|
06 Apr 02 - 03:46 PM (#684624) Subject: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Captain Swing A friend of mine had to reformat the hard disk of his PC as it had caught a virus. I told him he should get a Mac as they don't get nasty diseases. He asked me why this was the case. I said that I'm not entirely sure why Macs are, at least, much less susceptible to viruses than PCs. It could be that the operating system (MACOS) is embedded rather than an add on (Windows 2000 or whatever) and is therefore more stable. As I'm not very technically minded that last sentence could be total bollocks. It could be that the people who create viruses do so on PCs as they want to cause the greatest disruption and there are more PCs than Macs. It could be that people who own Macs and are capable of creating viruses for them wouldn't do so because they like their machines so much and are generally more creative and less destructive. I told him that I would put this question to you lot and start an argument. Cheers - |
|
06 Apr 02 - 04:30 PM (#684644) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) The main reason is that the Gatesware machines are much more common. Computer virologists attack this abundance because the effects are evident more quickly and are thus more pressworthy. |
|
06 Apr 02 - 04:34 PM (#684646) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) I should add that small designers, architects and the like often prefer Mac because when they do go on line, there is less chance of damage (also for some design work, effective but simpler programs are available). |
|
06 Apr 02 - 06:06 PM (#684670) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: JohnInKansas Macs (and Unix) do get viruses (or viri, if you prefer). Mac systems are less often attacked, as pointed out above, because they're not the "large target," and you seldom hear about Mac infections just because it's hard to sensationalize something that affects so few users. (And please, I don't mean any condescension.) Those who attack Unix systems usually don't bother with individual users, for the same reason that Mac's get ignored, and most "large base" users don't publicize it because (1) they usually have the tech resources to handle it "in-house," and (2) it's bad for business to admit it publicly. John |
|
06 Apr 02 - 06:10 PM (#684672) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: mack/misophist There ARE viruses [sp?] and worms for Macs, Unix, and Linux too but they're rare. With Linux and Unix, other exploite are more attractive. |
|
06 Apr 02 - 08:52 PM (#684748) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos Pre-OSX Macs had other advantages against virus wruters -- a lot of the basic startup code was firmware and couldn't be overwritten, for example. Less true in OSX, which is UNIX based. But Mac users in general tend to be more inclined to creatuive uses. |
|
07 Apr 02 - 12:32 AM (#684809) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Mark Cohen Obviously, an Apple a day... Which reminds me, speaking of thread creep...does anybody remember Lisa? I remember being really impressed with her once at a computer show back in the Dark Ages. Never got the Apple bug, though: I bought an Epson Equity 1 instead. Wasn't Lisa the first machine with a graphical interface? Aloha, Mark |
|
07 Apr 02 - 12:42 AM (#684811) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos She was probably the first production platform with a mouse and GUI. But she didn't succeed-- she charged too much. A |
|
07 Apr 02 - 12:55 AM (#684818) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: JohnInKansas ...does anybody remember Lisa?... Yes, but it was before I finally "bit the bullet" and actually bought my first PC. As to what was the first graphical interface - you need to qualify with "first popular," first "publicly available," first "commercially successful," etc... etc... You'll get all kinds of arguments about this. The thing that intrigued me about Lisa was that some pundits suggested that it could write music, although I never got far enough into it to know whether that was actually true. For a real history of this old stuff, try to find Edition 2 or earlier of The Hacker's Dictionary. The latest editions leave out most of the fascinating history, but if you can find one of the older one's it's a good read. John |
|
07 Apr 02 - 05:49 AM (#684876) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST 90% of all programs are written for PC.
IF they are commercial enough they are then re-written for Mac. Hence, most Mac users wait 18 months, to several years before a popular program wends it way down to their level. Some never make it. This is also why most Mac programs cost more. |
|
07 Apr 02 - 10:16 AM (#684928) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Captain Swing Thanks for the information everyone. Just for the record, for those who don't trust my spelling, see http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.html: "The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses" Cheers - Captain Swing |
|
07 Apr 02 - 01:53 PM (#685010) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: JohnInKansas Captain Swing - Some people on mudcat have used the affected viri or virii recently, with notes that "all of the knowledgeable people use it that way." It is pseudointellectual babble-speak, and should be discouraged, but tolerance is warrented. If we get too hung up on slang, we'll loose the ability to talk to our children. John |
|
07 Apr 02 - 02:44 PM (#685033) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: 8_Pints My recollection of the Lisa was that it was the first, or one of the first PC's to use WIMPs interface but that Xerox were the first developers of this technology. Popular history has it that the management did not consider this a significant development and never tried to commercialise it seriously. Bob vG |
|
08 Apr 02 - 04:17 AM (#685352) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Ella who is Sooze My mac had a worm virus - nearly drove me mad... It took a life of its own on, doing odd things, and quitting programs on its own. The final straw came when a little alien walked on screen, calmly walked across my QuarkXpress document. (Which was a huge project I was working on for a client) the little divil then proceeded to zap with his ray gun all my work. So, there you go, it does happen. But not often. Ella |
|
08 Apr 02 - 05:24 PM (#685717) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Mr Red Any one hear of the Unix virus that targeted servers and used a loophole and patched it. No, honest! I read it in a computer mag and they named it. They were not impressed by the cavalier attitude but must have secretly applauded the benefits. BTW isn't the plural of an "us" an "ii" making virii as it does with radius and fungus or is virus an exception? Not that I am being pedantic 'cos I don't know fer sure. |
|
08 Apr 02 - 06:11 PM (#685742) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Charlie Baum Ella-- That little alien in your Quark XPress document isn't a worm--it's an "easter egg"--a hidden feature that's not dicumented. To delete a box in Quark, you use Command-Shift-K. If instead, you use Command-Shift-Option-K, you can delete your box in a most amusing manner. Actually, the most common viruses to affect Macs are those embedded in macros in MS Word and other MS products. More reason to hate that company. --Charlie Baum |
|
08 Apr 02 - 06:35 PM (#685759) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Deda The plural form from -us to -ii is Latin. Virus is a latin word and in Latin it would be vira or viria in the plural, because it's neuter, meaning venom or poison. Neuters always end in -a in the plural. But we are, after all, speaking English now. The english convention is to form plurals by adding "s" or "es". Probably a lot more than anyone needs or wants to know. |
|
08 Apr 02 - 07:17 PM (#685777) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Captain Swing Isn't it always the case, you wait two hours for a bus and then three bii come along at the same time ! Cheers - Captain Swing |
|
08 Apr 02 - 07:29 PM (#685781) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Snuffy <pedantry> bus is a contraction of omnibus, which is the dative/ablative plural of omnis (all). -ibus is the normal ending for all III declension nouns and adjectives. Virus looks like a II declension masculine noun, and the plural would be viri (virii would be the plural of virius). But if, as Deda says, it is a neuter masquerading as a masculine, then vira would be correct. Probably no connection to vir (pl. vires), which means man </pedantry> WassaiL! V |
|
08 Apr 02 - 08:01 PM (#685800) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos Snuffy: Good thing for you Deda is already married!! :>) A |
|
09 Apr 02 - 07:35 AM (#686039) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST Most viruses (or viri) are not so much written as rewritten - there are lots of them wandering around and any idiot can take them and change a couple of things and set them off. But most of them are written in Visual Basic, as far as I know, and target PCs and Outlook Express. There are two kinds of virus the Mac gets: the AutoStart worm, to which the solution is not to set your CD player to autoplay CDs, and Word macro viruses, for which fixes can be downloaded. Yes, Macs do get software later. They also get worse software in many cases, for example most Mac printer drivers lack the handy features that are the norm in PCs. |
|
09 Apr 02 - 09:58 AM (#686111) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos They got the whole Office 2000 suite about nine months before the Intel players. And Phtoshop was a Mac app long before it could be ported to the (back then) more clunky Windows environment, and so was Pagemaker and (I believe) Quark; and there are a number of others even today that are Mac only -- usually the high end graphics management stuff, and some games. ITunes, and the Mac video editing software will probably never show up in Windows although there are some functional nearly-equivalents. Printer drivers? Mine have always worked flawlessly, plug-and-play and no or very little config actions needed. There are a lot of exceptions to the generalisation mentioned. A |
|
10 Apr 02 - 05:45 AM (#686877) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST Yes, its that plug and PLAY tag line which has relagated them the status of something found in a child's playbox. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 04:11 PM (#687306) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Captain Swing Try telling that to the publishing, broadcasting and recording industries around the world. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 06:31 PM (#687405) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Just Amy This is odd. My dictionary says that virus is either singular or plural (like deer). So you may say I have a virus or my machine has many virus. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 06:52 PM (#687421) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Noreen Never come across that one, Amy. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 07:02 PM (#687429) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos Guest -- The relegation you describe has never happened. Those who know both platforms well usually concede the Mac's superiority as a platform, but have had problems with the OS in earlier versions. That distinction is long past. Plug and Play just happened to be something Windows could never quite catch up with -- to this day, the Intel community has ten times the heartaches in peripheral management., although I concede that Win2K seems to handle it much better than any of its predecessors. Keep on catching up, guys -- you'll get there some day , and then we'll have to argue about UNIX commands! A |
|
11 Apr 02 - 11:43 AM (#687907) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST Publishing is increasingly migrating to PCs; I work regularly in three publications. One daily paper uses a network of PCs throughout newsroom and features and finance and all other journalistic departments, with two Macs for the photographic department. One has a Mac in advertising and one for the TV schedules and tables, and otherwise is all-PC. The third is all-PC except for three Macs used for photos. |
|
11 Apr 02 - 12:16 PM (#687941) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Troll Websters New Collegiate says "viruses". Anyone got an OED? troll |
|
11 Apr 02 - 06:04 PM (#688166) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Mr Red Abject opologies for trying to perpetuate an error over virus (plural) I did check my facts and was viri viri viri WRONG humble pie is even as you read this being consumed........ Captain Swing - would that be a Dance Band connection who have BTW been booked for Bromyard (13th to 15th Sept 2002) or am I off beam again? |
|
12 Apr 02 - 06:34 AM (#688425) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,JTT www.oed.com b. Pl. viruses. An infectious organism that is usu. submicroscopic, can multiply only inside certain living host cells (in many cases causing disease) and is now understood to be a non-cellular structure lacking any intrinsic metabolism and usually comprising a DNA or RNA core inside a protein coat (see also quot. 1977). Formerly referred to as filterable viruses, their first distinguishing characteristic being the ability to pass through filters that retained bacteria. |
|
12 Apr 02 - 04:14 PM (#688746) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Captain Swing Mr Red Thanks for the apology but don't worry, I didn't know for sure until I checked it when it was first called into question. As for Captain Swing - sadly you are off beam here although I've always (since the age of 20 or so) wanted to form a band called Captain Swing. Then when I got on the internet a few years ago I found out someone had beaten me to it. He who procrastinates etc. Cheers |
|
13 Apr 02 - 03:49 PM (#689311) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Captain Swing Refreshed for Mr Red |
|
13 Apr 02 - 09:51 PM (#689526) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Muskrat Because their owners know to keep them out of the cold? |
|
14 Apr 02 - 05:31 PM (#689989) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Stephen L. Rich "Why don' MAC's get viruses?" They were born sick. |
|
14 Apr 02 - 06:51 PM (#690049) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST Sometimes they do, but Mac owners are smart enough to override the virus. It is a commonly know fact thet the average IQ of Mac users is 53.2259 points higher than the average IQ of those who use other brands. |
|
14 Apr 02 - 07:02 PM (#690057) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: RichM Different species, that's why... |
|
14 Apr 02 - 08:26 PM (#690086) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos They're natively better machines and have a better OS. A |
|
15 Apr 02 - 05:35 AM (#690274) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Mark Cohen Well, it looks like GUEST Just Amy comes closest to the prize. To be sure, as an English word, the plural of virus is viruses. In Latin, however, the word virus, meaning "poison", is one of those "-us" words which is not second declension masculine--which would make the plural viri--but fourth declension neuter. (Click here for boring details. So the plural is in fact virus. However, the author of that website missed one detail: the u in the plural form is actually a long vowel, which should be written with a macron (a little dash) over the letter, and pronounced like the "oo" in "boot", as opposed to the "oo" in "foot". (Not that anyone is really sure how the Romans pronounced their language, of course, since tape recorders were only used by a small religious sect in Herculaneum and were all lost in the eruption of Vesuvius...) Aloha, Marcus |
|
15 Apr 02 - 05:38 AM (#690278) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Mark Cohen Ouch! I think it's masculine, not neuter. Mmmmm, are my toes tasty! |
|
15 Apr 02 - 09:38 AM (#690397) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos It's all in the jam, Marcus!! A |
|
16 Apr 02 - 12:04 AM (#690977) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Bob Bolton G'day Troll & GUEST,JTT, The problem (in respect of a living language) of the full-blown OED is that it is glacial. It is an indispensable reference for the history of a word ... but is decades behind the language. My current Oxfords (The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary ... 1992 editon at work and [~] 1996 at home) both give virus as both the singular and plural forms. The language has done a lot of talking about virus(es) in respect of computers and current usage has shifted ... and is still shifting (and I admit that I would still use use "viruses" as the plural form). Regards, Bob Bolton |
|
18 Apr 02 - 07:04 PM (#693218) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Mr. Blues No self-respecting virus would lower itself to that. I guess that means that CrapIntoshes only get self-loathing viri. |
|
18 Apr 02 - 07:44 PM (#693245) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Ebbie Amos and a friend of mine down the street and five other people in the U.S. own Macs- it's just not profitable to attempt an epidemic based on such wee numbers. It's economics, children. Ebbie |
|
18 Apr 02 - 07:51 PM (#693252) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos Geez -- mister Blues -- your vitriol doesn't do much to support your "reasoning", if that's the word for it. I know scads of people who are verry happy and very productive with their Macs and spend a lot less time tweaking and fixing them then the Wintel users I know. How do you reckon that works? Mass delusion? Sheeshe! If you've had contrary experience, why not say so? |
|
18 Apr 02 - 08:10 PM (#693259) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Ebbie I was only joshin'. More seriously, evidently most people who need a lot of graphics capability prefer the Mac. At least that's what I'm told by some photographer friends of mine. And I have one friend who says that she much prefers the Mac she has at home to the PC she has at the office. She says that there are only a couple of things that go wrong on a Mac- and if those are not it, you get a tech. While on a PC, there are bunches- and no easy way to fix them, and you can limp along for months. When I switched over to a PC from the Mac, I missed the Mac a lot- now I don't even remember what the differences are... Ebbie
|
|
18 Apr 02 - 09:05 PM (#693292) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Jon Freeman Ebbie, PCs are easy enough to fix and I think quite reliable. If you are talking the PC box itself and its interaction with software, the real problems come in when you do something simple like fit a new soundcard, find the system crashes or does something wierd, you find plug and play doesn't work and you spend hrs trying to sort out things like interrupt conflicts... I believe Macs fair rather better in this area... Windows is Windows, and it can be infuritating. As far as I understand it, Windows has always been a poor attempt at immitating the features of the Mac OS but it is still quite possible to have a stable and relitavely trouble free set up and the system supports plenty of capable software. For me now, I am sticking with the PC but trying to switch my attention from Windows to Linux. I think from a "user" veiw point, Linux is not "there" yet - I mean you need to know more about the system itself to get the most from it and at least the applications I have used are not as "pretty" as thier Windows equivilants but the "core" is pretty solid and some of the free software for Unix/Linux systems such as the Apache web server are free and first class... It will be interesting to see how it goes. The version of Linux I have now attemps to recognise new hardware and configure it (by comparison, the 1st version I tried needed me to tell it in text things like monitor refresh rates to get graphics running) and generally speaking is easier for a "non tech" person to set up. Maybe in a couple more years it could be serious competition to MS in the home computer market... Well I can dream. Jon |
|
18 Apr 02 - 09:10 PM (#693298) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos There are ast least three serious candidates for a Linux graphic interface with Mac-like automation of features in the offing, but I do not remember what their names are, because I am pursuing the MacOS/BSDUnix combination which I find extremely comfortable, fast and useful. However, I think you're right -- it'll be a while before these apps encroach on the kudzu market share enjoyed by Mister Bill. A |
|
18 Apr 02 - 09:37 PM (#693314) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Jon Freeman I'm using KDE as my graphical interface and I also have Gnome installed as well as a couple of others (which I don't like) which all use XWindows. Both of the 2 interfaces I use offer something similar to the version of Windows I am using so I feel pretty much "at home" already. I think Gnome looks the "prettier" of the 2 I like but I am favouring KDE at the moment as I couldn't see at a quick look how to set Gnome up for single clicks. I haven't a clue how Mac's work but the "classic" Windows style is to double click to open an application, something I changed when Windows made the single click option availible - probably just me but I can see the point in 2 clicks where one will do... OK, just very trivial choices at the moment and I could well end up preferring Gnome (or even something else) but its nice to have choices - even though I can get confused with them at the moment... Back to Macs... Any ideas why they decided to use the UNIX influence? Maybe I'm wrong as I don't really know the Mac history but it strikes me as if it may be a change in policy. Jon |
|
18 Apr 02 - 09:46 PM (#693325) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos Their OS had design constraints built into it that anchored it to the 6800 chipset; and even after they graduated to the RISC chips, it was still oldfashioned about memory management -- allocation of heap space had to be set manually by application. Most important it did not thread processes separately, so that if one app crashed, it was almost sure to take the system with it. They compensated for this with lots of other pluses, but finally they had to step up to the fact that threaded processes and protected memory spaces were pretty much mandatory for the next generation. In the course of making that upgrade they leap[ed into the forefront by also adopting all the other advantages that UNIX offers. An old Mac hand would have choked at the thought of a command line intertfqace, unless he'd learned vi and grep in one of the high powered UNIX environments and realized how powerful the UNIX model could be. A |
|
18 Apr 02 - 10:00 PM (#693335) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Jon Freeman Chuckling at the thoughts of the old "Mac Hand" bringing up a terminal window and "grepping"... Jon |
|
19 Apr 02 - 05:39 PM (#693991) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Mr. Blues Amos, fuck you. I suggest you find a dictionary and look up the word sarcasm. Your condescension is not only irrelevant to your reasoning, significant clues as to your character, or lack thereof. In other words, it was a joke you ignorant fuck! Get over yourself. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 05:47 PM (#693995) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos Mr Blue: Quite right. Sorry I missed the joke. You're right -- I am an ignorant fuck. I have witnesses, too! But this ignorant fuck, at least, knows the difference between humor and vitriolic nastiness. Lemme know if you want lessons.
A |
|
19 Apr 02 - 06:00 PM (#693999) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Mr. Blues Amos, if you actually knew the difference between humor and vitriolic nastiness, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I doubt you are capable of giving any worthwhile lessons in anything other your peculiar brand of nastiness -- which I must admit is far more distateful than anything I could even dream of comming up with. Why is it that people like you insist on turning off the cuff comments on reletively insignificant things (like Macs) into personal battles? |
|
20 Apr 02 - 01:49 PM (#694429) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Mr Red GUEST,Captain Swing well even if you aren't that band you play a mean folk swing rhythm. see Bromyard FF for one of their gigs. |
|
20 Apr 02 - 03:21 PM (#694471) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos Geez, Blue, How's about we drop this? Sorry I rubbed ya the wrong way, man. A. |
|
21 Apr 02 - 10:39 AM (#694840) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Captain Swing That's very nice of you, Mr Red but how would you know about my folk swing rhythm? Cheers - Captain Swing |
|
22 Apr 02 - 06:41 PM (#695987) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Mr. Blues Sure Amos, we can drop the mac issue, after all, those paperweights are not worth the energy. What I am not willing to drop is your passive aggressive, condescending, disrespect. It is really too bad that there are laws to prevent people like you from being culled from the heard. The level of animosity you generate is really a detriment to civilized society. |
|
22 Apr 02 - 08:14 PM (#696056) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos Man, I am thunderstruck here! I dunno whether to wind my watch or piss up a rope. Tell ya what -- drop me a PM and tell me where this started, cuz I am baffled and the intensity of your attitude, and woudl really like to know who you are and what the f*** happened. Seriously! If you won't do that much, then take two middle fingers and call me in the morning. A
|
|
22 Apr 02 - 08:37 PM (#696087) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: robomatic I enjoyed the Latin sub-thread but can't contribute. In the late 80's and early 90's Macs were definitely much better at things like fonts and turn 'em on and use 'em and I was the only Mac using engineer on a floor of unimaginative engineers who though fonts were a waste of valuable computer memory "it's the content that counts!" and other comments from people who would no doubt would skip the music for 'it's the lyrics that count!' In those days there were many more Mac owners and Mac viruses were very common. I remember reading a note saying if you were borrowing a lot of shareware and you had a PC, you were 70% likely to have a virus, and if you owned a Mac, you were 100% likely to have one. And I checked, and sure enough, I had one. Macs have some very nice features, I used a Plus to fake a Russian ID once for which I'll always have a warm feeling for the little square bugger; but Macs also have some character flaws, such as Mr. Jobs determining they didn't need to be sold with floppy drives anymore, cheap bastard. And some of the company policies have made them a lot less fun to buy. I suppose that Macs come off as having a personality whereas no one suspects such a thing lurks in a PC. |
|
23 Apr 02 - 01:02 AM (#696256) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos The real reason is, as this page clearly reveals is that they are in League with the Dark Forces. The deal is, Macintoshes never get viruses, but when they die, they surrender their souls.... A |
|
23 Apr 02 - 04:20 PM (#696784) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Captain Swing Many thanks for your contributions everyone. As I said to my friend "I'll post it on Mudcat and start an argument."! |
|
23 Apr 02 - 05:08 PM (#696833) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Kim C I know! I know! To get to the other side! Oh... no... wait............ |
|
23 Apr 02 - 09:50 PM (#697078) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST,Mr. Blues No Amos, I'm not going to PM you. You started this shit in public you can finish it in public. You don't need me to explain what happened, just re-read the thread. It's pretty fucking obvious what the fuck happened. As for your fingers, bring them by, I have a lovely pair of bolt cutters. |
|
23 Apr 02 - 10:14 PM (#697098) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Art Thieme Max don't get viruses cause it's his birthday ! Art Thieme |
|
24 Apr 02 - 12:32 PM (#697550) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos Art, you're TERRIBLE!!! And I love ya for it. a |
|
25 Apr 02 - 12:15 AM (#698003) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: GUEST no one cares to write programs or virus for Mac because they aren't important in the real world they are toys you might as well ask why don't the build a c17 for babie dolls? |
|
25 Apr 02 - 05:51 AM (#698120) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Gervase Hmm, I can tell from the spot-on typing and syntax of 'Guest' abve that he's a PC afficionado! He's set a tough standard for Mac-users to follow. Funny how so many PC keyboards are shipped with no shift key, or all caps, or with no punctuation. Makes it that much more difficult for the hypothetical million PC users to come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. "To be or not to be that is like a kEwL question MACS SUCK PCS ROOL". Macs do have their drawbacks, though. The SETI programme wanted to change to Powermacs for its number-crunching, but had to admit defeat because the fancy cases wouldn't fit into the multiple racks required. |
|
25 Apr 02 - 07:55 AM (#698165) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: Amos SETI analysis -- the first really big project involving shared resources across the whole 'Net with thousands of cooperating private citizens donating extra CPU cycles -- ran perfectly well on PPC platforms. I crunched huge wads of numbers for them on an old 8100, without even noticing :>). A
|
|
25 Apr 02 - 06:39 PM (#698660) Subject: RE: BS: Why don't Macs get viruses? From: NightWing Amos, That link to the "Objective Christian Ministries" page about Satanic Apple computers was among the funniest things I've seen on the web in a LOOONG time! Do these people realize just how hilarious their writing is? Or is a humorist out there doing it on purpose to twit the Christians who actually BELIEVE this garbage. *LMAO*
BB, |