Re: which PC

"dennis@home" <den...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"-hh" <recscuba_goo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
As such, MS' Vista is choosing to become less insecure because they
either believe it will help prompt more sales - - or it will be a cost-
avoidance factor...

Or they have just run out of other things to put in a new release.
Maybe if they included photoediting software it would sell better?

Speculate all you want, but the fact that they chose security over
photo editing does indicate where their priorities were.


I don't care about federal law..

Better check up on the EU's cases against MS then.




Yet what percentage of consumers choose this option? 0.1%? 1% ?

Over here quite a lot.

So its then 2%? :-)


Consumers aren't forced to buy the upgrades. Regardless of how
"minor" you want to claim that each one has been, some people choose
to buy them, others do not.

Well they don't appear to include anything major.
Do user get /all/ the fixes if they don't upgrade?

Yes, there are still security patches that are being issued and the
like. IIRC, the current revision of Panther is 10.3.9 and Tiger
currently has 10.4.10 in beta testing and is expected later this
year.



Why is my claim a worst case when a mac users view of windows isn't?

Not what I said. My point was that if your arguement is that the
consumer *must* buy every possible OS upgrade, on the Mac this would
result in ABC and on the PC the result was XYZ. To whit:

Now to do the same on Windows...



Media center edition wasn't an upgrade.

It was a "better OS" version of XP. As such, by *your* arguement that
the consumer must buy every possible improvement, to be a fair and
equivalent comparison, it has to be included.

It was deemed to be too reliant on the hardware to be a
general release that would work on any PC.

We all know how the anti-Mac crowd would respond to this one:
"Damn Apple's forced obsolecence! They're forcing their users to buy
hardware upgrades! Grumble, Scratch, Bite, Growl!"


Also if you do buy a retail Vista like the one you priced you can transfer
it to a new machine latter if you decide to buy one without an OS.

Leaving the old hardware without a legal licence.

Can you buy a mac without an OS an use the license off your old one?

Generally, no, but its because its a different business case model,
which is why you can buy a 5-pack "Family" licence of OS X upgrades
for only $200, but not of Vista Ultimate. The key question is: which
would be of greater interest and value to their primary consumer
base?


For your education, here's the current full rundown

OS X 10.5 (Leopard): ETA Fall 2007

OS X 10.4 (Tiger) shipped in April 2005 - - over 2 years ago.
OS X 10.3 (Panther) was Oct 2003 - - will be 4 years in 4 months
OS X 10.2 (Jaguar) was Aug 2002 - - 2 months short of 5 years
OS X 10.1 (Puma) was Sept 2001 - - free to 10.0 ($20 S&H)
OS X 10.0 (Cheetah) was March 2001 - - now over 6 years ago

???

You will have to explain why you felt that you needed to say that.

It might come to you. Or it might not.


Linux has hidden costs which its advocates tend to conveniently
overlook.

Really? <surprised look>

Yup. Better go do more homework here too. Make sure that you hit the
chapter on lifecycle costs, such as in providing customer call center
support during warranty periods, and realize that with linux, Dell
can't simply 'zero cost basis' pass the buck over to Microsoft to
solve their problems.

You don't understand sarcasm do you?

Sure. I also understand how misdirection can be used on the USNET to
try to cover up one's previously posted ignorance. Sometimes, they're
even successful.


Anyway this is getting away from the issue about some mac users telling
newbies that it is secure when it isn't so the thread should stop here and
not become another macs are better than pcs thread like some mac
users want it to become.

The bottom line is that there's no credible evidence that Macs are as
insecure as Windows PCs have been demonstrated to be. There is even
reasonably credible evidence to suggest that Macs are pragmatically
more secure than current Windows PCs. We can also suggest that most
people probably don't give a damn about why, but simply accept what
"is".

There's also credible evidence that Dennis gets all worked up about
how some people shorthand the description of "secure" for where the
pendantic description should have been "more secure" and/or "less
insecure".

Use what works for you.

Tolerate whatever level of bull*** you're willing to live with.

And remember also that life is a *** sandwitch (the more bread you
have, the less *** you have to eat).


-hh

.