Re: Mac Pro Price Trounces Dell

In article <1157596307.819555.71160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"-hh" <recscuba_google@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Josh McKee wrote:
"-hh" wrote:

Josh McKee wrote:
"-hh" wrote:
(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.

Sorry, I wasn't aware of this particular pissing contest.

Why do you consider supporting a claim to be a pissing contest? I think
it was a reasonable question for him to have asked. And I don't see
having taken a few minutes to run software of his choosing to support my
claim as unreasonable.

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.

Its predominantly spyware, which gets us when workers are out on the
road and not behind our firewall when they're at a chain hotel,
Starbucks, etc. For some incomprehensible reason our newest (and "most
secure") protocols require the XP firewall on the individual PC to be
disabled. Even on laptops.

In other words lax security policies. If you're going to disable
security features why should I find your examples valid? The tools are
there. You're just not utilizing them. Why do you feel that this is a
Windows only issue?

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

I'd characterize it as merely "less bad". We pay around $1500/year per
seat for all of our IS support.

So you're faulting Windows for your companies lax security policies?

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.

You're personally managing 600 desktops within just one subnet zone?

Not personally.

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.

There's two problems with your claim. First, when you're working with
hundreds of people within a business environment, you're going to have
varying levels of security awareness and vigilence.

Agreed. So what you're saying is it's not so much the OS as it is the
people. I would agree with that.

And when you research the specifics on the malware that I specifically
mentioned, it was one of the earlier social engineering attacks that exploited
the address book, so the incoming appeared to be from a "trusted" known
person.

Again. This is the user and not the operating systems fault. It could
easily happen on OS X.

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.

2000,

1999: http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1999-04.html

but in any event, it was a business operations "Lessons Learned" to be more
vigilant.

Agreed. So how is this an operating system issue? And why did your AV
software not protect you?

Second, because the standard configuration included a public directory
on a file server, which you will find everywhere in business. In this
case, graphics files on this shared directory acted as the
cross-infection point: a single infected PC got in and seeded a couple
MB of graphics files in the public directories, and other people
...ones who DIDN'T screw up on the social engineering attack ... merely
had to resume their work from the day before, opening up the Powerpoint
files that they had worked on the day before, but because it was using
a standard template whose graphics content was stored on these same
public directories, their file and thus that seat became infected as
well, further disseminating the malware. It was actually this
cross-fertilization across the file servers' public directories that
did the most amount of damage.

Interesting description you've given there because Melissa was a Word
macro virus. Thus a graphic file doesn't seem to be a suitable host.

Third, hiuretics (sic) simply don't work. Check out the Virii
companies raging against Consumer Reports for "irreponsibly" creating
new malware for the express purpose of testing their AV products.

Heuristics are a component of AV software. Is it your opinion that AV
software is not as effective as it's made out to be?

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.

Yes, some do. Some also do not.

It's the ones who do, and that yap on and on about TCO and ROI, that I
am targeting.

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.

A simple observation that many people prefer not to minimize their
upfront costs, even when they recognize that it will cost them more in
the long run.

Perhaps so if you weren't talking about someone who has 20 Macintosh
computers. Why is he so concerned about increased initial cost now? And
I assume that used Macintosh computers were an option. For the $1,000 he
spent on his moms PC, without monitor if I remember correctly, he could
have bought a decent used Macintosh. But he did. He chose a PC.

You'll also probably find that most people here choose to finance their
automobiles, too.

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.

For the most part, many people will tend to avoid what they perceive as
"unnecessary" financial outlays until they get burned a few times.

I could understand that if it he didn't already "know" about the
significant roasting his mom was going to get.

Similarly, for many people, an item as large as a PC is a pretty big
financial stretch to be a "gift" to another, so it may be more likely
for corners to get cut.

$1,000 would have bought a decent used Mac a couple of years ago.

I've made the same mistake of gifting a Windows PC, under the
optimistic belief that the family relative who lived much closer than I
would help to maintain (& care for) the machine. Didn't happen --
turns out that they were the source of the malware. Never again will I
make that mistake (thank goodness the 17" iMac just had a price drop).

With this information will you pay slightly more for a Macintosh than a
PC?

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?

I don't know either. I can speculate, but that would merely be
speculation.

The why is because he is a hypocrite.

Josh
.

Quantcast