Be Excellent To Each Other

It was something that I read recently. But I can't for the life of me find it anywhere.
I'll post it if I do.

There is plenty of Mac malware / spyware (yes , yes its much less common than on Windows but it does exist) , and the Mac OS was vulnerable for a number of the 'big' system issues that have happened this year (Heartbleed / Poodle / Shellshock) -

Saying you can run a Mac and be 'immune' is no longer as accurate as it was in the past.

I'm surprised no-one has really released a Mac Cryptolocker variant yet (its basic enough and just needs root access which many of the exploits would give you)

Oh and I'll even give you Cryptolocker but name 2 other 'big' virus incidents that have affected Windows this year ?

Can you do the same for Windows? I mean, we can go with heartbleed for a start.
OSX is vulnerability central, and Apple's disclosure porcedures are utterly shocking. If the user base gets to a point where targeting OSX is financially worthwhile, there's going to be real trouble.

Heartbleed was a vulnerability - not a virus.



I think its almost at that tipping point , and a lot of users will not actually realize they are infected because they are not running any AV other than the rubbish built in one (that detects something like 5 viruses) - here is a nice news story of a mac botnet which Apple have updated their AV product to protect against.

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-anti-malware ... 000034364/

No, but I didn't say, "there's plenty of viruses for OS X due to its popularity now" and then back down sheepishly when I couldn't provide any proof.

I obviously didn't word it very well, but the point I was trying to make is that you can't just use that as a reason for not using windows anymore. Macs can get viruses - perhaps not as often as Windows - but they still get them.
Also, I did say I'd try find the thing I read.

On a side note, are Windows computers really so likely to get a virus? I've heard people say it before, but I've never had one. (And I don't really check anything I'm downloading to see if it's safe...)

Of course, no operating system is completely foolproof. But the acid test is in the average user. How many here know of at least one friend or family member who is always clogging up their PC and needs our help? Then when you get there it's full of spyware, adware, malware, viruses.

The very fact that Windows has a much larger install base (especially in businesses) means it will be targeted a lot more often by virus programmers for the foreseeable future. I don't have a virus checker or firewall on my Mac, but wouldn't dream of not being protected on a PC - how long would it take before my machine was riddled with bogus programs? Not long, I'd wager.

A good few years ago I'd have agreed with this but now, not so much. I'm still the go-to tech support guy for a lot of people I know but I honestly can't remember the last time I had to clean something off a PC.



I don't agree with this either. Partly because it's simply a lot harder than it used to be to get infected and partly because you're not the kind of idiot to do things that would likely infect you (you're a completely different kind of idiot is what I'm saying). And certainly the days of running a separate firewall programme are well over; I can't even remember how long it's been since I've had something like ZoneAlarm installed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that, for a lot of different reasons, you haven't got a higher chance of picking something up running Windows than OS X because generally speaking that is true. But the kind of situation you're talking about where it's a near guarantee and horrible shit was running rampant really hasn't been true for a long, long time on the Windows side of the fence.

Oops. Ta!

Haven't installed Yosemite yet. Even skipped Mavericks completely, when previously I used to make sure that I had the latest OS X installed, going back to Jaguar. Not really liking the 'new look' on Yosemite from what I've seen of it, to be honest.

I really prefer it.

I think it looks really lovely on a retina screen, and a bit arse on a normal one. In so much as I prefer the looks of Mavericks on a 'normal' display.

People still have sub-1800p screens???

I have an iPhone, and it can take photos, occasionally I have made use of the iPhone camera's 'filter' options where you can change the colours, make black and white, etc when you take a photo. However, when I transfer the photos to my Windows PC, these filters are removed. Is there any way to move them with the filters intact?

If its only a few you could try emailing them...

The format that iOS uses to "save" edited photos is non-destructive to the original. Unless you have a Mac (or can find a program that can display the edited version) then the only way would be to take a screenshot of the original and transfer the screenshot.

Edit: Apple Support page on it.
What DBSnappa said would work according to that page.

Coud you upload them to Flickr via the flickr app and re-download them from there?

I will try a few of these, but christ, what a load of shit. Apple really are crap, i don't get the fuss about the iPhone at all, nothing seems to work nicely, and everything is a faff.

It's because you're not used to it. Accept the Apple Way. Obey and be happy.

okay, another annoyance, maybe someone can help. When I log into the Appstore on my iphone i use a password (every time!); however occasioanlly I have need/desire to log in via iTunes on my Windows & computer. However, despite immediately being able to log in on my phone with my password, I can never log in via iTunes without having to reset it.

Apple event today, with the Apple Watch expected to be released.

Seems to be much less of a frenzy around Apple events these days. I doubt i'll watch it (or a streamed update anyway.)

Less frenzy because tech is stagnant. What was the last truly game changing device? The iPad? Not exactly an original idea.

No matter how bad or good they are, Apple Watch will fly off shelves, then people will start buying non-Apple ones too like they only just started existing.

I genuinely had it in my head that the Appple Watch had already been released; I wonder why I thought that?

I'm hoping that is the case. Not because I want an Apple Watch, but I want it to give a kick up the arse to the wearable market and see investment in Android Wear.

Me, too.

Usually because they do the announcements and then devices are available immediately. This hasn't happened this time - the announcement was before Christmas.

Horseshit.

For the record:
"Novel? I've never encountered any prior devices that used capacitive touch, so if anything did exist I'm pretty sure it was very obscure"

I had. Indeed, I'd used the device that it was apparently bought from. Not a screen, but rather a keyboard mainly aimed at people who couldn't use a normal keyboard, (in the case of this owner, carpal tunnel)

So first capacitive touch device? No. First capactive touch screen? I think so.

Utter twats for not continuing the product for people who needed it? Yeah, probably.

When I was a scientist, the xtal robot had a touch screen pad to make it do stuff. This was 2003. You can probably read about it by looking me up on Google scholar and finding a methods section on a structural paper I suppose. I just wanted to shoehorn that in there. The iPad and iPhone were game changers.

Touchscreen <> capacitive touchscreen.

Is there a particular reason no one really used capacitive touchscreens in the past? I'm thinking specifically of all the HTC Win Mob devices that pre-dated the iPhone. Were they massively more expensive than their resistive brethren or something?

They didn't exist.

"devices that used capacitive touch,"

Note the lack of "Screen"

But it still remains that it's the same technology, just one is placed over a screen, and the other over a picture of a keyboard.

(And yes, I do think it's a dick move buying up a company for a technology primarily used for medical purposes* and then discontinuing that avenue entirely)

* - Although keyboards with gesture control and mouse and stuff was apparently nice, the price it went for basically put it into the realms of "Company needs to buy for staff to avoid disability discrimination laws". Although it is possible that with the increase in scale, it'd make the product cheaper and reduce that factor somewhat.

I was responding to Mali, not you. I suspect his 2003 robot had a non-capactive touchscreen.

This article reference a Sony capacitive touch screen device in 2002.

i didn't know there were different types.

Well, tough. I want to argue with you anyway.

I like cock.

I wouldn't call the retina display a game-changer. My nan knows what an iPad is, but if I tried to explain retina to her I'd get one of those looks. You know the ones.

The "Get me my glasses" one?

The "what a whopping bonce" one?

New Macbook looks interesting.
Apple Watch is fucking expensive.

How much?
Is there a new ipad?

No new iPad.

Watch is:
Sport small : $349
Sport big : $399
Normal small : $549
Normal big : $599
Edition : $10000

The Macbook is interesting - I'm curious to see how well it shifts heat with no fan. Also it's so thin! I'm beginning to wonder if there's such a thing as too thin.

Watch is indeed expensive, and doesn't seem to do anything that special. The UI seems quite nice, though.

Watch is cheaper than I expected.

What kind of price were you expecting?!

Quite a bit more. Watch pricing is insane.

They've got them on the Apple UK website.
Sport is £299-£339
Normal is £479-£949
Edition is £8k-£13.5k

Think I'd rather get a Pebble Time or Moto 360.