Forums | MacLife

Kendall · 2009-02-13 9:42 am

Booksley wrote:
~Coxy wrote:
Finding out that 10.5 didn't support Classic via an unhelpful dialog was a bit of a kick in the pants the first time I tried.
I'm just curious now, what did you use Classic for in November 2008?

DD Expander, expands old Disk Doubler files. I can't find anything in OS X that does it.

ukimalefu · 2009-02-13 4:10 pm

this thread is stupid

ScifiterX · 2009-02-13 4:40 pm

Kendall wrote:
Booksley wrote:
~Coxy wrote:
Finding out that 10.5 didn't support Classic via an unhelpful dialog was a bit of a kick in the pants the first time I tried.
I'm just curious now, what did you use Classic for in November 2008?
DD Expander, expands old Disk Doubler files. I can't find anything in OS X that does it.

http://wakaba.c3.cx/s/apps/unarchiver.html

WhirlinGraphics · 2009-02-16 12:19 am

Tetrachloride wrote:
Apple announces iTools "Free For Life". http://www.macobserver.com/editorial/2002/07/21.1.shtml

Thanks for bringing back an old, yet still painful wound given to me by Apple! I forgave but I did not forget.

~Coxy · 2009-02-16 1:22 am

Sim City 2000 was the main thing I used Classic for back then, but there's a few other reasons too.
ResEdit is another big one, since the resource editors for OS X either suck horribly (although I appreciate the effort of their programmers) or cost multiple hundreds of dollars.

Jasoco · 2009-02-16 5:25 pm

The title still bothers me.

Though it's true.

Apple DOES give you more for less money.

jgcampos · 2009-03-10 11:28 pm

well, Macs rarely (if ever) get virus (virii??), so all the money saved there balances with the money well spent on Apple products. Can you say the same for PCs? So, yes, like Jasoco said, Apple DOES actually give you more (peace of mind) for less money.

Some1 · 2009-03-11 12:19 am

Jasoco wrote:
The title still bothers me.

Though it's true.

Apple DOES give you more for less money.

I hate what I've become but...

Explain your statement please.

Kendall · 2009-03-11 12:59 pm

ScifiterX wrote:
Kendall wrote:
Booksley wrote:

I'm just curious now, what did you use Classic for in November 2008?
DD Expander, expands old Disk Doubler files. I can't find anything in OS X that does it.
http://wakaba.c3.cx/s/apps/unarchiver.html

Oops, sorry it's been so long. I forgot about this thread. Unfortunately, The Unarchiver doesn't work with Disk Doubled files. Yes, it SAYS it works; it doesn't. But I appreciate the help. Thanks. big_smile

Pariah · 2009-03-11 4:37 pm

jgcampos wrote:
well, Macs rarely (if ever) get virus (virii??), so all the money saved there balances with the money well spent on Apple products. Can you say the same for PCs? So, yes, like Jasoco said, Apple DOES actually give you more (peace of mind) for less money.

Meh,
I have had PCs along side my Macs for years and have had the exact same number of malware infections on both: Zero.
An infected PC is the cyber Gods way of pointing out an idiot is at the KB.

mrreet2001 · 2009-03-11 6:42 pm

Pariah wrote:
jgcampos wrote:
well, Macs rarely (if ever) get virus (virii??), so all the money saved there balances with the money well spent on Apple products. Can you say the same for PCs? So, yes, like Jasoco said, Apple DOES actually give you more (peace of mind) for less money.
Meh,
I have had PCs along side my Macs for years and have had the exact same number of malware infections on both: Zero.
An infected PC is the cyber Gods way of pointing out an idiot is at the KB.

You're an idiot

Last edited by mrreet2001 (2009-03-11 6:43 pm)

Mr. T · 2009-03-11 7:13 pm

I once got an RPC shutdown message (aka blaster) immediately after installing XP. Literally, about 15 seconds after the first boot. It was a legit copy of XP, too.

Last edited by Mr. T (2009-03-11 7:15 pm)

Pariah · 2009-03-11 8:41 pm

mrreet2001 wrote:
Pariah wrote:
jgcampos wrote:
well, Macs rarely (if ever) get virus (virii??), so all the money saved there balances with the money well spent on Apple products. Can you say the same for PCs? So, yes, like Jasoco said, Apple DOES actually give you more (peace of mind) for less money.
Meh,
I have had PCs along side my Macs for years and have had the exact same number of malware infections on both: Zero.
An infected PC is the cyber Gods way of pointing out an idiot is at the KB.
You're an idiot

That was rude tongue

Jasoco · 2009-03-11 11:01 pm

Some1 wrote:
Jasoco wrote:
The title still bothers me.

Though it's true.

Apple DOES give you more for less money.
I hate what I've become but...

Explain your statement please.

Read the post above yours.

Shadowless · 2009-03-11 11:05 pm

I was pricing laptops for a friend recently that had to be on a budget of $1100 or less, and I couldn't honestly present a Mac to him. At all. The PC side offered so much more hardware that there was no reason to pay so much more for a smaller HD, worse graphics card, slower processor, less RAM, and a lower resolution, non-moving built-in video camera.

I loved Apple until this week, and now I realize they've significantly upped the Apple Tax from a couple years ago when we started this Intel transition. Now they're just lagging, and I'm grossly disappointed.

And I agree that most viruses are user's fault and not the OS itself. Yes, way easier to acquire viruses on a Windows box, but still user's fault.

ScifiterX · 2009-03-11 11:32 pm

roll

http://www.sophos.com/blogs/gc/g/2008/1 … ith-virus/
http://windowsitpro.com/article/article … o-net.html
http://www.gpsmagazine.com/comments/000191.php
http://hothardware.com/News/Samsung-dig … ith-virus/
http://www.newtonslore.com/2006/10/19/a … deo-ipods/

Yup it's always entirely the user's fault.

ScifiterX · 2009-03-11 11:44 pm

Funny story... According to a reliable source, who shall remain anonymous, one of the local hospitals recently had to downgrade to slower PCs because the recommended PC hardware was having significant reliability issues.

Bat · 2009-03-11 11:54 pm

I haven't had significant virus or malware issues.

ScifiterX wrote:
Funny story... According to a reliable source, who shall remain anonymous, one of the local hospitals recently had to downgrade to slower PCs because the recommended PC hardware was having significant reliability issues.

'Recommended' by who? 'Had to' as decided by who (function & competence, not names)? Anecdotal to the point of uselessness to the rest of us, as it stands.

Most any hardware can have issues, and Apple's stuff comes from the Pacific Rim, like most. Burning graphics chips, anyone?

Pariah · 2009-03-12 3:53 am

ScifiterX wrote:
Funny story... According to a reliable source, who shall remain anonymous, one of the local hospitals recently had to downgrade to slower PCs because the recommended PC hardware was having significant reliability issues.

Because slower hardware is inherently more stable?? confused

Sounds like a tale of stupid IT staff more than anything.

Former Windork · 2009-03-12 11:06 am

I recently went to a college sports forum on my XP box. Totally reputable place and well-known (in other words, not pr0n or anything close to it). I had Symantec AV running and it was up to date. Windows Firewall also running. Within seconds of the site loading, I got an alert from Symantec AV, but it couldn't fix the problem. I shut down the browser and ran a full scan, still couldn't fix it.

Basically, one of their ads had some kind of trojan horse attached to it. Damn thing was hijacking my browser and desktop and redirecting me to purchase some spyware remover crapware. I spent the next 2 hours or so running various spyware tools, HijackThis, and manually deleting files and registry entries to get rid of Vundo because if you don't find every component of it and delete it, it replaces everything within minutes or after a reboot. Lots of working in Safe Mode. I finally got it fixed and am now running programs that block it from reoccurring. And I didn't even get the worst version of it. Some will disable AV, Spybot, MalwareBytes and other such programs and can even cause a hard BSOD that literally requires a complete Windows reinstall.

Now, part of the problem was I was in Google Chrome instead of Firefox, which has Adblock Plus running. But for me Chrome runs much faster even though it loads ads. I've since installed Privoxy to block ads on this and other sites, though I don't like how it works compared to Adblock Plus. But the bottom line is, I'm a careful user. I don't go to suspicious sites. I keep AV products up to date. I didn't even click on the ad. I don't open email attachments I'm not certain of and very rarely use P2P or torrents. But I still got infected.

I could be an imbecile and not have that happen on my Mac.

Last edited by Former Windork (2009-03-12 11:13 am)

dv · 2009-03-12 11:16 am

Pariah wrote:
ScifiterX wrote:
Funny story... According to a reliable source, who shall remain anonymous, one of the local hospitals recently had to downgrade to slower PCs because the recommended PC hardware was having significant reliability issues.
Because slower hardware is inherently more stable??

Sounds like a tale of stupid IT staff more than anything.

It's not as common as with Macs, but they might have had some purpose-built software or custom hardware which the newer machines/OSes couldn't deal with. Or even the OS itself, if they were running NT4 or something. Hell, could even be a stupid driver issue - like no NT4 driver available for a particular network card.

Also, it depends on how old the hardware in question is. I mean, if you go from a passively cooled 486 built to military specs (with no tin solder, heh) that cost you $5,000 in 1992, and you try to replace it with a Dell, a heat-failure-prone Pentium 4, and, oops, has bad capacitors, well...

Most things, the IT people should have caught it before rollout. There are a couple circumstances where they might not have been able to though.

Shadowless · 2009-03-12 2:18 pm

I still don't see how being inherently more resilient to viruses means that Apple can charge so much more for a smaller return in hardware. : shrug :

I don't know, usually I really support what Apple does, but after my recent charting of Apple's offerings vs comparable PC offerings, it's getting harder to justify staying Mac. Though I probably will anyway because I love my Mac and how the OS works too much to use anything else.

mrreet2001 · 2009-03-12 2:30 pm

You are paying for the software.

ScifiterX · 2009-03-12 2:51 pm

Pariah wrote:
ScifiterX wrote:
Funny story... According to a reliable source, who shall remain anonymous, one of the local hospitals recently had to downgrade to slower PCs because the recommended PC hardware was having significant reliability issues.
Because slower hardware is inherently more stable??

Sounds like a tale of stupid IT staff more than anything.

There may be nothing inherent in speed vs stability but quite often when you increase the speed of any given hardware set it increases the chance of an instability turning up.

I won't argue stupid IT staff. Whether they were stupid to listen to the vendors the first time around or whether they were stupid enough to recommend system which speeds turned out to be unstable, I couldn't say.

pottymouth · 2009-03-12 3:38 pm

mrreet2001 wrote:
You are paying for the software.

And, personally, I'd pay double what they're charging for it. I've tried the others and OS X is the only OS that doesn't seem bassackwards to me.

...but if we're talking hardware, I couldn't care less about what the box looks like. I'd buy a cheaper offering from somebody else if it was an option.

Forums | MacLife

#26 2009-02-13 9:42 am

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

Booksley wrote:

~Coxy wrote:

#27 2009-02-13 4:10 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

#28 2009-02-13 4:40 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

Kendall wrote:

Booksley wrote:

~Coxy wrote:

#29 2009-02-16 12:19 am

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

Tetrachloride wrote:

#30 2009-02-16 1:22 am

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

#31 2009-02-16 5:25 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

#32 2009-03-10 11:28 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

#33 2009-03-11 12:19 am

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

Jasoco wrote:

#34 2009-03-11 12:59 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

ScifiterX wrote:

Kendall wrote:

Booksley wrote:

#35 2009-03-11 4:37 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

jgcampos wrote:

#36 2009-03-11 6:42 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

Pariah wrote:

jgcampos wrote:

#37 2009-03-11 7:13 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

#38 2009-03-11 8:41 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

mrreet2001 wrote:

Pariah wrote:

jgcampos wrote:

#39 2009-03-11 11:01 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

Some1 wrote:

Jasoco wrote:

#40 2009-03-11 11:05 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

#41 2009-03-11 11:32 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

#42 2009-03-11 11:44 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

#43 2009-03-11 11:54 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

ScifiterX wrote:

#44 2009-03-12 3:53 am

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

ScifiterX wrote:

#45 2009-03-12 11:06 am

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

#46 2009-03-12 11:16 am

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

Pariah wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

#47 2009-03-12 2:18 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

#48 2009-03-12 2:30 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

#49 2009-03-12 2:51 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

Pariah wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

#50 2009-03-12 3:38 pm

Re: Apple's 'More For Less' Strategy

mrreet2001 wrote:

Board footer