[Jayomatic]

That last lawsuit article is spot on. I have a couple designers using the 20inch models in the office and the colour on them is horrendous. There is this constant gradient which makes all colours look darker near the bottom of the monitor than the bottom and the banding on gradients is terrible.

 

[syn]

^I thought that article was an April Fool's joke.

 

[MetroMan]

This next article comes from MSNBC (and yes, the "MS" stands for Microsoft).
Again, from the mouth of the beast:

Survey: Apple awesome, Microsoft 'stodgy'
Poll reveals which brands have the biggest impact on world's consumers

By Rachel Sanderson

updated 11:08 a.m. ET, Mon., March. 31, 2008
LONDON - The Apple brand has the biggest impact on the world's consumers, while Microsoft and the image of the United States (as a brand) are those considered most in need of a remake, a survey showed on Monday.

The poll by online magazine brandchannel.com asked its readers to identify the brands with the greatest impact on their lives, and say how they affected readers' behavior and their view of the world.

(Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal.)

The nearly 2,000 professionals and students who voted named Apple overwhelming winner. The creator of the iPod and Mac computer triumphed in six categories including most inspiring brand and the one readers cannot live without.

Microsoft, the world's largest software maker, was also a winner, but it received the dubious honor of the brand most readers wanted to argue with, and the one they most wanted to revamp. Voted into second place in the category was brand USA.

"Apple has clearly captured the hearts and minds by leading across most categories. Others, such as the USA nation brand, which ranks highly as most in need of a rebrand, requires help according to our readers," said brandchannel editor Jim Thompson.

The poll does not take account of economic brand value, the murky science of assigning a financial value to brand, which regularly puts Coca-Cola Co's Coke in first place.

One of the more surprising results from the survey, was that few of the respondents — who came from 107 countries — thought that there was such a thing as a "green" brand.

The result comes despite millions of dollars spent by some of the world's biggest companies to rebrand themselves as "environmentally friendly."

Discussing Apple, one anonymous reader said there was "never a dull moment" with the company "reinventing itself all along and providing, over and over again, a new perspective on what we thought was carved in stone."

At the other end of the spectrum, Microsoft had "gone from innovative and bold to stodgy and follower," said another unnamed reader.

After Apple, the most inspiring brands were Nike, Coca-Cola, Google and Starbucks, the survey showed.

The same brands, except with Virgin in place of Starbucks, were the brands most readers would "like to sit next to at a dinner party."

The rankings by brandchannel.com were based on answers from almost 2,000 readers from 107 countries. The survey was conducted online from Feb. 24 to March 9.

Copyright 2008 Reuters

SOURCE

... so don't take my word for it. Microsoft's own subsidiaries make it clear.

 

[syn]

This next article comes from MSNBC (and yes, the "MS" stands for Microsoft).
Again, from the mouth of the beast:



... so don't take my word for it. Microsoft's own subsidiaries make it clear.

The article isn't surprising. It just reinforces what most people know - Apple has excellent marketing.


More security problems for Apple:

Sophos Warns of Mac Trojan Malware

The Imunizator Trojan fools users with claims of privacy breach, security consultant Sophos says.

Jonny Evans, Macworld UK

Monday, March 31, 2008 8:20 AM PDT


Security consultant Sophos is warning of the appearance of money-grabbing Trojan Horse malware aimed at Macs

The firm isn't being alarmist with news of the Imunizator Trojan, which makes false claims that Macs have privacy problems as part of its attempt to install itself. Sophos advises users not to panic.
The Trojan, also known as Troj/MacSwp-B, tries to scare Mac users into purchasing unnecessary software by claiming that privacy issues have been discovered on the computer.

"Windows users are no stranger to scareware like this, but it is rarer on the Mac. Nevertheless, the discovery of this Trojan horse does follow fast on the heels of other malware that has been identified on Mac OS X in recent months," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos.

"Cybercrime against Mac users may be small in comparison to Windows attacks, but it is growing. Mac users need to learn from the mistakes made by their Windows cousins in the past and ensure that they have defenses in place, are up-to-date with patches and exercise caution about what they run on their computer."

Sophos experts note that the new Trojan horse is closely related to another piece of Mac scareware, MacSweeper, which was being deployed in an attack via online adverts on ITV.com and the website of the Radio Times last month.

"It's not unusual to see hackers repackage their malware in a variety of disguises to try and sneak it past anti-malware software," explained Cluley.
Earlier this year Sophos published its annual Security Threat Report, which described how financially motivated hackers had targeted Macs for the first time in 2007.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143982-c,trojanhorses/article.html

Apple Tests Mac OS X update

Apple has released Mac OS X 10.5.3 to its developer community for widespread testing.

Jonny Evans, Macworld UK

Monday, March 31, 2008 7:42 AM PDT

Apple has begun testing Mac OS X 10.5.3, releasing the software to its developer community for widespread testing.

The upgraded OS bundles over 75 fixes and first began to appear with developers on Thursday night. System components addressed in this release reportedly include: AddressBook, AppleScript, Audio, Back To My Mac, Dashboard, Dock, DVD Player, Finder, Graphics, iCal, Mail, Portable Home Directories, Printing, Rosetta, Spaces, Spotlight, Time Machine, and VoiceOver.

The release also implements patches and security improvements across system components. It's not known yet when Apple will ship the latest system update.

Apple shipped its last Leopard update, Mac OS X 10.5.2, in February. The update offered an extensive collection of fixes and patches across the OS and updated Stacks with the addition of a List and Folder view option and introduced an updated background for Grid view. It also added a menu bar for accessing Time Machine.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143981-page,1/article.html


What are Apple and Sophos thinking? Unix will take care of these problems itself. .

 

[MetroMan]

^^ uh.. you're showing me a story that says that a bug has been identified and that Apple is releasing a patch. Nothing new or outstanding here.

If you had posted a story stating that there was widespread exploitations of a bug, then I'd be concerned.

The fact of the matter is that no OS is 100% secure nor will it ever be. User interaction is the weak link. If a user is asked to type in their administrator credentials and does so regardless of how dodgy the request may be, no amount of security will protect them.

Allowing for an OS to be released with several thousand known bugs is the domain of Microsoft and of course those bugs are exploited and you hear about it all the time.

Give me a story about a virus or malware spreading into the wider Mac community and you'll catch my interest.

 

[syn]

^^ uh.. you're showing me a story that says that a bug has been identified and that Apple is releasing a patch. Nothing new or outstanding here.

If you had posted a story stating that there was widespread exploitations of a bug, then I'd be concerned.

The fact of the matter is that no OS is 100% secure nor will it ever be. User interaction is the weak link. If a user is asked to type in their administrator credentials and does so regardless of how dodgy the request may be, no amount of security will protect them.

Allowing for an OS to be released with several thousand known bugs is the domain of Microsoft and of course those bugs are exploited and you hear about it all the time.

Give me a story about a virus or malware spreading into the wider Mac community and you'll catch my interest.

You seem to be finally catching on. The point I and others have been trying to make is that there's no such thing as a perfectly secure system. Though Apple likes to market Leopard as a bug/virus/spyware/crash free experience, that simply isn't the case. While Leopard is inherently more stable than Windows, it still has a lot of problems of it's own.

What they're doing is no different than Microsoft releasing updates when a new threat is discovered. The biggest difference is that with over 90% of the world market such threats will spread much faster and there are far more people developing such threats for the Windows platform.

The fact of the matter is that no OS is 100% secure nor will it ever be. User interaction is the weak link. If a user is asked to type in their administrator credentials and does so regardless of how dodgy the request may be, no amount of security will protect them.

Apple might want to let it's users know.

 

[MetroMan]

Apple might want to let it's users know.

They do.

 

[syn]

They do.

That's news to me. What they usually say is that you just have to get a Mac and you'll never have to worry about spyware/viruses/crashes/etc. again.

Even you couldn't come to terms with the fact that I knew someone who needed to get an Anti-Virus/Security suite for his Mac.

 

[MetroMan]

^Because they don't need to. Period. It's well known in the Mac community that a virus scanner is a rip off. I know exactly ZERO people who've been attacked, had a virus, had spyware or any sort of malware on their Mac.

Getting a virus and having it attack your system without your interaction and allowing an attacker to exploit your system by granting them system access are two very different things. No matter what virus scanner you have, if you allow system access to a foreign program, you're at fault. The virus scanner won't help you.

What you hear about are theoretical exploitations. You don't hear about actual real cases.

OS X does warn you when something is trying to access your system. That's when you have to bypass the warning by inputting your password.

The "2 minute attack" was based on this. It used an exploit in Safari (the open source Webkit which is OS agnostic). The user (the judge) had to follow instructions from the attacker. User interaction was required and Apple warns against this.

In fact, OS X Leopard introduced a new useful feature that knows if an application has been downloaded from the internet and warns you before running it the first time.

So the warnings are there. You don't know this because you haven't used a Mac for any long period of time like you've made obvious over and over again.

 

[syn]

^Because they don't need to. Period. It's well known in the Mac community that a virus scanner is a rip off. I know exactly ZERO people who've been attacked, had a virus, had spyware or any sort of malware on their Mac.

Then you obviously don't know my friend.

If selling Anti-Virus software and security suites for the Mac was such a waste companies like Norton wouldn't even bother.

Getting a virus and having it attack your system without your interaction and allowing an attacker to exploit your system by granting them system access are two very different things. No matter what virus scanner you have, if you allow system access to a foreign program, you're at fault. The virus scanner won't help you.

What you hear about are theoretical exploitations. You don't hear about actual real cases.

OS X does warn you when something is trying to access your system. That's when you have to bypass the warning by inputting your password.

The "2 minute attack" was based on this. It used an exploit in Safari (the open source Webkit which is OS agnostic). The user (the judge) had to follow instructions from the attacker. User interaction was required and Apple warns against this.

In fact, OS X Leopard introduced a new useful feature that knows if an application has been downloaded from the internet and warns you before running it the first time.

Wow.

I thought Mac users never have to worry about that stuff. It sounds like they actually have to worry about the same things Windows users do. In fact, it sounds like it "just works" like Windows.

So the warnings are there. You don't know this because you haven't used a Mac for any long period of time like you've made obvious over and over again.

I'll consider myself lucky I didn't have to deal with attacks when I was using a Mac.

http://www.macfixitforums.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=leopard
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/02/29/paypal-to-safari-users-ditch-it

 

[Hydrogen]

Then you obviously don't know my friend.

Aside from the fact that its anecdotal, what happened to your friend?


I have security measures on my Mac, but I have them because I have sensitive materials from clients on my machine. I have made these purchases in order to provide an added sense of security for my clients. I have never been affected or attacked by a virus or other malware. That's my piece of anecdotal evidence - first hand.

 

[syn]

Aside from the fact that its anecdotal, what happened to your friend?

So?

Metroman's insistence that nobody needs to buy Mac Anti-Virus/Security software is completely anecdotal as well.

I'm simply trying to point out that such users exist.

My friend had some spyware installed on his system.

I have security measures on my Mac, but I have them because I have sensitive materials from clients on my machine. I have made these purchases in order to provide an added sense of security for my clients. I have never been affected or attacked by a virus or other malware. That's my piece of anecdotal evidence - first hand.

That's great. The Mac has worked out well for you.

The PC has worked out well for me.

If we go by anecdotal evidence, then XP is great too since I've never had a problem with it. I've known just two people who've gotten viruses on XP. One had a flawed, pirated version of the OS and another was foolish enough to open a spam email attachment.

We all know, however, that Windows has a lot of problems and there are a lot of people that have issues with it.

The same applies to the Mac, of course to a lesser degree.

Metroman has attempted to turn this into a "Buy a Mac" sales thread. The problem is that much of what he's says in his PC/Mac comparisons aren't accurate. Great for an ad campaign, but not exactly in touch with reality. For some reason pointing these things out can make some Mac users very defensive.

 

[Edward Skira]

We all know, however, that Windows has a lot of problems and there are a lot of people that have issues with it.

The same applies to the Mac, of course to a lesser degree

You say it also applies to the Mac. The problem I have with that statement, as a Mac user for 18 years, is that during that period I've never had a problem with a virus or spyware. Not once!

And with system 9 and 10 I've never had to worry about anything. It just works and works well. With system 10 I've never even had it crash.

You're a PC user and you're telling people who've never had a problem that there is one. Funny!

 

[syn]

You say it also applies to the Mac. The problem I have with that statement, as a Mac user for 18 years, is that during that period I've never had a problem with a virus or spyware. Not once!

And with system 9 and 10 I've never had to worry about anything. It just works and works well. With system 10 I've never even had it crash.

You're a PC user and you're telling people who've never had a problem that there is one. Funny!

I have used the Mac. I didn't have any problems with it and generally enjoyed it, but I wouldn't be so naive to think that no one has ever had any issues with it.

I didn't say all Mac users have had problems. I said they exist and are definite possibilities. I could sit here and say XP is perfect because I've never had a problem with it.

I'm not sure how anyone could deny people have had issues with Macs before. It has definitely happened. Take a look for yourself:

http://forums.osxfaq.com/viewforum.php?f=27&sid=7428658ba440bb85d78ad892f3816e66
http://www.macworld.com/article/44328/2005/04/tipstroubleshoot.html
http://www.macfixitforums.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=leopard

 

[Hydrogen]

I'm not sure how anyone could deny people have had issues with Macs before. It has definitely happened.

Nobody has described Mac's as being perfect - except you. What others have posted is that they have had a trouble-free experience with the Mac environment. It makes it appear that you are some how fixated on the idea that people like products other than the ones you like.