so

that is not the real argument. I think it just needs time for most companies, to see the plus that comes with

OSX. Let's wait for the OSX86 corporate edition.

I also know a lot of tech admins that easily can digg around a Linux system, and they use powerbooks, even

if the company workstations are set up with windows.

Don't forget that OSX is cheaper than Windows XP and It saves you costs with the administration. Also, let

us not forget the security. It is a free BSD, and has been officially tested as the savest system you can get.

Most software offered on Macs is no different than software offered on Windows.

No, there are some huge differences. Try to add a Verisign signature in Entourage, it is just three clicks.

Then, try to do the same in Outlook. Let's talk again in a few months how succesfull that was. :censored2:

BS. You obviously don't work in graphic design, do you.

It's 50/50. Most companies that have Macs have older Macs running older software (ie OS9, three generations behind in Illustrator, etc) and newer PCs running Windows 2000 or XP and newer software (ie Adobe CS Suite 1 or 2). I worked for FedEx Kinkos for almost 5 years...I can assure you that from a company standpoint - Macs are being phased out. I worked at two branch locations - one had a graphite dual processor G4, the other had one of the new silver G4 systems (also a dual proc I believe). Kinkos *just within this year* upgraded to OSX and they're running...10.2 I think. It also runs like {censored} on their equipment.

Problem is the non standard colour correction in Windows. It is useless, If you do not spend much money on

an extra device that will ensure, that your monitor shows wysiwyg.

What apps are better on a Mac?

Your lack of education shows.

 

I've used CS Suite on Mac and PC. It works equally well on both, but IME works better on the PCs I've used

it on because the PCs are higher spec'd machines.

Yeah, apply some filters on a 120MB tiff, I bet you never did. Get your self a coffee. Then, get yourself

another coffee.

I don't want to say that Macs are the nonplusultra. Since OSX they were also difficult to handle for someone,

who normally work with PCs. But you know that is history now. Also notice the platform change, and the

new possibilities for the mac that comes with that. For the first time, not the platform is making the

difference, but the OS. This is new.

Also things have changed, and Microsoft still sleeps. You know how long it took till Bill Gates noticed, that it

would be a good idea to integrate more internet abillity to Windows 98? And what did he do? He spammed

us with some useless bloatware named "Microsoft-Channels" for shopping in there, insted of making the

network easier to configure, or to set up new apps to communicate. Times are running too fast today for

such mistakes. Thank god.

Now we have the same situation on a different stage. Today it is most important, to have comftable

netmeeting-solutions and possibilioties to work together flawless and secure from different timezones.

Security remains to be a running process, and it is expensive and inefficient in Windows.

And take a look about presentations. You don't win a cup today with powerpoint and clipart.

It is getting exciting. At least a bit, because the dices rolled again, we have to face that.

I bemoan that with this fairly old thread finally just another discussion is disgressing into a tiresome Mac OS vs. Windows argument, but I have to react to the latest posting as I regard most of the claims in it to be rather unsubstantiated.

I think it just needs time for most companies, to see the plus that comes with OSX.

What does that "plus", the additional value you're talking about, consist of, in concrete terms?

Let's wait for the OSX86 corporate edition.

Sorry, I missed the announcement of this upcoming product.

Don't forget that OSX is cheaper than Windows XP

Is it?

and It saves you costs with the administration.

Does it?

Also, let us not forget the security. It is a free BSD, and has been officially tested

By whom?

as the savest system you can get.

Safest? In which respect? And which were the contestants?

You know how long it took till Bill Gates noticed, that it would be a good idea to integrate more internet abillity to Windows 98?

And in contrast to this, what did Apple proactively do? Please elaborate.

Times are running too fast today for such mistakes. Thank god.

Now we have the same situation on a different stage. Today it is most important, to have comftable netmeeting-solutions and possibilioties to work together flawless and secure from different timezones.

This seems to me like a rather -- ummm -- "creative" market analysis? Can you back this up?

Security remains to be a running process, and it is expensive and inefficient in Windows.

Microsofts has done a really bad job in several ways, but I also think this is a rather complex matter that shouldn't be oversimplified. I'd say a large part of today's security concerns are a consequence of Windows' attractiveness to hackers due to its widespread popularity and Microsoft's urge to dumb down the default settings and user interface with having the average, non-computer-savvy person in mind.

And take a look about presentations. You don't win a cup today with powerpoint and clipart.

That seems weirdly out of context to me.

What do you try to say with that?

Just a casual remark: Where I come from, PowerPoint presentations are not about "winning a cup", but efficiently conveying mostly abstract ideas. In order to be efficient, it remains necessary to avoid anything that might distract attention. This also means that in the majority of cases actually just the most rudimentary functions of a presentation software package, be it PowerPoint or Star/OpenOffice Impress or whatever, are used. This goes even so far that people who do not adhere to these unwritten rules and instead come up with a firework of fancy effects will eventually receive quite a cold welcome.

I am sorry for the mess, correct quoting seems to be not possible for some reasons atm.

terry wrote:

>I bemoan that with this fairly old thread finally just another discussion is disgressing into a tiresome Mac >OS vs. >Windows argument, but I have to react to the latest posting as I regard most of the claims in it to >be rather >unsubstantiated.

>What does that "plus", the additional value you're talking about, consist of, in concrete terms?

I have tried to answer this in my follow-ups

terry wrote:

>Sorry, I missed the announcement of this upcoming product.

While OSX-Server is doing quite well in business, OS X operating system is making inroads in the business community, according to a report from Jupiter Research. Now what do you think would be the next war after the platform change? Why should they even develop generic drivers, and make cocoa run on Windows? You missed nothing, but it just fits. the future will tell if I am right with this guess.

Microsoft already answers this with closing the support for the IE on mac. Well, we will miss not too much

but for Microsoft, this is meant as an attack. It is still their flagship.

terry wrote:

>Is it?

Yes it is cheaper.

OS X 10.3 $119.95 vs. XP Home Edition $189.95 vs. XP Professional $289.95

ritschingg. Just saved you 170 bucks, each.

And keep in mind the software package that ships with OSX.

terry wrote:

>Does it?

Comparing the network-ability of any Unix with Windows? C'mon, guess what.

terry wrote:

>By whom?

By the security specialists from mi2g

terry wrote:

>Safest? In which respect? And which were the contestants?

Well, the study analyzed 23.600 successful security breaches of continuously Web connected PCs worldwide.

You can take a look at the details here.

terry wrote:

>And in contrast to this, what did Apple proactively do? Please elaborate.

Well, in my opinion, they proactively decided to take the right basis, when they choose to stay on an

advanced NeXtStep architecture.

terry wrote:

>"Mistakes"? Thanks to their business politics, Microsoft today are more profitable than they were back in >'98, and the >Internet Explorer became by a long way the most used browser in the world.

Thanks to their business politics every so called innovation from microsoft only followed one big rule:

bind the user. And not to make things easier, smarter, safer. Ok, no problem with that, it is maybe just the

downside of business sometimes. But I, as a user, personally hate to pay the price for non standard

conform solutions. e.g. crappy browser-technology and fake-java, active-x security bombs and the fact that

every n00b automatically ends up with an admin account after install, what is very trojan-spreading friendly.

But to put it in a positive way, at least they created much jobs for the whole security-industry.

terry wrote:

>This seems to me like a rather -- ummm -- "creative" market analysis? Can you back this up?

Of course. Sorry if i did not wrote that clear, i simply meant that software today has to fit the needs of

TGOs. That means you have to create a highly secure global intranet, that should be not only fast but also

flexible. For example working together in realtime on the same project, drawing things together on the same

desk from Xinhao Hill, Berlin and L.A. in realtime. I think Microsoft already did the prerequisite very well, but

it is not perfect or finished. This is where Jobs comes in game. Using the existing ressources and optimize them with

compatible and smart apps that does not lack on useability and do not require huge administration efforts.

terry wrote:

>Microsofts has done a really bad job in several ways, but I also think this is a rather complex matter that >shouldn't be >oversimplified. I'd say a large part of today's security concerns are a consequence of >Windows' attractiveness to >hackers due to its widespread popularity and Microsoft's urge to dumb down >the default settings and user interface >with having the average, non-computer-savvy person in mind.

Yep, I absolutely agree with you.

terry wrote:

>That seems weirdly out of context to me.

>What do you try to say with that?

Just a casual remark: Where I come from, PowerPoint presentations are not about "winning a cup", but efficiently conveying mostly abstract ideas. In order to be efficient, it remains necessary to avoid anything that might distract attention. This also means that in the majority of cases actually just the most rudimentary functions of a presentation software package, be it PowerPoint or Star/OpenOffice Impress or whatever, are used. This goes even so far that people who do not adhere to these unwritten rules and instead come up with a firework of fancy effects will eventually receive quite a cold welcome.

Now this is just the end of all, what I feel about microsoft. The offtopic drop, that overloads the ocean for

me Talking about internal presentations, you are absolutely right. But the customer should see different

things. But you know, that is not the point, and yes, this is going offtopic, but it is the whole thing what is

pissing me of, beginning with the nasty search dog, and ending up with ugly design-aliens clipart or that

strange Office assistants. Business is also fun, working is fun. I like to work. It should not look ugly.

They simply have no taste.

Thanks for all the sources. I have yet to read them, so I will comment on just a very few points (for now ).

I am sorry for the mess, correct quoting seems to be not possible for some reasons atm.

The forum software is kaputt. It doesn't allow ten or so quotes in one single post. You have to split your posting into multiple parts, no one containing more than ten quotes, and post all these parts consecutively, then the software will automatically combine them into a single proper posting with all the quotes intact.

Yes it is cheaper.

 

OS X 10.3 $119.95 vs. XP Home Edition $189.95 vs. XP Professional $289.95

 

ritschingg. Just saved you 170 bucks, each.

 

And keep in mind the software package that ships with OSX.

I think that is some naive miscalculation. Firstly, both operating system are in no direct competition because they do not install on the same systems (but different ones with differing price tags). Secondly, virtually nobody in the Windows world pays these premium prices for the OS. Thirdly, I was more thinking along the lines of much-hyped "total cost of ownership".

terry wrote:

>Safest? In which respect? And which were the contestants?

 

Well, the study analyzed 23.600 successful security breaches of continuously Web connected PCs worldwide.

 

You can take a look at the details here.

As we're talking mainly about corporate environments here, this article does not specifically state whether private installations and malware infections have been excluded from the number of security breaches counted. I'd also like to know how much the widespread use of Windows compared to the rather small userbase of Mac OS X had an impact on the numbers. With so many Windows PCs in office use and Linux dominating the web server market, I'm not surprised that they're also the most successfully attacked systems. But following this logic, I guess I could also claim that in fact Zeta or ReactOS were the "safest" operating systems in the world. I have never heard of any successful attack against these systems in a corporate environment. That I also never have heard about any installations of these systems in such environments doesn't seem to be of any interest here.

terry wrote:

>And in contrast to this, what did Apple proactively do? Please elaborate.

 

Well, in my opinion, they proactively decided to take the right basis, when they choose to stay on an advanced NeXtStep architecture.

I do not quite understand. You were talking about what you perceived as Microsoft's lack of attention to the Internet. In which way is NeXTstep Apple's focus on a pronounced Internet strategy?

the nasty search dog, [...] or that strange Office assistants.

Hehe, I'm totally with ya.

That fisher-price puppy dog is the first thing I turn off with every new XP installation, it's so gruesome. I must confess I find the little sorcerer in the search dialogue quite cute...

...but, ahem, yes, these sorts of things look "slightly" out of place where they are.