Re: Mac Pro Price Trounces Dell

In article <1157533374.469184.176370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"-hh" <recscuba_google@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Josh McKee wrote:
"-hh" wrote:

Is your Windows box running without any AV software right now?

Yes. It has been for years. Not a single infection.

(As Snit said, "that you know of").

This is exactly why I kill filled Snit. He has been provided proof, in
the way of screen shots, showing that two of my systems were malware
free. Some months ago he made the same claim. So I agreed to run not
one, not two, but three anti-malware programs of his choosing (LavaSoft
AdAware, Grisoft AVG, and Spybot Search and Destroy) on two of my
systems. He was then provided screen shots of the results. If he did
indeed say "that you know of" he has ignored the evidence provided
supporting my claim. All this despite the fact that I go out searching
for malware to infect my system. The worst that's happened to me so far
is my home page was altered.

Its pretty common for our IS tech to find a batch of 'nasties' anytime one of
the machines starts to act up.

I'm not surprised. Sounds as if some basic precautions were not taken.

With the difficulty to expunge certain types of spyware, as often as not, the
cure is to backup the data files, then reformat the machine and re-install the
apps. Granted, this is a brute force type of approach, but on account of touch
labor requirements, its also generally the cheapest.

I agree with this. Safest way to know you're not infected is to
reinstall regardless of OS. Even better is to not become infected in the
first me.

Mine isn't. Our office took a multi-million dollar hit a few years ago,
and as a result, they've become quite severe with their PC security rules

So what you're saying is that the lax security rules were the reason for
having become infected?

No, it is that the severity of some infections (typically initially
brought on by a 'social engineering' trojan) requires the whole zone to
be quarrentined.

In other words lax security rules. Now that you've tightened up security
it seems you're doing well.

They typically first take down all suspected machines, then they'll do a 'restore' to the last known clean backup of
the file server(s), then they'll sent out an IT group to unplug, clean,
recertify and reconnect the indiviudal PC's. Once the whole
organization is certified clean, they'll then "de-quarrentine" the

I don't really care how they go about resolving a problem. The point is
to avoid becoming infected in the first place. Again: Like me.

... fail to apply a mandated update by its deadline and be locked off
the network, etc.

If using anti-virus software is the route your company has decided to
take then that's their decision to incur a needless expense.

Merely your opinion.

Perhaps. But then again...I'm not the one who became infected with
Melissa. So it seems that I'm doing something right while your company
was doing something wrong.

The business case is that Melissa cost our business group around $2M.

Were you not running AV software at the time? And how are things today?
I mean Melissa was back around 1999.

And despite this cost and risk Peter still chose to purchase a Windows
system for his mom. See this is where I have the problem. You're making
the argument that Windows costs more. Yet when push came to shove Peter
chose the PC based on cost.

To which I'm being criticized for Peter's decision, I see.

You're not being criticized for his decision. What I'm saying is that
despite all we hear about the insecurities of Windows, the lower TCO and
higher ROI for the Macintosh Mac users still choose the PC.

In most general terms, the problem (sometimes perceived, sometimes
real) is that buying a Mac is a front-loaded financial cost, even
though it will/can be lower in the long run.

Exactly what Peter said. But yet he went and bought a Windows system for
his mother. Same for Joe Ragosta (arguably the biggest Mac support this
NG has seen) and his family and his company , and the same with Sandman.
You all seem to be championing the advantages of the Macintosh but push
them aside for cost when it comes time to purchase a computer.

We see this all the time
with the "modified box" DIY'ers as they upgrade incrementally when they
can afford it, and rarely ever keep track of the total sunk cost of
their system. As such, its easy to claim that they have a $300 system,
while overlooking a $20 PCI card here, a $50 second had drive there, a
$75 RAM upgrade, etc, etc, because it was not obtained as one single
"BIG" purchase. Ditto for automobile purchasers who emphasize what
their monthly payment is. To a certain degree, you can see that it
comes down to how they manage their finances, and in particular, their
financial horizon.

Oh look...speak of the devil there it is. And yet despite this cost
Peter went on to buy his mom a Windows system ... Seems
like Peter doesn't buy into the lack of security hype either.

There's a lot of people who try to disbelieve.

Are you saying that Peter disbelieves that there are security issues
with Windows and that he doesn't believe in anti-malware software?

No. I'm saying that he doesn't believe them to be significant enough
to be worth - to him - the additional ancillary costs as an "Up Front"
capital expense.

Yet everyone else is expect to see them as being worthwhile. That's the
problem. You claim that everyone else should go out and buy a Mac for
all the aforementioned reasons. But when it comes down to it you don't
heed your own advice.

If you recall the Midas Muffler "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later"
ad, he chose later.

I know what he did. The question is: Why?

Doesn't matter if we're talking about PC's, or driving on black ice: they
prefer going to the school of hard knocks.

The question is: Why did he go down that path? I'm fairly certain that
he's aware of all these issues.

You're better qualified than me to answer that question, for you've at
least read that thread.

We all know why: The reasons given for buying a Macintosh are not as
strong as you would have us believe. Say what you will but time and time
again we see this occuring.

If they've really spent $20B on enhancements, since this is more than
what Apple has spent for all of the "dot X" increments of OS X, then
Vista should by all conventional expectations, knock our socks off.

Should be. But it doesn't appear to be. At least not that I've seen.


However, the periodic announcements from MS that they are removing yet
another feature previously claimed for Vista strongly suggests that
they're not moving in that direction.

I don't know what direction they're heading with Vista. All I know is I
see no reason to replace Windows 2000 with Vista on my current PC. The
resource requirements eliminate it (only 384MB of RAM) with no apparent
gain (I'm not interested in the visual stuff). However I would not be
against having it pre-installed on a new system that I've purchased.

Which seems to be exactly the decision many consumers are coming to:
effectively, they'll "get around to it" whenever its finally time for
them to upgrade their hardwae.

So why are the Maccies bitching about the hardware requirements?