Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Computer System for Digital Photography: MS-Windows, Apple..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 9:04:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I need a new computer. The major jobs are internet serfing and digital
photography. What're the pros and cons between these three systems:
MS-Windows, Apple (iMac G4 or G5), or Linux-PC? I'm focusing on the
digital photography.

I've only used Wintel so far. My concerns on MS-Windows system is its
rapid speed degradation due to MS's endless patches and the occasional
Trojan/spywares. I don't know how to prevent it, as my whole family are
on every newly purchased PCs. All my computer got z-times performance
loss a month after the purchasing. A friend told me he no longer had
the problem since he switched to iMac. But he is not sure it's because
he has different habit, or because the IMac is less targeted by these
malicious software.

My concern on the iMac is, is it equally supported by all the major
digital photography softwares. Photoshop-CS is not a problem, but what
about, say, Neat-Image or whatever that is useful and important?

Linux PC seems the best buy in terms of hardware price. Linux has play
an important roles in my work place, where all the high performance
servers are Linux systems. It usually either works far better than or
far worse than, say, Solaris systems. Overall, it's better. But I've
never had a HOME PC with Linux. Is it well supported, particularly for
digital photography.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 9:30:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For home use, I definitely recommend a PC running Windows XP.
The speed degradation you get on your new PCs must be due to some
problem - are you a lot of downloaded software or something?
Regards
Gary Hendricks
www.basic-digital-photography.com
December 25, 2004 10:04:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<xuanjielih@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1104026676.749972.170960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I need a new computer. The major jobs are internet serfing and digital
> photography. What're the pros and cons between these three systems:
> MS-Windows, Apple (iMac G4 or G5), or Linux-PC? I'm focusing on the
> digital photography.

Stick with Wintel. Unless you've already used unix or a
unix variant, the learning curve for Linux will be ridiculous.

As for Apple, they're dying a slow painful death, in spite
of their marketing claims. The only reason they're still in
business at all is because of investments by MS.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 10:41:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
> I would switch over to linux completely if photoshop CS and later
> versions were on it, as well as a few other programs. ... However,
> I still use a windows XP machine for digital photography. Why?
> There is no choice for the work I do. If I only used photoshop, I
> would get a mac. If all the programs I need were on a mac, I would
> switch. If they were all on linux, I would switch.

What programs? All you mentioned was Photoshop. Maybe you don't
need those other programs. I get by ok with Gimp instead of Photoshop,
but a more serious photog might have problems with that.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 11:39:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1104026676.749972.170960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
xuanjielih@gmail.com wrote:

> I need a new computer. The major jobs are internet serfing and digital
> photography. What're the pros and cons between these three systems:
> MS-Windows, Apple (iMac G4 or G5), or Linux-PC? I'm focusing on the
> digital photography.

Since I have lived and worked in the <ahem> REAL world, I have become
increasingly familiar with Windoze, most recently after my company provided me
with a brand new IBM ThinkPad running XPpro.

I am now an even more devoted user of Macintosh.

I have a friend that has been a long time user of Linux. Familiar with his
exploits, I would choose Linux over Windoze. However, I would STILL choose
the Mac OS.

The artsy-fartsy community has used Mac OS for years and I suspect it is
gradually (VERY gradually) increasing its market share, at least in some areas.

Years ago, Microsoft may well have SAVED Apple Computer when it bought 100,000
shares of Apple's common stock. To this day, Microsoft has an autonomous
division for development of Mac OS applications.

I use Microsoft Office for Mac and have for years. It is NO kludge or shoddy
port. It's good stuff - from the ground up.

iPhoto (Mac only) is awesome. I have been using it for a long time now,
despite only having switched to digital a couple weeks ago.

Surfing the net is FAST, reliable and intuitive with Safari.

Mac OSX is based on Unix. Compared to the Windoze world, we have virtually NO
viruses (of course, there are a FEW) or the myriad malady that beset the MS
world.

Get a Mac. You will NOT regret it.

<http://www.apple.com/switch/&gt;

:) 
JR
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 12:46:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<xuanjielih@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104026676.749972.170960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I need a new computer. The major jobs are internet serfing and digital
> photography. What're the pros and cons between these three systems:
> MS-Windows, Apple (iMac G4 or G5), or Linux-PC? I'm focusing on the
> digital photography.
>
> I've only used Wintel so far. My concerns on MS-Windows system is its
> rapid speed degradation due to MS's endless patches and the occasional
> Trojan/spywares. I don't know how to prevent it, as my whole family are
> on every newly purchased PCs. All my computer got z-times performance
> loss a month after the purchasing. A friend told me he no longer had
> the problem since he switched to iMac. But he is not sure it's because
> he has different habit, or because the IMac is less targeted by these
> malicious software.
>
> My concern on the iMac is, is it equally supported by all the major
> digital photography softwares. Photoshop-CS is not a problem, but what
> about, say, Neat-Image or whatever that is useful and important?
>
> Linux PC seems the best buy in terms of hardware price. Linux has play
> an important roles in my work place, where all the high performance
> servers are Linux systems. It usually either works far better than or
> far worse than, say, Solaris systems. Overall, it's better. But I've
> never had a HOME PC with Linux. Is it well supported, particularly for
> digital photography.
>
Like an awful lot of people who will respond after my post, I've had my
complaints and gripes with the various versions of windows. However, I've
concluded you just have to join them. There is a lot of shareware in
addition to regular retailers for software, Hardware for the pc is cheaper
and more plentiful than for the mac. As for Linux, I tried it once, could
never find the drivers for the hardware I had at the time. Great for servers
and industry, good for techies at home, for the family forget it.

Now for spam and virus. Use something like mailwasher. If you have more than
one account, get the pro version which will cost, but not much. You won't
stop all spam, but it will never make it to your machine. Get bootitng from
terabyteunlimited.com. This will let you make partitions and save as image
files, a great utility and doesn't cost much. If you have kids that play
games, you might want to set them up in their own partition. Use virus
protection software, avast is free and works well. I've never had a virus,
but at one time literally thousands of attacks from sven.
Finally, I have three mail accounts one of which is hotmail. I do not
receive spam from hotmail or one of the accounts. I get lot's from the third
and I am going to drop that isp. I can only conclude that the spam free ones
are doing some sort of filtering.

By the way, with today's huge hd's, if you use bootitng as I suggested, you
can quite happily set up a parallel windows and linux partition. That's what
I did, fairly painlessly (there is good support for doing this). Just be
sure the machine you buy has the linux support. Visit the
www.terabyteunlimited.com website, get on their forum and post there, you'll
find lots of users running both.
Good luck, and don't be so pessimistic about windows, it's not all that bad
and xp home works very well with good multimedia support. Use the
partitioning software to separate the os from data, do this early, make
image files of the os so you can always return to a known good point without
starting from scratch. Make sure you get a good dvd burner.
Dave Cohen
December 26, 2004 1:27:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Redelfs wrote:
> In article <1104026676.749972.170960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> xuanjielih@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>I need a new computer. The major jobs are internet serfing and digital
>>photography. What're the pros and cons between these three systems:
>>MS-Windows, Apple (iMac G4 or G5), or Linux-PC? I'm focusing on the
>>digital photography.
>
>
> Since I have lived and worked in the <ahem> REAL world, I have become
> increasingly familiar with Windoze, most recently after my company provided me
> with a brand new IBM ThinkPad running XPpro.
>
> I am now an even more devoted user of Macintosh.
>
> I have a friend that has been a long time user of Linux. Familiar with his
> exploits, I would choose Linux over Windoze. However, I would STILL choose
> the Mac OS.
>
> The artsy-fartsy community has used Mac OS for years and I suspect it is
> gradually (VERY gradually) increasing its market share, at least in some areas.
>
> Years ago, Microsoft may well have SAVED Apple Computer when it bought 100,000
> shares of Apple's common stock. To this day, Microsoft has an autonomous
> division for development of Mac OS applications.
>
> I use Microsoft Office for Mac and have for years. It is NO kludge or shoddy
> port. It's good stuff - from the ground up.
>
> iPhoto (Mac only) is awesome. I have been using it for a long time now,
> despite only having switched to digital a couple weeks ago.
>
> Surfing the net is FAST, reliable and intuitive with Safari.
>
> Mac OSX is based on Unix. Compared to the Windoze world, we have virtually NO
> viruses (of course, there are a FEW) or the myriad malady that beset the MS
> world.
>
> Get a Mac. You will NOT regret it.
>
> <http://www.apple.com/switch/&gt;
>
> :) 
> JR


You need to enlighten me about the vital of iPhoto. It can't handle RAW.
It doesn't store photos offline and keep a catalog. And even worse, it
doesn't show brightness correctly. I have to use Photoshop to check if
the pictures are underexposed. iLife is merely a toy for novices.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 1:28:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Apparently, _Dave Cohen_, on 25/12/04 21:46,typed:
> <xuanjielih@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1104026676.749972.170960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I need a new computer. The major jobs are internet serfing and digital
>>photography. What're the pros and cons between these three systems:
>>MS-Windows, Apple (iMac G4 or G5), or Linux-PC? I'm focusing on the
>>digital photography.
>>
>>I've only used Wintel so far. My concerns on MS-Windows system is its
>>rapid speed degradation due to MS's endless patches and the occasional
>>Trojan/spywares. I don't know how to prevent it, as my whole family are
>>on every newly purchased PCs. All my computer got z-times performance
>>loss a month after the purchasing. A friend told me he no longer had
>>the problem since he switched to iMac. But he is not sure it's because
>>he has different habit, or because the IMac is less targeted by these
>>malicious software.
>>
>>My concern on the iMac is, is it equally supported by all the major
>>digital photography softwares. Photoshop-CS is not a problem, but what
>>about, say, Neat-Image or whatever that is useful and important?
>>
>>Linux PC seems the best buy in terms of hardware price. Linux has play
>>an important roles in my work place, where all the high performance
>>servers are Linux systems. It usually either works far better than or
>>far worse than, say, Solaris systems. Overall, it's better. But I've
>>never had a HOME PC with Linux. Is it well supported, particularly for
>>digital photography.
>>
>
> Like an awful lot of people who will respond after my post, I've had my
> complaints and gripes with the various versions of windows. However, I've
> concluded you just have to join them. There is a lot of shareware in
> addition to regular retailers for software, Hardware for the pc is cheaper
> and more plentiful than for the mac. As for Linux, I tried it once, could
> never find the drivers for the hardware I had at the time. Great for servers
> and industry, good for techies at home, for the family forget it.


Suse, Mandrake and Fedora Linuxes make everything a breeze. The
difficulties you are talking about are long gone (Linux and related
software is at an extremely fast development path). e.g. to download my
pics from my G5, I don't need to install any additional software, it
just works.


> Now for spam and virus. Use something like mailwasher. If you have more than
> one account, get the pro version which will cost, but not much. You won't
> stop all spam, but it will never make it to your machine. Get bootitng from
> terabyteunlimited.com. This will let you make partitions and save as image
> files, a great utility and doesn't cost much. If you have kids that play
> games, you might want to set them up in their own partition. Use virus
> protection software, avast is free and works well. I've never had a virus,
> but at one time literally thousands of attacks from sven.
> Finally, I have three mail accounts one of which is hotmail. I do not
> receive spam from hotmail or one of the accounts. I get lot's from the third
> and I am going to drop that isp. I can only conclude that the spam free ones
> are doing some sort of filtering.

Windows can be used more safely, but the downside is you need to gain at
least some knowledge about your OS and become Internet literate (first
step: IE is NOT "the internet").
- Install a firewall (zonealarm is free) and/or get a router (a hardware
router is pretty cheap nowadays, $5~$40).
- Have a good anti virus (AVG is free, as are some others).
- Have an anti spyware program (spybot, ad aware are free).
- Never use good email address in newsgroups, make a dispensable one in
yahoo or hotmail etc.
- Do NOT use IE. Using it is an invitation to spyware and other bad
stuff. Install Firefox (http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/) or
some other similar browser. Firefox is free, has tabbed browsing and is
much much more secure than IE.
- Do NOT use outlook, it just lets itself get high jacked by spyware
related stuff. One choice: Thunderbird (www.mozilla.org) due to same
reasons as Firefox above.
- Keep your Windows installation fully updated.


> By the way, with today's huge hd's, if you use bootitng as I suggested, you
> can quite happily set up a parallel windows and linux partition. That's what

Yup, that is going to be a reasonable installation while getting
introduced to Linux.


> I did, fairly painlessly (there is good support for doing this). Just be
> sure the machine you buy has the linux support. Visit the

Most of the desktop are supported. The problems could be the ones which
have brand new hardware whose drivers are not written in Linux yet.


> www.terabyteunlimited.com website, get on their forum and post there, you'll
> find lots of users running both.
> Good luck, and don't be so pessimistic about windows, it's not all that bad
> and xp home works very well with good multimedia support. Use the
> partitioning software to separate the os from data, do this early, make
> image files of the os so you can always return to a known good point without
> starting from scratch. Make sure you get a good dvd burner.
> Dave Cohen
>
>


GL,
->HS
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 1:48:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:

> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
>
>>I would switch over to linux completely if photoshop CS and later
>>versions were on it, as well as a few other programs. ... However,
>>I still use a windows XP machine for digital photography. Why?
>>There is no choice for the work I do. If I only used photoshop, I
>>would get a mac. If all the programs I need were on a mac, I would
>>switch. If they were all on linux, I would switch.
>
>
> What programs? All you mentioned was Photoshop. Maybe you don't
> need those other programs. I get by ok with Gimp instead of Photoshop,
> but a more serious photog might have problems with that.

The problem with gimp is it is not 16-bit.
I do a lot of image processing on unix and linux in
16 and 32-bit using custom programs, some I've written
myself and others contracted for, and others
public domain. But they are not photoshop,
and do not do the things photoshop can do in 16-bit.

On XP, things like ImagePlus (16 and 32 bit image
processing, stacking imges, many more filters than
photoshop) and raw converters like CS RAW or C1.

Roger
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 1:48:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
> The problem with gimp is it is not 16-bit. I do a lot of image
> processing on unix and linux in 16 and 32-bit using custom programs,

FilmGimp (now called Cinepaint) can do 16 and 32 bits. I think Gimp
3.0 is supposed to do 16 bits as well.

http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:12:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
>
>>The problem with gimp is it is not 16-bit. I do a lot of image
>>processing on unix and linux in 16 and 32-bit using custom programs,
>
>
> FilmGimp (now called Cinepaint) can do 16 and 32 bits. I think Gimp
> 3.0 is supposed to do 16 bits as well.
>
> http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/

This would be very good news. When is Gimp 3.0 coming out?

Roger
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:24:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Apparently, _Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)_, on 25/12/04
22:23,typed:
> xuanjielih@gmail.com wrote:
<SNIP><SNIP>
> My son's computer (XP) was taken over by spyware this summer.
> Spyware software removed it, but it was back in a couple of
> days (1800 spyware programs)!!! Another attempt at deleting
> the spyware resulted in the computer being disabled at would no
> longer boot. He switched to linux, and ran with linux for
> 6 months and had not spyware/virus etc problems.
> But he was frustrated by loss of some features,
> including his digital camera software. He had to use my
> xp machine to download pictures from his camera, then transfer
> them to the xp box. He now has a new xp box with the latest

Must have been years ago. We have gphoto2 and gtkam in Linux now which
deal with transfering pics from most digital cameras painless and even
more effecient than in Windows.


->HS
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:24:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

H. S. wrote:
> Apparently, _Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)_, on 25/12/04
> 22:23,typed:
>
>> xuanjielih@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <SNIP><SNIP>
>
>> My son's computer (XP) was taken over by spyware this summer.
>> Spyware software removed it, but it was back in a couple of
>> days (1800 spyware programs)!!! Another attempt at deleting
>> the spyware resulted in the computer being disabled at would no
>> longer boot. He switched to linux, and ran with linux for
>> 6 months and had not spyware/virus etc problems.
>> But he was frustrated by loss of some features,
>> including his digital camera software. He had to use my
>> xp machine to download pictures from his camera, then transfer
>> them to the xp box. He now has a new xp box with the latest
>
>
> Must have been years ago. We have gphoto2 and gtkam in Linux now which
> deal with transfering pics from most digital cameras painless and even
> more effecient than in Windows.
>
>
> ->HS

Do these to raw conversion to 16-bit tif files?

Roger
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:24:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
> Do these to raw conversion to 16-bit tif files?

I saw a program some years ago that converted Canon raw files to bmp
(which can then be converted to tif by standard utilities). It may
not have done as fancy image processing as the Canon software. But you
might be able to run the Canon stuff under Windows emulation (WINE).
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 2:24:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; writes:
> > Do these to raw conversion to 16-bit tif files?
>
> I saw a program some years ago that converted Canon raw files to bmp
> (which can then be converted to tif by standard utilities). It may
> not have done as fancy image processing as the Canon software. But you
> might be able to run the Canon stuff under Windows emulation (WINE).

Also, the dcraw program can convert Canon and Nikon raw files:

http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

And there is a Gimp plug-in for raw import that uses dcraw:

http://ptj.rozeta.com.pl/Soft/RawPhoto
December 26, 2004 5:28:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

xuanjielih@gmail.com wrote:

> I need a new computer. The major jobs are internet serfing and digital
> photography. What're the pros and cons between these three systems:
> MS-Windows, Apple (iMac G4 or G5), or Linux-PC? I'm focusing on the
> digital photography.
>

Dual boot, run wintel for your digital photography and use linux to surf the
web. Connecting a wintel machine to the internet is suicide! Like you said
endless patches to a insecure base product. The fact MS refuses to disable
DCOM after all the problems it has caused for absolutely no gain other than
maybe they can somehow use it to spy on ther users?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 9:28:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike wrote:
> <xuanjielih@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1104026676.749972.170960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I need a new computer. The major jobs are internet serfing and digital
>>photography. What're the pros and cons between these three systems:
>>MS-Windows, Apple (iMac G4 or G5), or Linux-PC? I'm focusing on the
>>digital photography.
>
>
> Stick with Wintel. Unless you've already used unix or a
> unix variant, the learning curve for Linux will be ridiculous.
>
> As for Apple, they're dying a slow painful death, in spite
> of their marketing claims. The only reason they're still in
> business at all is because of investments by MS.
>
What a load. Learn to read financial statements, get a grip on cash flow.

Macintosh remains at the top for those who don't want to be tied to a
tech department, like to fix things themselves, without having to live
in the guts of the OS.

PC's are just fine, too.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 10:00:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cqlb3i0bh0@news1.newsguy.com>, leo <someone@somewhere.net>
wrote:

> You need to enlighten me about the vital of iPhoto. It can't handle RAW.
> It doesn't store photos offline and keep a catalog. And even worse, it
> doesn't show brightness correctly. I have to use Photoshop to check if
> the pictures are underexposed. iLife is merely a toy for novices.

iphoto is unquestionably a toy (and that is being quite generous).
however, there are many other options to catalog media other than
iphoto.

take a look at iview media pro which runs on both macintosh and windows
(and catalogues are compatible between the two platforms). the pro
version can catalog a *lot* of different formats including raw images
from several different cameras as well as pdf, mp3, and many other
types of media files.

<http://www.iview-multimedia.com/&gt;
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 10:17:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 20:23:04 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>...I bought my wife a new XP
>machine because spyware took over her old one and made it totally
>unusable


Simple spyware maitenance would stop that. It is easily cleaned up. I
have helped many friends get rid of spyware using the free spyware
elimination programs.

....
>My son's computer (XP) was taken over by spyware this summer.
>Spyware software removed it, but it was back in a couple of
>days (1800 spyware programs)!!!

Better keep a closer eye on your son and find out what sites he is
visiting and what he is doing there...



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 10:17:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

TheNewsGuy(Mike) wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 20:23:04 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>>...I bought my wife a new XP
>>machine because spyware took over her old one and made it totally
>>unusable
>
> Simple spyware maitenance would stop that. It is easily cleaned up. I
> have helped many friends get rid of spyware using the free spyware
> elimination programs.

Actually they don't. While they get many, they don't get
all, the the spy writers keep working on better ways
to exploit the multitude of holes in the windows system.

>>My son's computer (XP) was taken over by spyware this summer.
>>Spyware software removed it, but it was back in a couple of
>>days (1800 spyware programs)!!!
>
>
> Better keep a closer eye on your son and find out what sites he is
> visiting and what he is doing there...

I agree, but supposedly legitimate sites, especially sites offering
free software can be spyware. For example, realplayer.

You need more than spyware these days. You need virus protection,
analyzers that check what installed programs do (ever run strings
on windows executables to see some of the urls being addressed?),
anti-virus, trojen horse detection, setup of tripwires,
intrusion detection, etc, etc. It getting ugly.

Roger
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 10:18:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:28:53 -0500, "H. S."
<g_reate_xcalibur@yahoo.com> wrote:

....I was going to write just about exactly the same advice
===============================================
- Mozilla Firefox, not IE
- AVG free anti-virus software
- Ad-ware, or Spybot are also free - keep the definitions updated
- Spy Sweeper is also a good commercial product for Spyware
- Use a mail program other than Outlook - Thunderbird(?) from Mozilla
- A news reader like Forte's Free Agent
- Zone alarm or a router

My windows machine runs fast and clean - no problems.


>Windows can be used more safely, but the downside is you need to gain at
>least some knowledge about your OS and become Internet literate (first
>step: IE is NOT "the internet").
>- Install a firewall (zonealarm is free) and/or get a router (a hardware
>router is pretty cheap nowadays, $5~$40).
>- Have a good anti virus (AVG is free, as are some others).
>- Have an anti spyware program (spybot, ad aware are free).
>- Never use good email address in newsgroups, make a dispensable one in
>yahoo or hotmail etc.
>- Do NOT use IE. Using it is an invitation to spyware and other bad
>stuff. Install Firefox (http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/) or
>some other similar browser. Firefox is free, has tabbed browsing and is
>much much more secure than IE.
>- Do NOT use outlook, it just lets itself get high jacked by spyware
>related stuff. One choice: Thunderbird (www.mozilla.org) due to same
>reasons as Firefox above.
>- Keep your Windows installation fully updated.
>
>
>> By the way, with today's huge hd's, if you use bootitng as I suggested, you
>> can quite happily set up a parallel windows and linux partition. That's what
>
>Yup, that is going to be a reasonable installation while getting
>introduced to Linux.
>
>
>> I did, fairly painlessly (there is good support for doing this). Just be
>> sure the machine you buy has the linux support. Visit the
>
>Most of the desktop are supported. The problems could be the ones which
>have brand new hardware whose drivers are not written in Linux yet.
>
>
>> www.terabyteunlimited.com website, get on their forum and post there, you'll
>> find lots of users running both.
>> Good luck, and don't be so pessimistic about windows, it's not all that bad
>> and xp home works very well with good multimedia support. Use the
>> partitioning software to separate the os from data, do this early, make
>> image files of the os so you can always return to a known good point without
>> starting from scratch. Make sure you get a good dvd burner.
>> Dave Cohen
>>
>>
>
>
>GL,
>->HS

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
+ (two mirrored sites)
+ http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
+ http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym NOWTHISWORKS
+ All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 10:32:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eric Gill wrote:

>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
>> in news:41CE5246.4020507@qwest.net:
>>You need more than spyware these days. You need virus protection,
>>analyzers that check what installed programs do (ever run strings
>>on windows executables to see some of the urls being addressed?),
>>anti-virus, trojen horse detection, setup of tripwires,
>>intrusion detection, etc, etc. It getting ugly.
>
>
> No, you don't.
>
> You need a router and Mozilla/Firebird.
>
> That's it.

No. Install some software, any software, even from supposedly
reputable dealers. Worse is "free" software.
My oldest son is getting a degree in computer and network
security. As part of some classes, they split the class
in half, one half tries to attack the other half's computers
while the other half defends them. Then they switch roles.
They use the latest hacker tools. He tells me a lot
about what is going on and it is astounding.
You are not safe with only a router and Mozilla/Firebird.

Roger
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 12:03:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41CE5632.8030502@qwest.net>,
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>Paul Rubin wrote:
>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:
>>
>>>The problem with gimp is it is not 16-bit. I do a lot of image
>>>processing on unix and linux in 16 and 32-bit using custom programs,
>>
>>
>> FilmGimp (now called Cinepaint) can do 16 and 32 bits. I think Gimp
>> 3.0 is supposed to do 16 bits as well.
>>
>> http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/
>
>This would be very good news. When is Gimp 3.0 coming out?
>
>Roger
>


FWIW, Microsoft has funded a shareware project tha is supposed to take
the wind out of GIMP's popularity. It's called paint.NET. The URL I
have for it is not responsive right now, Sunday AM.

http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/

Of course it only runs on WIndows.

Look at Photoshop Elements 3.0, just out.

You didn't state what level of sophistication yoru digital photography
you are doing. If you know (pr want to learn) LInux, get a good
distro, like Suse 9.2, install it on a decent PC and try GIMP. If you
are not ready for a learning curve go with XP or Apple.

XP is fine, if you keep current with the Microsoft updates, add a an
AV product, good firewall (Zone Alarm), and use a third-party browser
like FIreFox, and never open an email attachemnt :-)

Apple is fine, right out of the box.

If you're doing _sophisticated_ photo manipulation you'll be using the
fastest computer and disk you can find. This won't be cheap. Apple
will sell you a Dual-G5 right off the shelf that is more powerfull
than 99.9% of all the inlel PCs in use.

If you decide to stay with XP or Linux and have a few bucks to spend.
get an AMD64-based system. It's about the fastest intel-architecture
machine you can buy, and runs 32-bit XP faster than any Intel chip,
for now.

You can try Linux, and GIMP, on any mid-level PC with at least 256MB
memory. Performance won't be great and you'l; want a fatser computer,
but you can decide of you can want to play in the Open Source world.















--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 12:10:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41CE5246.4020507@qwest.net>,
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>TheNewsGuy(Mike) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 20:23:04 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
>> to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...I bought my wife a new XP
>>>machine because spyware took over her old one and made it totally
>>>unusable
>>
>> Simple spyware maitenance would stop that. It is easily cleaned up. I
>> have helped many friends get rid of spyware using the free spyware
>> elimination programs.
>
>Actually they don't. While they get many, they don't get
>all, the the spy writers keep working on better ways
>to exploit the multitude of holes in the windows system.
>


If you keep up to date with MS patches and use any browser other than
MSIE, and never open email attachments from strangers, you're safe.
































>>>My son's computer (XP) was taken over by spyware this summer.
>>>Spyware software removed it, but it was back in a couple of
>>>days (1800 spyware programs)!!!
>>
>>
>> Better keep a closer eye on your son and find out what sites he is
>> visiting and what he is doing there...
>
>I agree, but supposedly legitimate sites, especially sites offering
>free software can be spyware. For example, realplayer.
>
>You need more than spyware these days. You need virus protection,
>analyzers that check what installed programs do (ever run strings
>on windows executables to see some of the urls being addressed?),
>anti-virus, trojen horse detection, setup of tripwires,
>intrusion detection, etc, etc. It getting ugly.
>
>Roger
>


--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 12:10:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:

> If you keep up to date with MS patches and use any browser other than
> MSIE, and never open email attachments from strangers, you're safe.

NO YOU ARE NOT! You are probably safe if you add the following
to your list: never install any software, and never click
on any link on any web site. But I still would not
trust windows. One recent hole in XP allowed someone
to come into a MS machine through on open port. That
hole was opened by microsoft fixing another security
problem and it was introduced in a windows update.
Hackers had a fair amount of time to attack before a new
fix was put out. They could attack directly, without
the need for the user to do anything, no email, no
web browser, nothing. The only thing that stopped this
attack was an independent (not windows software)
firewall.

Roger
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 12:13:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3377h0F3t2nl1U2@individual.net>,
Stacey <stephe_k@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>xuanjielih@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I need a new computer. The major jobs are internet serfing and digital
>> photography. What're the pros and cons between these three systems:
>> MS-Windows, Apple (iMac G4 or G5), or Linux-PC? I'm focusing on the
>> digital photography.
>>
>
>Dual boot, run wintel for your digital photography and use linux to surf the
>web. Connecting a wintel machine to the internet is suicide!


Huh ? What an idiotic statement.

Running an improperly administered Linux box is asking to be hacked too.

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 12:47:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41CECB7F.5050200@qwest.net>,
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>Eric Gill wrote:
>
>>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
>>> in news:41CE5246.4020507@qwest.net:
>>>You need more than spyware these days. You need virus protection,
>>>analyzers that check what installed programs do (ever run strings
>>>on windows executables to see some of the urls being addressed?),
>>>anti-virus, trojen horse detection, setup of tripwires,
>>>intrusion detection, etc, etc. It getting ugly.
>>
>>
>> No, you don't.
>>
>> You need a router and Mozilla/Firebird.
>>
>> That's it.
>
>No. Install some software, any software, even from supposedly
>reputable dealers. Worse is "free" software.
>My oldest son is getting a degree in computer and network
>security. As part of some classes, they split the class
>in half, one half tries to attack the other half's computers
>while the other half defends them. Then they switch roles.
>They use the latest hacker tools. He tells me a lot
>about what is going on and it is astounding.
>You are not safe with only a router and Mozilla/Firebird.
>
>Roger
>


I've supported lots of PC users over the years, including being a
member of the support team in a company that had 3,000 laptops,
running 98, evolving into NT and then w2k.

Field force laptops were running w/98, with AV software installed but
frequently not updated, no firewall or methodical patching. I was
always facinated that the same poeple came to us, time after time, to
get their machine cleaned out of viruses and spyware. Other people
would go for years without getting infected. This says more about the
user's habits and practices than it does about how easy it is to break
into w/98.

Currently if you run XP;
apply all critical updates promptly
Run an AV product and keep it updated
Install a good firewall (ie anything but Microsoft)
Install Mozilla, FireFox, or Opera, and keep it updated and use safe settings
(i use FF defaults, which blocks popups)
Don't be stupid about opening email attachments from strangers.

It you do the above (which is not hard) you're safe.











--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 12:47:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:

> I've supported lots of PC users over the years, including being a
> member of the support team in a company that had 3,000 laptops,
> running 98, evolving into NT and then w2k.
>
> Field force laptops were running w/98, with AV software installed but
> frequently not updated, no firewall or methodical patching. I was
> always facinated that the same poeple came to us, time after time, to
> get their machine cleaned out of viruses and spyware. Other people
> would go for years without getting infected. This says more about the
> user's habits and practices than it does about how easy it is to break
> into w/98.
>
> Currently if you run XP;
> apply all critical updates promptly
> Run an AV product and keep it updated
> Install a good firewall (ie anything but Microsoft)
> Install Mozilla, FireFox, or Opera, and keep it updated and use safe settings
> (i use FF defaults, which blocks popups)
> Don't be stupid about opening email attachments from strangers.
>
> It you do the above (which is not hard) you're safe.

NO, you are not. Add to the list: do not install software.
Times are changing, and rapidly!

Add to the list: do not connect to the internet ;-(

An example, check this out:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/tacit/125748.html

Roger
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 1:52:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41CEC9B4.2030903@qwest.net>,
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> If you keep up to date with MS patches and use any browser other than
>> MSIE, and never open email attachments from strangers, you're safe.
>
>NO YOU ARE NOT! You are probably safe if you add the following
>to your list: never install any software, and never click
>on any link on any web site. But I still would not
>trust windows. One recent hole in XP allowed someone
>to come into a MS machine through on open port. That
>hole was opened by microsoft fixing another security
>problem and it was introduced in a windows update.
>Hackers had a fair amount of time to attack before a new
>fix was put out. They could attack directly, without
>the need for the user to do anything, no email, no
>web browser, nothing. The only thing that stopped this
>attack was an independent (not windows software)
>firewall.
>
>Roger
>


People that install unvetted software will F**k themselves no matter
what OS they run. These people deserve what they get. If they get
good advice the'll be given a machine with a user account, and not
told what the root/administrator's ID/password is.



--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 5:10:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cqmgat$gri$1@panix5.panix.com...
[]
> FWIW, Microsoft has funded a shareware project tha is supposed to take
> the wind out of GIMP's popularity. It's called paint.NET. The URL I
> have for it is not responsive right now, Sunday AM.
>
> http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/
>
> Of course it only runs on WIndows.

... and not on the Linux .NET ports?

David
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 5:10:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <337v2dF3sd8l0U1@individual.net>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
>"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:cqmgat$gri$1@panix5.panix.com...
>[]
>> FWIW, Microsoft has funded a shareware project tha is supposed to take
>> the wind out of GIMP's popularity. It's called paint.NET. The URL I
>> have for it is not responsive right now, Sunday AM.
>>
>> http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/paint.net/
>>
>> Of course it only runs on WIndows.
>
>.. and not on the Linux .NET ports?
>
>David
>
>


When I looked at the .edu site it appears to be not open source, which
means it only runs on boxes MS pays to have it run on. It's new, and
I've never played with it. I just heard about it Friday.




--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 3:26:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 25 Dec 2004 18:04:36 -0800, xuanjielih@gmail.com wrote:

>I need a new computer. The major jobs are internet serfing and digital
>photography. What're the pros and cons between these three systems:
>MS-Windows, Apple (iMac G4 or G5), or Linux-PC? I'm focusing on the
>digital photography.
>

I've been in IT for 30 years and currently manage a University sever
farm which is Windows and have Windows at home. I'm going to get for
my next new computer a Mac iMac G5 just for my digital photography and
writing projects (I'm doing a Master in History and writing a book on
Texas civil war history)

I'm tired of coming home and having to fix my system there like I do
all day at work.

We just never have the problems with Mac we do with Windows machines.
********************************************************

"The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
singular, and unsatisfactory."

Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
to
Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
November 14, 1866
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 5:06:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <336o27F3ubkhnU1@individual.net>, Mike <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

> <xuanjielih@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1104026676.749972.170960@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > I need a new computer. The major jobs are internet serfing and digital
> > photography. What're the pros and cons between these three systems:
> > MS-Windows, Apple (iMac G4 or G5), or Linux-PC? I'm focusing on the
> > digital photography.
>
> Stick with Wintel. Unless you've already used unix or a
> unix variant, the learning curve for Linux will be ridiculous.
>
> As for Apple, they're dying a slow painful death, in spite
> of their marketing claims. The only reason they're still in
> business at all is because of investments by MS.
>
>
You're an idiot. Apple has $5.5 billion in the bank and makes a healthy
profit on every product they make.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 5:06:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Throat Warbler Mangrove wrote:
>>
> You're an idiot. Apple has $5.5 billion in the bank and makes a
> healthy profit on every product they make.

That's mainly due to the skyrocketing iPod sales. They have great computer
gear, but they were just surviving as a company prior to iPod.


Rita
--
http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 5:06:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <261220041806251325%sjs031REMOVE@sbcglobal.netTHIS>,
Throat Warbler Mangrove <sjs031REMOVE@sbcglobal.netTHIS> wrote:

> Apple has $5.5 billion in the bank and makes a healthy
> profit on every product they make.

Don't I know it.

Thankfully, I LOVE OSX and my G4 Power Macintosh.

Then there's iPod.

I have waited my entire life for this device. I hope the 40gb model I use
today lasts until Cupertino releases the iPod IMPLANT!

I'm gonna get a memory card reader for my iPod so I can dump my 20D's card at
the end of each day when I'm away from my computer.

....and then there's the endless symphony, metal, bluegrass and pipe organ
throughout my day - in my head. Who needs schizophrenia when there's iPod?
<grin>

It doesn't HAVE to come from Redmond to be good, worthwhile, worth the cost -
and cross-platform compatible.

:) 
JR

ObTrivia: Why was the original Mac called a "toaster"?
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 5:06:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <10susg776us6fb3@news.supernews.com>,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04@aol.com

> > Apple has $5.5 billion in the bank and makes a
> > healthy profit on every product they make.

> That's mainly due to the skyrocketing iPod sales. They have great computer
> gear, but they were just surviving as a company prior to iPod.

Aw, they were doing better than THAT. Perhaps not GREAT, but certainly better
than "just surviving".

My >31 year career has been spent working for the "same" company. First, it
was Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, then U S West and, this week, it's
Qwest. If there is JUSTICE in America, our previous C.E.O. will soon be
required to trade his pin stripes for prison stripes. Believe me, I know what
"just surviving" is for a company - and Apple wasn't there just before iPod.

:) 
JR
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 5:09:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95CB527ADF7A0ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246>, Eric Gill
<ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> No spyware, trojans, worms, virii.
>
> Nada.
>
That you know of, that is.

Get a Mac. Get a Life.

It's that simple.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 6:18:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
in news:41CECB7F.5050200@qwest.net:

> Eric Gill wrote:
>
>>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
>>> wrote in news:41CE5246.4020507@qwest.net:
>>>You need more than spyware these days. You need virus protection,
>>>analyzers that check what installed programs do (ever run strings
>>>on windows executables to see some of the urls being addressed?),
>>>anti-virus, trojen horse detection, setup of tripwires,
>>>intrusion detection, etc, etc. It getting ugly.
>>
>>
>> No, you don't.
>>
>> You need a router and Mozilla/Firebird.
>>
>> That's it.
>
> No.

Yes.

> Install some software, any software, even from supposedly
> reputable dealers.

I have dozens of applications. No spyware, trojans, adware, or anything I
don't want.

> Worse is "free" software.

Usually, yes.

> My oldest son is getting a degree in computer and network
> security. As part of some classes, they split the class
> in half, one half tries to attack the other half's computers
> while the other half defends them. Then they switch roles.
> They use the latest hacker tools. He tells me a lot
> about what is going on and it is astounding.
> You are not safe with only a router and Mozilla/Firebird.

Reality doesn't respect your opinion. sorry.

You snipped the part noting I have four different Windows OSs running,
and no problems. Why?
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 6:57:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
in news:41CED242.40803@qwest.net:

> Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> I've supported lots of PC users over the years, including being a
>> member of the support team in a company that had 3,000 laptops,
>> running 98, evolving into NT and then w2k.
>>
>> Field force laptops were running w/98, with AV software installed but
>> frequently not updated, no firewall or methodical patching. I was
>> always facinated that the same poeple came to us, time after time, to
>> get their machine cleaned out of viruses and spyware. Other people
>> would go for years without getting infected. This says more about
>> the user's habits and practices than it does about how easy it is to
>> break into w/98.
>>
>> Currently if you run XP;
>> apply all critical updates promptly
>> Run an AV product and keep it updated
>> Install a good firewall (ie anything but Microsoft)
>> Install Mozilla, FireFox, or Opera, and keep it updated and use
>> safe settings
>> (i use FF defaults, which blocks popups)
>> Don't be stupid about opening email attachments from strangers.
>>
>> It you do the above (which is not hard) you're safe.
>
> NO, you are not. Add to the list: do not install software.

....that comes from disreputable companies that traffic illegal software, or
one that makes it's money via advertising.

Need I comment on how obvious this is?

> Times are changing, and rapidly!

They are certainly confusing you.

> Add to the list: do not connect to the internet ;-(

Put down the crack pipe. There are no Terrorists, Communists, Huns, or
Hottentotts under your bed.

> An example, check this out:
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/tacit/125748.html

Yes, we were discussing it over on the Photoshop bases. I dealt with this
particularly nasty bugger on a client's machine; his son got onto it and
used IE to visit a lot of gaming and porn sites. Oddly enough, said client
finally let me hide IE and move him to Firefox.

Shelley was running IE. Sorry. Mozilla is immune to infection by VX2,
something I tested by following those links on my Win2K box.

You'd also know this if you had read through the threads following up to
tacit's investigations.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 6:57:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eric Gill wrote:

> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote
> in news:41CED242.40803@qwest.net:
>
>>Al Dykes wrote:
>>
>>>I've supported lots of PC users over the years, including being a
>>>member of the support team in a company that had 3,000 laptops,
>>>running 98, evolving into NT and then w2k.
>>>
>>>Field force laptops were running w/98, with AV software installed but
>>>frequently not updated, no firewall or methodical patching. I was
>>>always facinated that the same poeple came to us, time after time, to
>>>get their machine cleaned out of viruses and spyware. Other people
>>>would go for years without getting infected. This says more about
>>>the user's habits and practices than it does about how easy it is to
>>>break into w/98.
>>>
>>>Currently if you run XP;
>>> apply all critical updates promptly
>>> Run an AV product and keep it updated
>>> Install a good firewall (ie anything but Microsoft)
>>> Install Mozilla, FireFox, or Opera, and keep it updated and use
>>> safe settings
>>> (i use FF defaults, which blocks popups)
>>> Don't be stupid about opening email attachments from strangers.
>>>
>>>It you do the above (which is not hard) you're safe.
>>
>>NO, you are not. Add to the list: do not install software.
>
> ...that comes from disreputable companies that traffic illegal software, or
> one that makes it's money via advertising.
>
> Need I comment on how obvious this is?
You do to the unknowledgeable user, which is probably at least
90% of the people on the internet.
>
>>Times are changing, and rapidly!
>
> They are certainly confusing you.
If you don't think times are changing, and internet threats
are not getting more sophisticated, more threatening,
more often, I can arrange some swamp land for sale to you
for real expensive ;^)

>>Add to the list: do not connect to the internet ;-(
>
> Put down the crack pipe. There are no Terrorists, Communists, Huns, or
> Hottentotts under your bed.

I never said there was. But the hackers are pounding at the
router/firewall. It is the unknowledgeable user who gets hit.

>>An example, check this out:
>>http://www.livejournal.com/users/tacit/125748.html
>
> Yes, we were discussing it over on the Photoshop bases. I dealt with this
> particularly nasty bugger on a client's machine; his son got onto it and
> used IE to visit a lot of gaming and porn sites. Oddly enough, said client
> finally let me hide IE and move him to Firefox.

Yes, I delete the IE icon on the desktop on user machines I
work on, and tell the users never run IE.

> Shelley was running IE. Sorry. Mozilla is immune to infection by VX2,
> something I tested by following those links on my Win2K box.
> You'd also know this if you had read through the threads following up to
> tacit's investigations.

I use mozilla too, and have for a long time.
That doesn't mean you are completely safe and can let
your guard down. I run XP with mozilla and a firewall,
and have never ever had a virus, and generally do not
have hacker/spyware problems. I also use linux machines
to surf the internet (mozilla) and do email. But that
doesn't mean I ever let my guard down (XP or Linux, and
I try and keep knowledgeable about threats.

Roger
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:21:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Throat Warbler Mangrove wrote:
>
>>You're an idiot. Apple has $5.5 billion in the bank and makes a
>>healthy profit on every product they make.
>
>
> That's mainly due to the skyrocketing iPod sales. They have great computer
> gear, but they were just surviving as a company prior to iPod.
>
>
> Rita

You are correct. The word on the street is iPod.

Apples computer gear is no better or worse than top line PC's. What made
Apple great was the simple user friendly system they had and Apple also
policed major software companies to be sure Apple software was good. At
that time Apple had 7% of the computer market, which included schools.

Now Apple has dumped the user friendly system and gone high class, good
machines, good software, and a 5% market share, even loosing in schools.
Apple computer survived on dedicated Apple users, which are slowly
diminishing.



nick
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:38:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <R4Mzd.22483$k25.12988@attbi_s53>,
nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Now Apple has dumped the user friendly system and gone high class, good
> machines, good software, and a 5% market share, even loosing in schools.
> Apple computer survived on dedicated Apple users, which are slowly
> diminishing.

I don't see OSX 10.3 as being particularly user unfriendly. How do you
establish that dedicated Mac users are slowly diminishing? Sounds
somewhat like a crock of BS to me.
--
LOL.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 8:57:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Udie Lafing wrote:
> In article <R4Mzd.22483$k25.12988@attbi_s53>,
> nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Now Apple has dumped the user friendly system and gone high class, good
>>machines, good software, and a 5% market share, even loosing in schools.
>>Apple computer survived on dedicated Apple users, which are slowly
>>diminishing.
>
>
> I don't see OSX 10.3 as being particularly user unfriendly. How do you
> establish that dedicated Mac users are slowly diminishing? Sounds
> somewhat like a crock of BS to me.

Granted, some of my friends who use the X systems say the same, yet some
who also use the X systems don't agree. The point being The X systems
are not AS user friendly as the OS9 and subs were.

I established the diminishing user information two ways. The first being
I know of two Apple clubs, small membership in both, that no longer
exist. Members have gone PC. Second, Apples world wide market share was
7% now it's 5%, as published in computer magazines.

The local University, as I recall, has 85 computers in the community
computer room that the students are free to use, only 8 are Apples.
Wasn't that way a couple of years ago.

However, you must be a happy Apple user. Can't beat that, so stay with
Apple. I still have two functioning updated 8600 Apple machines.
Remember those? They have CD, zip, and Diskette drives built in. That
was before Jobs decided users didn't need built in Zip and Diskette drives.

To a dedicated Apple user, what I have said would indeed sound like a
crock of BS. I can understand that, and it's fine with me. I care about
what I buy, not what others buy. For 14 years I've used Apple equipment,
primarily because both my brothers business' were Apple based. Now both
have gone PC and I have gone PC and I'm still a happy camper. I still
process photos, send mail, do business over the Internet, keep records,
etc. I haven't lost anything. (Shrug)

nick
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 4:39:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 09:12:40 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>Hardly. Linux is being used more and more for servers, and
>general use computers. The demand is growing so fast that
>companies are having trouble finding linux system
>administrators, according to a recent Computerworld
>article. I've also seen statistics (e.g. in Computerworld)
>that shows growth of unix and windows servers flat and
>linux growing. On the desktop for the average user,
>I agree that linux has a ways to go to catch up
>to the easy and user interface of windows. But I'm also
>impressed at how with each release it is getting closer.
>Two years ago it was far from usable for the masses.
>But the gap is closing, and if more software companies
>would come out with linux ports, linux could
>dominate the desktop in a few years, especially if the
>windows threats keep growing as they have been.
>Just my opinion.
>
>Roger

Linux is growing in managed systems.
For stand-alone systems, where the user is the adminstrator (like most
non-business PCs), Linux so far is a bust, because it requires much
more hands-on care than Windows or Mac. That's something the user just
doesn't want to apply.
Interestingly, *nix has a larger market share of OS than the Mac does.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 5:48:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <BvNzd.290285$HA.180915@attbi_s01>,
nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:

> Udie Lafing wrote:
> > In article <R4Mzd.22483$k25.12988@attbi_s53>,
> > nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Now Apple has dumped the user friendly system and gone high class, good
> >>machines, good software, and a 5% market share, even loosing in schools.
> >>Apple computer survived on dedicated Apple users, which are slowly
> >>diminishing.
> >
> >
> > I don't see OSX 10.3 as being particularly user unfriendly. How do you
> > establish that dedicated Mac users are slowly diminishing? Sounds
> > somewhat like a crock of BS to me.
>
> Granted, some of my friends who use the X systems say the same, yet some
> who also use the X systems don't agree. The point being The X systems
> are not AS user friendly as the OS9 and subs were.
>
> I established the diminishing user information two ways. The first being
> I know of two Apple clubs, small membership in both, that no longer
> exist. Members have gone PC. Second, Apples world wide market share was
> 7% now it's 5%, as published in computer magazines.
>
> The local University, as I recall, has 85 computers in the community
> computer room that the students are free to use, only 8 are Apples.
> Wasn't that way a couple of years ago.
>
> However, you must be a happy Apple user. Can't beat that, so stay with
> Apple. I still have two functioning updated 8600 Apple machines.
> Remember those? They have CD, zip, and Diskette drives built in. That
> was before Jobs decided users didn't need built in Zip and Diskette drives.
>
> To a dedicated Apple user, what I have said would indeed sound like a
> crock of BS. I can understand that, and it's fine with me. I care about
> what I buy, not what others buy. For 14 years I've used Apple equipment,
> primarily because both my brothers business' were Apple based. Now both
> have gone PC and I have gone PC and I'm still a happy camper. I still
> process photos, send mail, do business over the Internet, keep records,
> etc. I haven't lost anything. (Shrug)
>
> nick

Thanks for qualifying the statements.
--
LOL.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:00:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <bjs0t0hkbf99v3h6h3hosqogk25ck0t337@4ax.com>,
Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 09:12:40 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
>to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>Hardly. Linux is being used more and more for servers, and
>>general use computers. The demand is growing so fast that
>>companies are having trouble finding linux system
>>administrators, according to a recent Computerworld
>>article. I've also seen statistics (e.g. in Computerworld)
>>that shows growth of unix and windows servers flat and
>>linux growing. On the desktop for the average user,
>>I agree that linux has a ways to go to catch up
>>to the easy and user interface of windows. But I'm also
>>impressed at how with each release it is getting closer.
>>Two years ago it was far from usable for the masses.
>>But the gap is closing, and if more software companies
>>would come out with linux ports, linux could
>>dominate the desktop in a few years, especially if the
>>windows threats keep growing as they have been.
>>Just my opinion.
>>
>>Roger
>
>Linux is growing in managed systems.
>For stand-alone systems, where the user is the adminstrator (like most
>non-business PCs), Linux so far is a bust, because it requires much
>more hands-on care than Windows or Mac. That's something the user just
>doesn't want to apply.
>Interestingly, *nix has a larger market share of OS than the Mac does.
>
>--

I agree, but add that that it sort ignores the huge part of the world
where paying $90 to Bill gates isn't an option.

Open Source software is being translated to obscure language fonts and
dialects at a fantastic rate, by people that need it and have the time
and skills, but little money. Microsoft can't justify the expense to
translate Office to one of the hundred dialects in use in India, let
along all of them. Access to locally supported version is attractive
to local schools and businesses in a way that Redmond can't match.

Right now Linux easy of use is equal to XP or MAC. It's the setup and
admin that's still rough. People in poor countries can accept that.
It will get better.

I'm told that the numbers for Linux installed on desktop/laptop has
recently passed MAC. I assume that MAC is growing in absolute
numbers, if slowly. Apple makes a great laptop, IMO.

















--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:20:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Udie Lafing wrote:
> In article <BvNzd.290285$HA.180915@attbi_s01>,
> nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Udie Lafing wrote:
>>
>>>In article <R4Mzd.22483$k25.12988@attbi_s53>,
>>> nick c <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now Apple has dumped the user friendly system and gone high class, good
>>>>machines, good software, and a 5% market share, even loosing in schools.
>>>>Apple computer survived on dedicated Apple users, which are slowly
>>>>diminishing.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't see OSX 10.3 as being particularly user unfriendly. How do you
>>>establish that dedicated Mac users are slowly diminishing? Sounds
>>>somewhat like a crock of BS to me.
>>
>>Granted, some of my friends who use the X systems say the same, yet some
>>who also use the X systems don't agree. The point being The X systems
>>are not AS user friendly as the OS9 and subs were.
>>
>>I established the diminishing user information two ways. The first being
>>I know of two Apple clubs, small membership in both, that no longer
>>exist. Members have gone PC. Second, Apples world wide market share was
>>7% now it's 5%, as published in computer magazines.
>>
>>The local University, as I recall, has 85 computers in the community
>>computer room that the students are free to use, only 8 are Apples.
>>Wasn't that way a couple of years ago.
>>
>>However, you must be a happy Apple user. Can't beat that, so stay with
>>Apple. I still have two functioning updated 8600 Apple machines.
>>Remember those? They have CD, zip, and Diskette drives built in. That
>>was before Jobs decided users didn't need built in Zip and Diskette drives.
>>
>>To a dedicated Apple user, what I have said would indeed sound like a
>>crock of BS. I can understand that, and it's fine with me. I care about
>>what I buy, not what others buy. For 14 years I've used Apple equipment,
>>primarily because both my brothers business' were Apple based. Now both
>>have gone PC and I have gone PC and I'm still a happy camper. I still
>>process photos, send mail, do business over the Internet, keep records,
>>etc. I haven't lost anything. (Shrug)
>>
>>nick
>
>
> Thanks for qualifying the statements.

Bottom line: Use whichever you are more comfortable with. The current
technology on both platforms is more than adequate for the task at hand.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:49:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:

> Currently if you run XP;
> apply all critical updates promptly
> Run an AV product and keep it updated
> Install a good firewall (ie anything but Microsoft)
> Install Mozilla, FireFox, or Opera, and keep it updated and use safe settings
> (i use FF defaults, which blocks popups)
> Don't be stupid about opening email attachments from strangers.
>
> It you do the above (which is not hard) you're safe.
>

Not in my book. You need something like ZoneAlarm pro's IDvault. Twice, just
lately, while accessing websites linked to posts in this and r.p.e.35mm, ZA popped
up and announced that such-and-such a site wanted my bank password. Not bloody
likely!!

Colin
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:49:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41CFBE9C.6E3ECC61@killspam.127.0.0.1>,
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> Currently if you run XP;
>> apply all critical updates promptly
>> Run an AV product and keep it updated
>> Install a good firewall (ie anything but Microsoft)
>> Install Mozilla, FireFox, or Opera, and keep it updated and use safe settings
>> (i use FF defaults, which blocks popups)
>> Don't be stupid about opening email attachments from strangers.
>>
>> It you do the above (which is not hard) you're safe.
>>
>
>Not in my book. You need something like ZoneAlarm pro's IDvault. Twice, just
>lately, while accessing websites linked to posts in this and r.p.e.35mm, ZA popped
>up and announced that such-and-such a site wanted my bank password. Not bloody
>likely!!
>
>Colin
>


Using FF, with the default I haven't seen a popup. It's nice.
(There's a pop-up whitelist capability that I haven;t had to use.)

You can't stop idiots from giving up personal information, when asked.
You can't blame that on XP, MACOS, or Linux. It's not a computer problem.


Idiots that will answer "yes" to any prompt the see on a web page need
to be restricted to a non-privilaged user id. Then the computer is
safe. Unfortunatly, the same can't be said about their bank account.

--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 12:22:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> I agree, but add that that it sort ignores the huge part of the world
> where paying $90 to Bill gates isn't an option.

In most of these places you can buy windows xp pro for something like a
dollar on a disk with several other useful programs. It's actually very
affordable for home users.

Wayne
!