Kaspersky anti-virus for Mac
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Duncan Kennedy on 26 Apr 2010 09:59 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > > > People are more likely to post when they have a problem. > > That's pretty obvious, which doesn't make it any less true. > > Just as examples; I am typing this on a 667MHz TiBook, which is about 8 > years old and has never given any trouble- > So you see the moans. Not the praise. As you might expect. Yes - I accept that - but in relation to units sold of decent quality equipment, I'm nt yet convinced that Macs are any more reliable than decent Win PCs. That said, my first Mac was very second hand when I bought it around 97 /98 ? - others will have a better idea than I have of how old it might be - it is a Power something 720 if I remember - virtually all SCSI with impossibly expensive software to connect to a Windows network and special connectors (AppleTalk?) that made it easier to fit a standard ethernet card - which you *could do in these days. After sitting idle for years I suddenly needed it last year for a special font a client was demanding and it booted first time and launched a free version of Freehand without any problem. -- duncank
From: Bernard Peek on 26 Apr 2010 10:11 On 26/04/10 14:59, Duncan Kennedy wrote: >> So you see the moans. Not the praise. As you might expect. > > Yes - I accept that - but in relation to units sold of decent quality > equipment, I'm nt yet convinced that Macs are any more reliable than > decent Win PCs. From conversations with monks elsewhere I've concluded that the hardware is now about as reliable as a PC and the OS sucks a lot less than it once did. I'm still unlikely to spend my own shekels on one, even if unrecovery made that feasible. -- Bernard Peek bap(a)shrdlu.com
From: Ben Shimmin on 26 Apr 2010 10:38 Bernard Peek <bap(a)shrdlu.com>: > On 26/04/10 14:59, Duncan Kennedy wrote: >>> So you see the moans. Not the praise. As you might expect. >> >> Yes - I accept that - but in relation to units sold of decent quality >> equipment, I'm nt yet convinced that Macs are any more reliable than >> decent Win PCs. > > From conversations with monks elsewhere I've concluded that the > hardware is now about as reliable as a PC and the OS sucks a lot less > than it once did. I'm still unlikely to spend my own shekels on one, > even if unrecovery made that feasible. For a moment there I thought I'd accidently started reading alt.sysadmin.recovery again! b. -- <bas(a)bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `Zombies are defined by behavior and can be "explained" by many handy shortcuts: the supernatural, radiation, a virus, space visitors, secret weapons, a Harvard education and so on.' -- Roger Ebert
From: Bernard Peek on 26 Apr 2010 10:51 On 26/04/10 15:38, Ben Shimmin wrote: > Bernard Peek<bap(a)shrdlu.com>: >> On 26/04/10 14:59, Duncan Kennedy wrote: >>>> So you see the moans. Not the praise. As you might expect. >>> >>> Yes - I accept that - but in relation to units sold of decent quality >>> equipment, I'm nt yet convinced that Macs are any more reliable than >>> decent Win PCs. >> >> From conversations with monks elsewhere I've concluded that the >> hardware is now about as reliable as a PC and the OS sucks a lot less >> than it once did. I'm still unlikely to spend my own shekels on one, >> even if unrecovery made that feasible. > > For a moment there I thought I'd accidently started reading > alt.sysadmin.recovery again! Ooops! Forgot where I was. -- Bernard Peek bap(a)shrdlu.com
From: Pd on 26 Apr 2010 11:21
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Never heard of anyone needing suckers to get into Macs, I haven't. The aluminium intel iMacs need suckers to pull the screen off, which is how you get into them. -- Pd |