http://qr.teenwag.com/poll?n=161

John wrote:
>
> http://qr.teenwag.com/poll?n=161

OK. Isn't someone supposed to be checking IDs at the door?

Notan

Notan wrote:
> John wrote:
> >
> > http://qr.teenwag.com/poll?n=161

> OK. Isn't someone supposed to be checking IDs at the door?

> Notan

*** Not any longer. The forgeries are so good that the bouncer gave
up. (-:

Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

************************************************** ************************
* Ham since 1937 HiSchool Sophomore ex W9ZUU, KP4EX, W4FAG, KH6ARG KH6JF *
* WW2 Vet since Sep 1940 to just After VJ day. US Signal Corps AACS *
************************************************** ************************




On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Richard Bonner wrote:

> Notan wrote:
>> John wrote:
>>>
>>> http://qr.teenwag.com/poll?n=161
>
>> OK. Isn't someone supposed to be checking IDs at the door?
>
>> Notan
>
> *** Not any longer. The forgeries are so good that the bouncer gave
> up. (-:
>
> Richard Bonner
> http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
>
IMHO one reason is they are more imune to virus' problems as not enuff
people around the www know how to kill the mbr of a MAC.
Joe

Joseph Fenn wrote:
> IMHO one reason is they are more imune to virus' problems as not enuff
> people around the www know how to kill the mbr of a MAC.
> Joe

*** That will change with Macs that run on Intel chips. I would think
that any Mac that can run native Windows software would be open
to more viruses.

Of course, as Macs regain their popularity, I can see more viruses
being written for them.

Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

In message <emkpi7$tnt$4@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca>, Richard Bonner
<ak621@chebucto.ns.ca> writes
>Joseph Fenn wrote:
>> IMHO one reason is they are more imune to virus' problems as not enuff
>> people around the www know how to kill the mbr of a MAC.
>> Joe
>
>*** That will change with Macs that run on Intel chips. I would think
>that any Mac that can run native Windows software would be open
>to more viruses.
>
> Of course, as Macs regain their popularity, I can see more viruses
>being written for them.
>
I'd disagree on Macs regaining their popularity - which was originally
based within the graphic-design and CAD industry's requirement for their
much higher display resolution. Today the PC can match the Mac's display
resolution. Couple that with the much wider choice of software (and
resulting lower cost) and, IMHO, Apple have a difficult if not
impossible task in catch-up.

--
Tony Morgan

>
> *** That will change with Macs that run on Intel chips. I would think
> that any Mac that can run native Windows software would be open
> to more viruses.
>
> Of course, as Macs regain their popularity, I can see more viruses
> being written for them.
>
> Richard Bonner
> http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
>
Richard
Its all in the numbers. What percentage do you think apples
have in comparison of the nrs of PC's arund the world.
And that begs the question what virus creator is gonna waste
time creating virus' that will affect. By the same token
LINUX is the supreme choice OS to avoid virus'. Virus makers
go for the big nrs. I'm lucky in that no virus of any kind
cant infect my Commodore128 (here again its not the nrs that
count) its the OS itself cant be touched its all in R O M
not R A M.
Joe

>>
>> *** That will change with Macs that run on Intel chips. I would think
>> that any Mac that can run native Windows software would be open
>> to more viruses.
>>
>> Of course, as Macs regain their popularity, I can see more viruses
>> being written for them.
>>
> I'd disagree on Macs regaining their popularity - which was originally based
> within the graphic-design and CAD industry's requirement for their much
> higher display resolution. Today the PC can match the Mac's display
> resolution. Couple that with the much wider choice of software (and resulting
> lower cost) and, IMHO, Apple have a difficult if not impossible task in
> catch-up.
>
> --
> Tony Morgan
>
Not really Tony. See my other post here about virus creators.
Its all in the nrs as I said before, the one true way to avoid them
is to use a computer that has its OS in ROM chips rather than
RAM such as the PC's do. Its still in the nrs. Virus creaters
want to hit the whole world in the face, not a 3% of them!!
Joe

Tony Morgan wrote:
> Richard Bonner <ak621@chebucto.ns.ca> writes

> >Joseph Fenn wrote:
> >> IMHO one reason is they are more imune to virus' problems as not enuff
> >> people around the www know how to kill the mbr of a MAC.
> >> Joe
> >
> >*** That will change with Macs that run on Intel chips. I would think
> >that any Mac that can run native Windows software would be open
> >to more viruses.
> >
> > Of course, as Macs regain their popularity, I can see more viruses
> >being written for them.

> I'd disagree on Macs regaining their popularity - which was originally
> based within the graphic-design and CAD industry's requirement for their
> much higher display resolution. Today the PC can match the Mac's display
> resolution. Couple that with the much wider choice of software (and
> resulting lower cost) and, IMHO, Apple have a difficult if not
> impossible task in catch-up.
> --
> Tony Morgan

*** I won't disagree with that, but their numbers apparently are up.

As for software, I am under the impression that Intel Macs can run
Windows (and presumably DOS) software natively so they'd have the same
variety available.

Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

In message <emn477$j9$2@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca>, Richard Bonner
<ak621@chebucto.ns.ca> writes
>Tony Morgan wrote:
>> Richard Bonner <ak621@chebucto.ns.ca> writes
>
>> >Joseph Fenn wrote:
>> >> IMHO one reason is they are more imune to virus' problems as not enuff
>> >> people around the www know how to kill the mbr of a MAC.
>> >> Joe
>> >
>> >*** That will change with Macs that run on Intel chips. I would think
>> >that any Mac that can run native Windows software would be open
>> >to more viruses.
>> >
>> > Of course, as Macs regain their popularity, I can see more viruses
>> >being written for them.
>
>> I'd disagree on Macs regaining their popularity - which was originally
>> based within the graphic-design and CAD industry's requirement for their
>> much higher display resolution. Today the PC can match the Mac's display
>> resolution. Couple that with the much wider choice of software (and
>> resulting lower cost) and, IMHO, Apple have a difficult if not
>> impossible task in catch-up.
>> --
>> Tony Morgan
>
>*** I won't disagree with that, but their numbers apparently are up.
>
> As for software, I am under the impression that Intel Macs can run
>Windows (and presumably DOS) software natively so they'd have the same
>variety available.
>
I might be stupid, but it seems to me that if that were the case, all
they're doing is making just another IBM PC clone. And god knows - there
are more than enough of those already :-)
--
Tony Morgan

Tony Morgan wrote:
> Richard Bonner wrote:
(re: Mac Systems)
> > As for software, I am under the impression that Intel Macs can run
> >Windows (and presumably DOS) software natively so they'd have the same
> >variety available.

> I might be stupid, but it seems to me that if that were the case, all
> they're doing is making just another IBM PC clone. And god knows - there
> are more than enough of those already :-)
> --
> Tony Morgan

*** I sort of thought the same thing, but not being a Mac user, i can't
answer.I assume that Mac software would still run and, in addition, PC
software (at least DOS and Windows programs).

Is there a Mac user lurking that could clear this up?

Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

In message <empnq5$nb8$20@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca>, Richard Bonner
<ak621@chebucto.ns.ca> writes
>Tony Morgan wrote:
>> Richard Bonner wrote:
>(re: Mac Systems)
>> > As for software, I am under the impression that Intel Macs can run
>> >Windows (and presumably DOS) software natively so they'd have the same
>> >variety available.
>
>> I might be stupid, but it seems to me that if that were the case, all
>> they're doing is making just another IBM PC clone. And god knows - there
>> are more than enough of those already :-)
>> --
>> Tony Morgan
>
>*** I sort of thought the same thing, but not being a Mac user, i can't
>answer.I assume that Mac software would still run and, in addition, PC
>software (at least DOS and Windows programs).
>
> Is there a Mac user lurking that could clear this up?
>
IIRC they tried a DOS/Win emulation layer on top of the Mac OS some
years ago and it was a resounding failure. Acorn also tried it with
their RISC technology - and again it sank like a lead balloon.

I get a sense of Deja Vu. In the mainframe days, ICL developed the 2900
series to replace their 1900 series of mainframes. To allow their
sizable customer base to run legacy software on the new machines, they
provided (free) a 1900 emulation. Problem was that a 2900 running the
emulation was noticeably slower than the 1900 machines that ICL had
persuaded their customers to replace with the 2900. The debacle
effectively finished ICL as a mainframe supplier. Wang too, once a force
in the computer industry, did the same thing which effectively finished
them too.

--
Tony Morgan

(caveat - I'm not a Mac user, just a reader of lots of stuff)

The Intel Macs can be set up with a dual boot to Windows using Apple's "Boot
Camp".

Windows can be run in a virtual machine using Parallels' Desktop for Mac

But I'm not aware of any way to run Windows apps within the Mac OS.

Val


"Richard Bonner" <ak621@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:empnq5$nb8$20@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca...
> Tony Morgan wrote:
>> Richard Bonner wrote:
> (re: Mac Systems)
>> > As for software, I am under the impression that Intel Macs can run
>> >Windows (and presumably DOS) software natively so they'd have the same
>> >variety available.
>
>> I might be stupid, but it seems to me that if that were the case, all
>> they're doing is making just another IBM PC clone. And god knows - there
>> are more than enough of those already :-)
>> --
>> Tony Morgan
>
> *** I sort of thought the same thing, but not being a Mac user, i can't
> answer.I assume that Mac software would still run and, in addition, PC
> software (at least DOS and Windows programs).
>
> Is there a Mac user lurking that could clear this up?
>
> Richard Bonner
> http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/

> But I'm not aware of any way to run Windows apps within the Mac OS.
>
> Val
>

latest version of parallels does exactly this, as does "crossover",
which is kind of an OS X version of WINE.

ric

Ric,
I'll split the diffence with you. Parallels lets you run a Win virtual
machine - you still install Windows and run the app in that. So it's not
actually running the app directly from Mac OS.

But, I'd forgotten that Crossover/WINE work in OS/X now. Pretty extensive
list of compatible applications!

Val

"ric" <publicmail@infobubble.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1168427938.149735.260460@i56g2000hsf.googlegr oups.com...
>> But I'm not aware of any way to run Windows apps within the Mac OS.
>>
>> Val
>>
>
> latest version of parallels does exactly this, as does "crossover",
> which is kind of an OS X version of WINE.
>
> ric
>