Posted on 07/13/2004 10:58:55 AM PDT by Eagle9
3 machines ... no problems.
Added plus ... Internet Explorer now AUTOMATICALLY blocks pop-ups. You have to click below the Address bar to allow IE to either open a window, or allow a download.
No stability issues .... going on 5 weeks since installation.
**** This is MY milage and experience; on MY machines. My machines run 24/7 and without incident for ~5 weeks. YOUR milage may vary.
Does that mean it will block adware, spyware, and malware?
Wow.. only a year after Safari and lots of other browsers did it. Microsoft's "designers" are getting better!
What will they think of next?
Maybe something radical like tabbed browsing...
Best windows update site ever: http://www.debian.org
Uhhh... I don't like looking at THIS:
Security Advisories [03 Jul 2004] DSA-527 pavuk - buffer overflow [03 Jul 2004] DSA-526 webmin - several vulnerabilities [24 Jun 2004] DSA-525 apache - buffer overflow [19 Jun 2004] DSA-524 rlpr - several vulnerabilities [19 Jun 2004] DSA-523 www-sql - buffer overflow [19 Jun 2004] DSA-522 super - format string vulnerability [18 Jun 2004] DSA-521 sup - format string vulnerability [16 Jun 2004] DSA-520 krb5 - buffer overflows [15 Jun 2004] DSA-519 cvs - several vulnerabilities [14 Jun 2004] DSA-518 kdelibs - unsanitised inputI'll stick with my Macs, thanks.
Remember that advisories are posted when issues are found during code auditing as well as the appearance of exploits. Patches are available within hours.
Even Apple doesn't patch that quicky.
apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade
That is it, you can even set it to check for new updates every 24 hours if you want.
That is the intent. To the best of my knowledge, IE will now prevent MOST forms of malware from being automatically installed. However, if the user choses to download and install programs with malware built in .... programs like Ad-aware, and Spyware - Search & Destroy will help clean them out. The intent is to help prevent automatic installations, without preventing the user from contaminating his own machine.
One of the key things about Windows is; unlike the competition (Apple) there are a plethora of motherboard manufacturers, processor manufacturers, memory, North and South Bridge's and components under the sun that need support. Apple has a unique stance, as they 'define' what is, and what is not a 'Mac'.
With that said, Windows users get 'FREE' upgrades and support. You can still download 'FREE' service packs from Win98. With Apple, you must PURCHASE your updates, each and every time.
Apple makes a better machine, it's more stable, and it's easier to use. It's due to complete and utter incompetence, stupidity, and incredably poor business sense that Mac enjoys >10% marketshare instead of the <90% marketshare it had in the early 80's. Needless to say, things haven't improved much in the past 20 years.
For example, if Mac ported it's OS to the x86 processor; I would expect them to take marketshare by storm. Considering that Mac's are now a user interface riding on top of Unix (hence their stabilty), and Unix has existed for the x86 for decades; there is no reason why the Mac OS is not available for x86 machines today. I (personally) have witnessed the Mac OS running on x86 processors in the early 90's.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Windows ping!
It's about time. I know of a number of folks who have switched from MS Internet Explorer to FireFox to avoid such downloads.
Does this mean it will fix my noisy fan?
Horse puckey - that is a lie.
I have gotten 4 or 5 free updates since the last major release, last November.
there is no reason why the Mac OS is not available for x86 machines today.
Again, Horse puckey.
The technical reasons are few, I'll agree - related to the plethora of machines and manufacturers you mentioned.
But the real reason is economic, and quite valid - Apple is a HARDWARE company. If they released OS X for X86 (there has been a working port for years, as I understand it), their hardware business would dry up immediately, because people will buy stuff that has a lower price, rather than stuff that has a lower cost.
That statement is wrong and just plain ignorant. Apple only charges for major updates. The majority of updates are free.
You stated " That statement is wrong and just plain ignorant. Apple only charges for major updates. The majority of updates are free."
So, simple question.... Are you charged for Updates, or not? It's fairly straightforward. You either pay for your updates, or you don't. How can I be ignorant, or as someone else charged 'a liar' if what I allege is true? Microsoft does not charge for any updates whatsoever. No charges for Service Packs, No charges for additional functionality, and no charges on the minor stuff.
First, I didn't say you are an ignorant person. I was criticizing the statement, not you personally.
So, simple question.... Are you charged for Updates, or not?
Apple does charge for major updates. Apple does not charge for minor updates. It's basically the same policy as Microsoft's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.