[synotic]

Originally Posted by HOM Well, you said it best when you said: Your assumption was that if iTunes broke it would be because Apple did a shitty job of programming. Like I quoted above: MS is gearing up for the launch of their music downloading service any minute now. This is just the sort of FUD that they need. "iTunes is buggy software that makes your computer unstable and it won't run anymore. Oh, did we mention that you were locked into Apple's proprietary music format?" I mean do I really need to list all the software that has mysteriously broken right before MS released a competing product? And now with DoHS on their ass to make Windows more secure the DoJ will surely back off the antitrust issues if it really does make Windows a better OS. Seems like a Win/Win to me for MS. Cripple iTunes for an indefinite period of time while Apple updates it. Get's the DoJ off their back for anticompetitive acts because they are making Windows more secure and thereby America more secure. I'm not saying that it is going to happen, just that I wouldn't put it past MS to do it.

I personally doubt that Microsoft will try and break iTunes. Even then, Apple obviously isn't sitting on their toes. Like every other software company out there, they know about this update. Microsoft wouldn't release a version of SP2 that no software companies have seen because that would just piss the software developers off. While one might think that Microsoft wouldn't care, the article states that Microsoft's already delayed the release of SP2 and included changes requested by software developers like Macromedia and Norton.

It just seems to me that the idea that Apple will be blindsighted by the the release of SP2 and scrambling to update the app seems a little ridiculous to me. Even if (big if) iTunes were to be mysteriously broken upon the release of SP2, it would take them what, 1, 2 days to get it fixed? I think it's already been shown that Apple has taken steps to make iTunes on Windows as perfect and bug free as possible. Any less and it would destroy any favorable perception of them by Windows users, analysts etc...

As for listing all the software that has mysteriously broken before the release of a competing Microsoft product... I'll take you up on that To me this sounds quite fishy. If the actual installation of a product broke a competing product, that might be news. But I think it'd be far too risky for Microsoft to do that. And scheduling Windows updates with new application releases? Also seems quite unlikely to me. I'm really curious, because you seem to claim tons of "Microsoft competitively breaking apps" cases occur. But I'll settle for two

[feend]

Originally Posted by synotic I'm really curious, because you seem to claim tons of "Microsoft competitively breaking apps" cases occur. But I'll settle for two

#1 Java

http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=36905

In its complaint, Sun alleges that Microsoft has engaged in extensive anticompetitive conduct, including: * Fragmenting the Java platform * Flooding the market with incompatible Java Runtime Environments * Forcing other companies to distribute or use products that are incompatible with Java * Significantly limiting Sun's distribution channels for the Java Runtime Environment * Intentionally interfering with the development of Java-based applications for compatible runtimes * Copyright infringement resulting from Microsoft's distribution of an unlicensed implementation of the Java Runtime Environment * Intentional creation of incompatibilities between Microsoft software and competing technologies, thereby raising switching costs for consumers and reducing consumer choice

That second and last bullet points being the most relevant.

#2 Lotus 1-2-3

http://www.lowendmac.com/practical/01/1106.html

A good case in point is the Microsoft antitrust trial. In the early 80s, Lotus 1-2-3 was the overwhelming choice for DOS spreadsheet programs, and with good reason: It was a wonderful program years ahead of its time. Microsoft produced its own, very lame attempt at a spreadsheet program (being an attorney, "alleged" spreadsheet program might be a more accurate term) in an attempt to wrest the market from Lotus (they failed; Excel was still years away). Around the same time, Lotus 1-2-3 started developing bugs. Lotus suspected Microsoft was purposefully manipulating DOS to prevent 1-2-3 from running. Microsoft denied it and eventually prevailed. Email from that time period subpoenaed in the recent antitrust trial produced a startling discovery. Email messages sent by the DOS development team of the day carried the tag line, "DOS isn't done 'till Lotus won't run!"

And someone already mentioned#3 DR-DOS:

http://www.linspire.com/lindows_mich...hp?id=65&all=1

So Gates gave orders to executives at Microsoft to purposely sabotage DR DOS. "Make sure it [DR DOS] has problems running our software in the future." And where it didn't have problems, programmers were instructed to create bogus error messages saying that it did. The tactic worked and DR DOS was forced out of business, leaving the Microsoft monopoly. Years later, MS paid more than $100 million to settle this case -- long after DR DOS was no longer a threat.

I find that the people who complain about unwarranted "Microsoft-bashing" are generally unaware of the firm's history. That last link has some good background info for those who've only been exposed to MSFT propaganda.

[synotic]

Originally Posted by feend I find that the people who complain about unwarranted "Microsoft-bashing" are generally unaware of the firm's history.

I don't see where I complained about "unwarranted Microsoft-bashing"? Although you are correct about my lack of knowledge when it comes to Microsoft. That was precisely why I asked the question; I was curious as it seemed to me to be too risky for Microsoft. Perhaps at the time of DOS's release, it was less risky. I still believe that Microsoft wouldn't attempt to mysteriously break iTunes at this time because it would get them in too much trouble. Even then I don't think it would cause too many problems for Apple for the reasons stated above. Thanks however for feeding my curiousity and filling in my lack of knowledge about Microsoft

[Messiahtosh]

If you want to know more about Microsoft's problematic past and present, check out www.kmfms.com

[BuonRotto]

I believe that MS did this "breaking" to Real Player too, or so it was claimed anyway. (Remember when streaming media was supposed to be the next Big Thing?)

[EDS66]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 A new security update from Microsoft causes this much of a tizzy? So this open, vulnerable, virus-laden chucklehead of an operating system is getting it's "largest security update", and it's viewed as some sort of planetary alignment phenomenon. Meanwhile, I download my OS X security updates and don't even feel a quiver... Can you imagine the calls those poor people at Symantec are going to be fielding? "My Internet broke! My worm ate my virus and swallowed all my e-mails! My computer disappeared...no, not the icon, the actual computer. I don't know where it went". "Call the police, sir. You've probably been victim of theft" "But I didn't download that."

My clients call me weeping about spyware that has brought their systems to a virtual crawl.

My fee is $200.00 to get rid of spyware and give alacrity back to the system.

I like Micro$oft and their fuckups. It makes me money.

[feend]

Originally Posted by synotic I don't see where I complained about "unwarranted Microsoft-bashing"?

That wasn't aimed at you in particular, just a general comment on people who would write off my comments above as Microsoft-bashing, with the implicit contention that they don't deserve to be bashed. As a keen student of computing history it bugs me that MSFT gets to rewrite their rather shabby past and come out looking like 'innovators' or, basically, anything other than crooks.

And this stuff (and worse) still goes on. The only thing worse than being a MSFT competitor (like Opera who just got $12 million for MSFT making their browser look buggy) is working with Microsoft (like Sendo did to their cost).

[curiousuburb]

Microsoft also intentionally crippled some versions of QuickTime (in the 95/98 era) in order to compel users to depend on .wmv, despite the fact that QT was a higher quality stream with better codecs.

From the Findings of Fact in the MS AntiTrust Suit come these historical refs

[InactionMan]

Yeah, MS has done some shady things in the past, but I agree with Synotic, the chances of MS deliberately breaking iTunes in SP2 is highly unlikely. Maybe you'll have to tweak a few settings to fix streaming or mess with your firewall to get the store going but it'll still happily play your music. Though I'm sure any Windows user that has Quicktime/iTunes set as their default media player(s) will have it reset to WMP.

Huh, reading through my own post I've said that MS won't break iTunes except for sharing music, using the iTMS and forcing WMP on Windows users. I guess MS will break iTunes with SP2.

[PhenixReborn]

MS won't break iTunes with SP2. After all, what would cause people to switch to a Mac faster than losing access to a few hundred dollars worth of already bought and paid-for music?

As for the whole thing about MS Windows, well, you can say it's crap, but here's the question: if OS X was given the same amount of time, attention, and TLC from the world's best (worst) hackers, would it stand up so well? Only those behind the curtain at Cupertino know that answer.

I mean, everyone calls MS's stuff crap, but how many of us have seen the actual polished code? As for the leaked stuff, anyone who is a programmer in here will tell you working code doesn't mean clean code. You clean and refactor code when you are done getting it to work.

As for the repeated trouble so many have with Windows machines, here's my take (for the 1.5 cents its worth):

I have a PIII Coppermine @ 1GHz. I've had it for over 3 years, with Win Me the first year and XP Pro since then. For the first two years I used IE before switching to FireFox. My reason for switching was tabbed browsing (as Brad can attest to) not stability or security. Also, for almost all of those three years, it's been hooked into a broadband network (either a college LAN or DSL).

Yes, I have had to reinstall the OS, about once a year. However, I've only done it once because of a virus or worm. My computer runs fine, isn't slow, doesn't thrash (unless I'm doing something that SHOULD make it thrash - like rendering or something) and didn't crash until I installed a Beta of Longhorn. The other two times were because of the desire to just wipe it and start over (too much crap installed, didn't know what everything was anymore and I like to know what EVERYTHING on my computer it).

My point in all this is that the reason Macs are more stable and Mac users have better results is for two reasons:

First, OS X does not get the attention from hackers that Windows and IE gets. That means fewer viruses written and fewer security holes discovered and exploited.

The other reason is because people who use macs are generally not stupid enough to download anything and everything that comes through their email, web browser, etc. People who use macs are just more intelligent than your average PC user. You buy a Mac because you know what you are getting. Most people buy a PC because computers are cool!!! (or something else just as asinine) PC users get viruses and worms because they (on average) aren't that bright and don't take care of their computers.

Mac users take care of their computers (mostly - Brad uses his like a lab rat).

As for me, well, I use NAV, ZoneAlaram, and I still run IIS (MS's Web Server) all the time. Yes Brad, I switched from Apache back to IIS...for developer reasons. Still haven't had much of a problem and don't expect to until the fans go out in my power supply (they're starting to vibrate a little). When that happens, I'll get down off my soapbox, go out, buy a Mac and join the cool club :smokey:.

Until then, I'll be here waiting for the response in a crouching and defensive position (just no tomatoes please).

[Edit: at no point do I mean to imply that MS is a good company or that they aren't anti-competitive; I'm just making a point about what I think is the biggest reason for Windows bad reputation]

[Brad]

Originally Posted by PhenixReborn As for the whole thing about MS Windows, well, you can say it's crap, but here's the question: if OS X was given the same amount of time, attention, and TLC from the world's best (worst) hackers, would it stand up so well? Only those behind the curtain at Cupertino know that answer.

Wouldn't you agree that most "problems" with PCs these days are related to a) something propagated via e-mail b) something installed by a web page or c) network-accessible services left open/running by default? A is mostly the direct fault of MS for, first of all, allowing Outlook Express to automatically run scripts in the preview pane as a default behavior and, secondly, not having a way to disable it. B can be great in theory (like not having to even think twice about installing plugins like Flash) but horribly destructive in practice. "I need to install Claria Date Manager for this site? Oh okay..." *click* C is less of a problem, but I still see PC users complain about getting popups every 60 seconds thanks to (unbeknownst to them) the Messenger Service.

A lot of it comes down to old fashion bad design and not thinking through the possibilities. Yes, as you said, one can just lay the blame on stupid Joe Sixpack, but isn't one of the first goals in Operating Systems 101 to make a system that protects the user from doing stupid things? I'd love to see the number of programmers at MS working on Windows and the number of people doing QA on it.

I mean, everyone calls MS's stuff crap, but how many of us have seen the actual polished code?

It's a little old, but here's a descriptive link: The Bloatware Debate. Sure, it cites differences of a few KB being a big deal because it was written five years ago, but it's the practice that should be noted. Scale those numbers up to the size of today's apps.

Mac users take care of their computers (mostly - Brad uses his like a lab rat).

Zing! Too true! Though, my four-year-old rat is still running like a champ. It's like buttah, baby.

[PhenixReborn]

Originally Posted by Brad A lot of it comes down to old fashion bad design and not thinking through the possibilities. Yes, as you said, one can just lay the blame on stupid Joe Sixpack, but isn't one of the first goals in Operating Systems 101 to make a system that protects the user from doing stupid things? I'd love to see the number of programmers at MS working on Windows and the number of people doing QA on it.

I'll grant that some of the problems could be avoided by better design, no doubt there. Of course, most of the "security holes" other than buffer overflows, are really features people are making malicious use of. But then again, a lot of those features will become necessary if the Internet ever becomes more than an electronic medium to download stuff to your computer. Do you think the unsecure features come from Gates' idealistic view of the computer world? What was the comparison you always used to make between Hitler and Gates?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by PhenixReborn What was the comparison you always used to make between Hitler and Gates?

Maybe it was this classic?

"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
(translation: "One World, One Empire, One Leader")

[curiousuburb]

Not sure if I'd have to search here or .com, but past threads on this topic have noted:

Windows ships with 5 open ports. Default state is insecure.
OS X ships with 0 open ports. Default state is secure.

SP2 is adding firewall functions to XP that were present in X three years ago.

IIS vs Apache... puhleeze.

We Are Morons

[synotic]

Originally Posted by PhenixReborn After all, what would cause people to switch to a Mac faster than losing access to a few hundred dollars worth of already bought and paid-for music?

As appealing as it is to think that being denied access to one's music for two to three days would cause mass switching (or even one switching), I think this is pretty unrealistic. If said person were annoyed by the issue or if the issue was prolonged by say, several weeks, then the end result, I believe, would be discontinued use of iTunes/iTunes Music Store. This is all on the assumption that the security update would somehow break the authorization of purchased songs or made it impossible for iTunes to read from the file system. I don't think that Microsoft could succesfully pull that off. What I think would be more realistic is Microsoft breaking the iTunes Music Store or music sharing. Again, give or take a day or two, and any issues there would be fixed. Also the article stated that what, "only" 3% of all apps would be broken? Isn't that a massive amount of applications? Of those apps, what percentage of them deal with the internet? Again 3%? 10, 20, 80? 3% of all apps seems pretty misleading if passed off as a "small number". Obviously I don't expect Notepad or WinZip to suddenly break. If apps like AIM, Firefox, Kazaa, Thunderbird (not to mention all the anti-virus apps) etc... and other apps tied to the internet are broken, then iTunes will be in good company and certainly wouldn't stand out as a bad app. Luckily for Apple, they have the resources to quickly rectify any problems that may come up that they weren't able to catch while testing with SP2 betas.

As for the whole thing about MS Windows, well, you can say it's crap, but here's the question: if OS X was given the same amount of time, attention, and TLC from the world's best (worst) hackers, would it stand up so well? Only those behind the curtain at Cupertino know that answer.

Just a few things to realize here, OS X's has been around for 30 years as BSD. It's code is open. If anything, it should be incredibly easy to hack OS X. But it isn't. Through the attention of the open source community, BSD/Unix has continually been refined and perfected. From my understanding, the majority of viruses and exploits aren't formed upon remote bugs or buffer overflows. Things like this are easily fixed and hard to find. Rather, they exploit the design of the system they are attacking. In this regard, OS X/Unix wins flat out. I'll refer you to some of the excellent points Brad made in the few posts above my own. Remote bugs and exploits of them are easily fixed. Both Microsoft and Apple have seen their fair share of them, and both companies have, in general, promptly fixed them. What's harder to fix is your design. The design constitutes the general flow of the system and includes things like behaviors of programs/functions and defaults of the system/programs. But this is exactly what Microsoft is trying to do. Fix the design, and for that I applaud them. What they're doing is emulating exactly what makes OS X and other Unices so virus-free.

Another point to realize, is that the best (or as you call them, the worst) hackers are in the vast vast minority. Creating a virus for Windows isn't rocket science, if it was, they wouldn't have the hundreds (thousands?) of viruses that exist today. It would take a particularly gifted hacker (even more rare) to truly take advantage of the design of Unix, and off it, create a virus. It would be the existance of these type of viruses that would necessitate a SP2 of sorts for Apple. But they're already at that point, so perhaps an SP3. On the other hand a "good" hacker may be able to find his own bug within a system and exploit it. But like I explained earlier, these type of bugs are easily fixed.

<snip> My point in all this is that the reason Macs are more stable and Mac users have better results is for two reasons: First, OS X does not get the attention from hackers that Windows and IE gets. That means fewer viruses written and fewer security holes discovered and exploited.

I won't rewrite everything I wrote above, but like I said earlier, the viruses based on exploits and holes are not the serious ones. Rather the ones that exploit the design of the system. Until these start pouring in (which be alarming not just to the Mac community, but the Unix community and all servers out there that run a Unix based system). That and the lack of truly "good" hackers and the overflow of copycat hackers and script kiddies.

The other reason is because people who use macs are generally not stupid enough to download anything and everything that comes through their email, web browser, etc. People who use macs are just more intelligent than your average PC user. You buy a Mac because you know what you are getting. Most people buy a PC because computers are cool!!! (or something else just as asinine) PC users get viruses and worms because they (on average) aren't that bright and don't take care of their computers.

To this I call bullshit. As much as I'd like to classify myself with a group of intelligent and elite users, well I won't. I'd love to see any statistics you have relating a user's IQ to the computer they use. An idiot is an idiot, regardless of the computer they use (not necessarily choose). Then you have to get into the issue of idiot vs. ignorant. Let's assume that someone's new to computers and want something simple to use, either you or I as a friend suggest a Mac. Now keeping within the mindset of a user, what's wrong with installing the "Claria Date Manager" (thanks Brad ) for a website? Honestly? As stupid of an idea as it may seem to some of us, to an average user, this type of thing doesn't phase them. This isn't idiocy, it's ignorance. I'm inclined to believe that this type of ignorance exists in the exact same percentages (if not more) on both sides of the fence.

For Mac users, there's no reason not to download every attachment in an e-mail or check out that "Really cool greeting card!". Because it doesn't affect them. If that same Mac user begins to use a PC, and continues his or her actions, and gets a virus, does that make the Mac user more or less of an idiot?

The fact is, lots of things which we may find funny or stupid are not obvious. We learned lots of the same things the way that "idiots" do. Through making mistakes and becoming informed, after being ignorant.

Using a Mac does not make you smarter. One might even say that a Mac makes it easier for an idiot to make mistakes without causing problems. Another might say that this is one of the strengths of the Mac. Likewise, using a PC doesn't make you an idiot. How many university professors, scientists and the like use PCs? Are they idiots? Perhaps to them a computer is a tool merely used to get a job done. Sure, there may be better tools out there, but it's secondary to their work. Do you always research toaster brands or furniture brands or do you simply make a choice based on features, how the cushions feel etc...? Does this make you any more of an idiot than the audiofile that dedicates his life to choosing the best audio equiptment. I may use crappy headphones, but for me it's secondary to actually enjoying life. I'm sure that someone out there thinks that I'm an idiot, but frankly I don't care. I won't become suddenly smarter after switching over to Sennheiser earphones over whatever's "in" now.

Another quick point I wanted make; how many times have you seen PC users asking about virus protection, spyware detectors and the like for Macs? Lots of Mac users generally aren't familiar with viruses, worms and spyware. In this respect, the PC users are more informed than a good deal of Mac users. It wouldn't surprise me if these same users were a lot safer and didn't download and run every attachment they got on their Mac. All this from using a PC.

Sorry, I've poorly presented my argument and used half a dozen analogies but hopefully my point came across. it just annoys me whenever I hear the baseless "Mac users are smarter than PC users" spiel.

Until then, I'll be here waiting for the response in a crouching and defensive position (just no tomatoes please).

No tomatoes, hopefully I wasn't too bad

[feend]

Originally Posted by curiousuburb IIS vs Apache... puhleeze.

But if Apache was as widely used as IIS then it would be targeted by hackers too. I mean, we all know there is no such thing as good and bad design in security, it all comes down to popularity.

Oh wait...

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html

[PhenixReborn]

Originally Posted by synotic Remote bugs and exploits of them are easily fixed. Both Microsoft and Apple have seen their fair share of them, and both companies have, in general, promptly fixed them. What's harder to fix is your design. The design constitutes the general flow of the system and includes things like behaviors of programs/functions and defaults of the system/programs. But this is exactly what Microsoft is trying to do. Fix the design, and for that I applaud them. What they're doing is emulating exactly what makes OS X and other Unices so virus-free.

A question first for my own education: when Apple releases an OS X update, how is it distributed? Net Download? Update Utility? Just Curious.

Now, things like buffer overflows and the like are easily fixed. Unfortunately, just because a fix is available doesn't mean people actually get the update and apply it. Remember Red Alert? A comp sci doctorate guy came into one of my senior project classes one day and showed us an animation of the spread of Red Alert around the world. Almost all of the viruses and worms that actaully make the news spread either through exploits like buffer overflows or stupid features like Outlook's attachment auto-open feature. I agree that exploits like that are easy to fix. But you must remember that PC users aren't known for actively updating their system on a regular basis. I know a lot of people complain about the Windows Auto Updater and how it probably has some security holes, but after all, if it gets people to update and close up holes, then I think it's a great app!

Design flaws are one thing and I think with Longhorn (maybe even with XP SP2), they will be much more difficult to find and exploit; as you said, MS is trying to redesign and make things better. I think the initial problems came from an over idealistic design group. However, code bugs and exploits will continue to appear and unless people willingly update their computers, those holes will not be closed. One thing PC users have to deal with is the fact that viruses on a network spread themselves. "You have it and now they do and now the network is jammed. Update your fricking computer!!"

Originally Posted by synotic Then you have to get into the issue of idiot vs. ignorant.

My apologies for this. I tend to equate the two. If you don't know something, it's because you haven't taken the time to become educated about it. First, I would like to state that I have no statistics (except for the kind I can make up right here) and that my conclusion has come from the general impression I've gotten of Mac users as I've gone through life talking about computers. From what I've seen, people who purchase Macs tend to know what they're getting. You mentioned making reccomendations to friends? How many times in those reccommendations have you pointed out the lack of viruses and worms that affect OS X?

If you'll allow me to rephrase my initial statement:

"I think someone who buys a Mac as their Personal Computer is making a more intelligent decision than someone who buys a PC."

Of course, what's best could someday change, but that's the way I see it for now.

And thanks for holding off on the tomatoes.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by PhenixReborn A question first for my own education: when Apple releases an OS X update, how is it distributed? Net Download? Update Utility? Just Curious.

Mac OS X's Software Update feature is enabled by default to check the first time a new user logs in (that is, the first time ever) and once a week. You can set the frequency of the checking or you can click a manual check button. Here's an old picture of Software Update's alert panel in 10.2 (from a quick Google image search). 10.3's is mostly the same.

[center][/center]

edit: Ha! I can't believe Kasper still hasn't cleaned up my giant catalog of images I put on AppleInsider's server ages ago. Lazy. Anyhow, here are images I took when Panther was new of Software Update in 10.3 listing updates, installing, and optimizing (prebinding).

As you can see, Apple bundles together "combo" updates for users that are several updates behind the current cycle (the 10.2.5 in that pic will update any system with 10.2.x to the then-current 10.2.5). Updates are listed by the name of the components they update and are accompanied by a description below. The items listed with the triangle-in-a-circle indicate that a restart will be required after installing. However, you can install a dozen things that each require restarting all at once and only restart once when they're all finished. Installing doesn't require you to close any running apps.

In 10.3, Software Update has an option to automatically download critical updates in the background. The feature is *off* by default, and even when it is turned on, the updates are only downloaded, never installed without your approving them.

edit: Important to note: any user can click software update, but only an administrator can download and install updates. You have to authenticate (yes, even if you are already logged in as the admin) after clicking the Install button above.

Alternatively, you can download updaters directly from links at www.apple.com which also typically lists a checksum of each installer for the extra paranoid folks.

Once an update rolls out, Apple stops shipping the existing Mac OS X CDs with new Macs and in off-the-shelf boxes and sends to the presses a new installer image that already has the updates rolled in. That means if you were to buy 10.3 today you wouldn't have to download oodles of updates once you'd installed it.

that my conclusion has come from the general impression I've gotten of Mac users as I've gone through life talking about computers. From what I've seen, people who purchase Macs tend to know what they're getting.

Are Mac users smarter? Yes, that is, if you trust the long-tested Nielsen Ratings.

[Escher]

Originally Posted by Brad "Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler (translation: "One World, One Empire, One Leader")

Not quite, Brad. Your quote translates as "one empire, one people, one leader." Plus, there should be an Umlaut in "Führer" (option-u, u).

Sounds almost like Big Blue (IBM) in Apple's 1984 ad...

My wife just left for a two week trip. First thing I did was remove the PC keyboard and mouse from my desk so that my Apple Wireless Keyboard and Mouse can shine in all their glory. The CPU is already out of sight in the back corner underneath my desk.

Escher

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Escher Your quote translates as "one empire, one people, one leader."

Yeah, I figured as much. I didn't think reich = world. I just did a straight copy-and-paste off some page I googled.

[Xaqtly]

Originally Posted by dfj225 I know I wouldn't want to deal with other people's Windows problems, but as far as my home is concerned its not much of a problem.

Then you're obviously aware that most Windows users have huge problems with viruses and spyware, not just the "stupid" ones, like you insinuated. If you're careful and run antivirus and anti-spyware software you can remain mostly clean, but that doesn't mean your PC is virus-proof; it only means that your PC gets tons of viruses and spyware but you are removing it before it has a chance to kill your PC.

This is not the case on the Mac at all. Macs are not susceptible to Windows viruses or spyware, and there are no native Mac viruses or spyware. As has already been stated in this thread, Macs are more secure out of the box than Windows machines. This isn't an issue of people not trying hard enough to make Mac viruses, i.e. "security by obscurity" - OS X is more secure, period. Even those proof of concept trojans couldn't break OS X's built in permissions, the only thing they could affect was the home directory of whoever was logged in at that time, and even then only after the user made a conscious decision to run the file. This is in comparison to the Windows side, where viruses and spyware will destroy your entire machine without you even being aware that it's happening.

My name is Xaqtly, and I'm a Mac user that lives in a house with a PC that has to run Norton Antivirus, Spy Sweeper and SpyBot 24/7 just to stay usable, despite the fact that we have a hardware firewall in place.

[staph]

Wilfully off-topic, but I can't help myself:

Originally Posted by Escher Not quite, Brad. Your quote translates as "one empire, one people, one leader." Plus, there should be an Umlaut in "Führer" (option-u, u). Sounds almost like Big Blue (IBM) in Apple's 1984 ad... Escher

It reminds me more of Laibach's cover of One Vision, Geburt Einer Nation, of which they said:

"Every form is political, you cannot say that Elton John does not have a political background. We've shown that Queen can be a very political group, we only translated 'One Vision' into German, it started to function as a political song. Some censorship doesn't do any harm - the state should close all the discotheques and shut down the concerts. Music is not a form of liberation any more, it is a very subtle system of controlling the youth…

Edit: oh look, they even have a sample up…