On 1 Oct 2006 at 10:05, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2006 at 12:42, Richard Yates wrote: > > > >>>> What you > >>>> have to know is different between Mac and Windows, but you still > >>>> have to have certain knowledge to keep things running smoothly. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Not true at all. > >>> > >> Now this is simply disingenuous. How many years did I hear Mac > >> folks tell each other to 'rebuild the desktop' or to something > >> arcane about 'extensions' whatever the hell those meant. > > > > My favorite current one is repairing permissions, something that no > > vesion of Windows has ever required. > > And my favorite Windows thing is the daily Windows Update to see > if Microsoft got off it's ass and fixed Windows flaw #445325 or > perhaps #787534 or did they get around to closing hole #421233 in > Internet Explorer........who knows. It's a daily treat though!
Who in his right mind uses IE in the first place? And as security and other patches, I'm observing a long thread on another list about a set of OS X updates that have hosed the OS into an unbootable state. As to Windows Update, I don't use it. I monitor threats and manually download and install updates *where appropriate*, and have none of my clients automatically applying Window Updates (something the user need not do anything about). According to you, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't -- the mere process of wanting to check for updates condemns Windows to hell from your apparent point of view. In reality, the ease of applying updates makes Windows safer than it would be without it. It's *good* that updates get pushed out regularly. Last of all, Windows is a codebase developed over 20 years, with backward compatibility found on no other major OS. That imposes certain restrictions on how quickly you can re-architect your codebase. Windows Vista is going to reflect a major rebuilding of the security infrastructure (though I'm not sure if I agree that it's doing it right). OS X really isn't comparable in terms of legacy code (despite its origins in Next and UNIX). Also, it reflects a different design philosophy, one that was more network and security aware from the ground up. You could argue that MS was stupid to design Windows around single computer norms, but at the time they did it, it made sense (the Mac OS that existed before OS X had lots of the same kind of legacy problems as Windows does). It is the way it is. Bashing Windows doesn't accomplish anything, anymore than bashing OS X would. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
