Apple/Mac/Windows....  Hang on though !!!!! - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 03:27:56 pm
content: (Moderators read before blocking xx)....I've ONLY ever known 'Windows', since the inception of the 1st PC.....Everything I know about 'Apple/Macs' I could write on the back of a MatchBox !!(And still have room to write something deep & meaningful xx)So just for fun, (and a bit of 'Edumurcation'), I'm setting up 'VirtualBox', for Operating System Virtualization,and a (yes, probably not cosher) version of 'OS-X Yosemite' from 'Hackintosh', to run it on one of my PC's/Laptops.It is NOT to make me money, or 'sell' anything at all, but PURELY as a learning tool, to understand the "Other Side"YES, I have ALL the required software, patches, coding, settings, instructions... to make it work !!!I only want to say that I want to understand a 'LITTLE' of what this Alternative Binary Beast is about !!!!I don't think I will be 'converted', (and I know it's power & usage in the medical field etc.), ....but at least I will 'understand' that which I didn't !!

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 04:02:35 pm
content: I don't think the moderators give a toss if you pirate the hell out of Mac OS, so long as you don't post any copyrighted material on this site.What's the point of this thread? You want experience of using OS X, good for you. Are you thinking about posting a guide telling others how to do it or are you asking for help?Want experience with an alternative to Windows, then how about a free OS such as Linux or BSD which you can get without pirating anything?

author: shteii01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 04:04:21 pm
content: I find some little things about Mac OS (I go back to OS 7, still have set of floppies for it) to be inconvenient in some small things. Just to show how small I am talking about: the most inconvenient thing for me was the single button mouse. I think those are long gone by now. Everything else is fine, file manager is file manager, browser is browser, office is office, matlab is matlab. I run Diablo 2 on pc and mac so I can have two accounts playing together on a lan, one is main character, the other for loot storage.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 04:36:15 pm
content: The single button mouse was always one of the most glaring issues with the classic Macs. I get the reasoning behind it, and I can see designing the OS such that only one button is really needed. It sure would have been nice though if they had incorporated support for a 2 button mouse for more advanced users.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 05:35:30 pm
content: I've tried Hackintosh too and while I can see how it would be "easy" for those who just browse the Web all day and run a very few number of applications, as a normal Linux/Windows user the UI is definitely far too "opaque".

author: glarsson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 05:44:32 pm
content: Opaque? It's a certified UNIX system, something that Linux hasn't managed to do.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 08:44:21 pm
content: Slightly off-topic, but relevant: I too have known DOS/Windows my entire life. Only recently have I taken a serious stab at using Linux as my primary desktop computer and I have to say honestly, the more I get to know it, the more I like it. Yes, the learning curve has been rather steep but if you know DOS command line, dumping into Terminal isn't that daunting.The reason behind my move is mainly because I absolutely hate what Microsoft have done to Windows. They've taken too many pages out of Apple's book and have failed miserably. Windows 10 is abhorrent. I've been using it at work for the past few years and the more I use it, the more I hate it.Apple Mac OS isn't much better, but I will say it's more refined in a lot of ways, when compared to Microsoft's offerings, still, some things aren't logical and paired together with Apple hardware makes the experience just that much more unbearable. Apple products actually hinder my productivity, that's when I'm not rebooting the damn thing or having to reload applications due to the spinny beach ball of death.Yeah, no thanks, it's Linux for me from now on.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 05, 2018, 08:46:38 pm
content: Although I have several Macs here, mostly from the years not too long ago that you could upgrade them, only one of them runs OS X, which is for Logic Pro (music arranging software). The rest run Windows.They’re being gradually replaced with PCs now, mostly because new Apple hardware has no post purchase upgrade path, but also because PC hardware is now significantly better value, better performing, and has better specifications. That wasn’t necessarily the case five years or so ago, the Apple value proposition has changed.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 01:40:25 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on August 05, 2018, 04:02:35 pmEerrmm.... sorry mate. I don't understand your negativity.......Firstly, regarding no-one, (moderators), giving a'toss' ......I imagined (as a fallible human on such 'forums'), that 'certain' people might think that I was trying tostart some'old'debate about"Apple vs Windows"which I'm sure has been done to deathUSUALLY, this results in a 'Post' being Blocked/Suspended or what ever the 'techs' call it.....(This was NOT the case mate)Secondly... regarding your"What is the point of this thread?"statement......Well... I was DARING to simply talk about 'fields' of 'computing' that 'one' might not know anything about,but was willing to try to understand, even at a simple level, for the betterment of knowledge.....I don't WANT to learn about 'Linux' or 'BSD' as they are not as mainstream, and 'I' have no interest....Ok... you have (had) 10,535 Posts, and I have (had) a measly 167. (Yep... I'm a shit-kicker)Unfortunately, (as in real life), with 'importance/familiarity' comes contempt for others.....I hope that 'others' on this planet 'Earth' understand that I just wanted a little bit of insite, aboutthis little known facet (to me...) in this computing world.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 02:09:46 pm
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on August 07, 2018, 01:40:25 pmOSX is essentially BSD, and Linux runs on everything from your router to TV to telephone (unless you have an iPhone in which case it is running *BSD). Can't get much more "mainstream" than that.(* Yes I know officially it's "Darwin", but it's still based on and mostly compromised of *BSD.)

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 04:35:07 pm
content: QuoteHow about the global menu thing? Isn't that a big pain when using more than one windowed app?

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 05:03:50 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on August 05, 2018, 04:36:15 pmSince other OSes really only use the second mouse button for contextual menus (if we ignore games and a few 3D design apps), I assume that contextual menus are really what you’re talking about. Mac OS has supported those since Mac OS 8, from 1997. They were triggered by a control-click, but you could just configure multibutton mouse software to issue a control-click from the right mouse button. In Mac OS X (initial non-beta release in 2001) has always opened contextual menus by default with a right click. All Apple mice since 2005 and all trackpads since 2008 have supported right clicking as well, though many people don’t realize this.So in a nutshell, you have to be going back alongtime to find a Mac without context menu support!!

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 05:08:01 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 07, 2018, 04:35:07 pmNot at all. The single menu bar is one of the Mac’s biggest advantages: it’s always clear which application has focus and is listening to keyboard input, and above all, because of Fitt’s Law: the edge of the screen is a FAR easier target than something inside the screen, because it has essentially infinite height. Just bang the mouse up at high speed because it WILL get trapped by the edge, leaving it right in the menu bar. This advantage outweighs the proximity of a menu inside the window: it may be closer, but the fine motor control to operate it slows you down far more!

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 05:13:51 pm
content: QuoteNot here. I have three monitors in an L configuration. If it attaches to the top monitor a single mouse move won't get up there.QuoteThere is that, I suppose (but how does it differentiate the apps?). But I find I sometimes hit a menu item of a non-focus window, which performs some action and brings the window to the front in one go.But at least the Mac hasn't discovered the ribbon, yet

author: NottheDan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 05:18:11 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 07, 2018, 04:35:07 pmHow is that a pain?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 05:48:24 pm
content: Quote from: BradC on August 07, 2018, 02:09:46 pmI think I understand where Glenn was coming from. Yes, Linux is "mainstream" in the sense of having a huge number of installations (although most of them "headless", running on embedded devices or servers without a GUI). But it is certainly not "mainstream" in the sense offeeling familiar to a significant share of desktop users,having one common flavor of distribution and desktop which even the majority of Linux users are familar with,having one common flavor of distribution and desktop which most of the answers you find when Googling for help will actually be relevant to, orbeing suitable as a recommendation to Mom for her desktop computer, unless you want to volunteer yourself as the part-time sysadmin at the same time.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 06:16:54 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on August 07, 2018, 05:48:24 pmLinux is certainly used for servers but it represents just 2% of desktops. It certainly isn't 'mainstream' in any sense of the word in the desktop market.https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 06:39:55 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 07, 2018, 04:35:07 pmGlobal menu saves you screen real-estate. On Windows the menu is displayed all the time in each window, wasting precious vertical resolution (it's particularly bad on ultra wide screens). On MacOS you only see it for the active window. Much better imo.This isn't the only example where MacOS is vastly superior in its design imo.They keyboard shortcuts are much much better. They are uniform across all the apps. Unlike in Windows where a Ctrl-C means copy in one window but something entirely different (like stop process in Putty or Command prompt).For the life of me I could never understand why Linux Desktop designers follow Window's broken keyboard shortcut scheme, instead of much more streamlined and easier to use MacOS one.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 06:48:50 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on August 07, 2018, 06:16:54 pmKind of what I said, isn't it?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 07:54:10 pm
content: It could be argued that "desktop" in general is almost not mainstream anymore.Quite a few tech companies now are using Linux internally on everything. I have a few friends who had never seen Win10 yet because at home they have a Mac and at work everything is Linux.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 09:01:13 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on August 07, 2018, 07:54:10 pmYou could make the case that Surface type gadgets are replacing both desktops and laptops. FWIW, the 2.2% number for Linux linked above is for desktops/laptops combined.And, no, desktops aren't a dead issue. I just built another one a few months ago. It uses an I7-7700K CPU and is primarily used for running compute intensive jobs like Xilinx Vivado. That's why I built it. I wanted to get the processing finished in a much shorter period of time.All 4 of our Surface gadgets are Win 10 while our other tablets are Android. I don't follow the trends so I don't know if there is a Surface like Linux device. But, really, the Surface devices are just smaller and lighter laptops. My Surface Book is actually my primary device. It sits alongside the BlueTooth keyboard and mouse and is connected to a 27" display. I almost never use it as a portable device. Just the way it works out. I have another Surface Pro in the living room for portable stuff.

author: particleman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 09:17:35 pm
content: I have used Debian since 2006. Last Windows I used was XP. Love the way Linux runs on my old ass 8 core AMD 8150 clocked to 4.4 GHz. I wont need a new desktop until this one dies. I work from home so I've never even seen windows 8 or 10. A desktop with large monitor for me is mandatory. Could not imagine scrolling through 50 pages of schematics on a laptop. I think I would rather put my face in a blender.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 09:24:33 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 07, 2018, 05:13:51 pmAn L-shaped desktop is weird, but irrelevant: you can set up the Mac to have the menu bar appear on each display.How does it differentiate the apps? One app is always the foreground app. This has always been the case on the Mac. It’s actually the case on Windows, too, but it’s not always as clearly visible.Office for Mac uses the Ribbon, too. (But it also retains the menu bar!! Kinda the best of both worlds.) As a UX designer I’ve had heated arguments with colleagues about the Ribbon. I actually like it, and the UX research and testing behind it is really, really solid. (And the Ribbon guidelines — which are mandatory for any software developer who wishes to use it — are really well designed. They reduce the amount of unspecified behavior that has plagued windows software due to there being unlimited room for interpretation.) I think that people that hate it mostly have it simply for being different from what they’re used to.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 09:27:28 pm
content: Of course desktops are not dead, I built a new one myself not too long ago as well. They are not really mainstream anymore though, they are a specialty item for people who have specific needs not easily met by mobile devices. There exist a huge number of people who never really needed a computer in the first place and only had one because that was the only way to access the internet and email. Those people's needs are often met by mobile devices, while people like myself and probably quite a few others here create content and still need a traditional desktop or laptop. I suspect the proportion of members here who use a traditional PC is much higher than from a random sample of the general public.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 09:28:50 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on August 07, 2018, 09:24:33 pmAfter being forced to use it for years, I still loathe the ribbon. If they simply offered the ability to turn it off and enable the traditional menu that would end virtually all of the controversy.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 09:50:08 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on August 07, 2018, 09:28:50 pmOf course it would. But it would also undo all the work that went into the Ribbon, and restore the problem that led to the Ribbon’s inception to begin with: the menus were overloaded! One of the biggest things Microsoft realized in customer feedback up through Office 2000-2003 was that most feature requests were for featuresthey already had!In other words, the features were there but people couldn’t find them. The dynamic menus in Office 2000 (or was it 97? I forget.) proved to make things worse, not better. They realized that the standard menus just did not work for applications with the scope of Office, so they sought a better solution. And while it’s frustrating if you already memorized where things were before, the whole point of the Ribbon is that it provides a way to hold a LOT of controls in a more structured way, with more tangibly graphical elements to make it easier to do what you want. Remember, it’s not just about existing power users! It’s more about the 95% of users who aren’t power users, and who were having ongoing trouble finding things. Now they have less trouble.If they were to try and return to menus, they’d be right back where they started. (FWIW, the menus in the Mac version basically remain unchanged from the pre-Ribbon version. Any new features are being added to the Ribbon only.)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 10:55:39 pm
content: How would they be right back where they started? The ribbon is still there, it could even be on by default, but those of us for whom the old style menus work better would still have the option of using them instead. They seem hell bent on *forcing* users to adapt to them, rather than the sensible approach of adapting to the needs of the users.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 10:59:50 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on August 07, 2018, 05:03:50 pmMost of my Mac use has been on 68k and some early PPC systems running System 8 and earlier so I suppose that's going back a long way, but it was the first ~20 years of existence of the Mac where it had only a single button mouse. It wasn't until the USB Macs appeared that a multi-button mouse was even an option. 2005 is what I'd consider to be relatively recent, I only replaced the PC I built in 2005 with a new one I built about 2 years ago.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 11:30:43 pm
content: QuoteThat's not what I meant. What I was after was how does theuserknow from the menu which app is the one with focus? Does the menu, for instance, carry the name of the app? If it's a 'standard' app with common menu, wouldn't they all look the same, so which of the several open (non-overlayed) windows would the user know it applied to?As you can tell, I am not a Mac user. I'd like to give it a try but I can't afford one just to mess about with (and probably couldn't afford to get locked in the garden if I did like it).

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 11:39:54 pm
content: Well if you really wanted to try, you can run OSX in a virtual machine, or install it on certain PC hardware (Hackintosh), or if you did decide to buy a Mac and then didn't like it, you can run Windows on one bare metal just like any other PC.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2018, 11:57:20 pm
content: Where would one acquire OSX? I tried following some links but wound up in a series of self-referencing zipped text files.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 12:00:03 am
content: I bought an original disc off ebay for a few bucks, it was a version or two behind the most current but fine for my purposes. I would guess various versions are floating around on torrent sites too but I haven't looked.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 12:03:46 am
content: Quote from: james_s on August 07, 2018, 10:55:39 pmRight back where they started in having to find where to add new features to the already-bursting-at-the-seams menus.Quote from: james_s on August 07, 2018, 10:59:50 pmWell let's be fair — the Mac had 13 years (1984-1997) without context menu support, 21 years (1997-present) with context menu support in the software (17 thereof truly natively), and 13 years (2005-present) with two-button mice supplied standard.Long before Apple provided support for context menus, third parties did (e.g. the wonderful FinderPop), and multibutton mice from third party vendors existed fromveryearly on. (I got a 4-button Kensington mouse around 1995, but multibutton mice and trackballs existed for Mac long before that. This was, of course, an ADB mouse.)

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 12:11:32 am
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 07, 2018, 11:30:43 pmYes, the app name appears prominently — and in fact it's the menu containing standard commands to control the app (and not to documents, whose commands begin in the File menu). I've attached screenshots of what it looks like in a few apps. All the stuff on the right, as icons, is system-wide menus, of which I have far too many installed!(The classic Mac OS only showed the app's 16px icon in the corner, which indeed could occasionally lead to confusion. It didn't help that, like in Windows to this day, the File menu contains both commands pertaining to files, like New, Open, and Print, as well as application-wide commands like Quit. Separating it into the application menu, with things like About, Preferences, and Quit, made a TON of sense!)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 am
content: Quote from: tooki on August 08, 2018, 12:03:46 amBut I don't need any more features, what compelling features have been added to spreadsheets and word processors in the last 20 years? I'm not bothered by clutter in the menus, in fact I absolutely hate "personalized" menus that try to guess what I want and hide everything else unless I click again. The menus are far higher density than the stupid ribbon which is a cluttered mess that takes up a huge chunk of precious vertical screen space.I just fired up my trusty copy of MS Word 2003 and the longest menus stretch only about 1/3 of the way down the screen when active, they could easily double the number of items in each menu without running out of space and it would still be much quicker for me to find what I'm looking for. Instead there is a huge measure of arrogance them deciding what is best for the user instead of acknowledging that not everyone's mind works the same. They could have kept offering the traditional menus for the millions of users who strongly prefer them, but instead forced us to look at alternatives like OpenOffice if we are not fortunate enough to have a copy of Office 2003.I HATE the ribbon, I've had more than a decade to "get used to it" and it still takes me twice as long to find anything and just generally frustrates me. It is vastly inferior for the way my mind works and to insist otherwise is pure arrogance.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 12:51:18 am
content: Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 amActually, try using Office 97 and then come back to comment. You'll find tons of little things missing — it feels like death by 1000 paper cuts.And regardless, just becauseyoudon't feel you need any new features doesn't mean that nobody does! Harsh truth, man: Microsoft isn't designing Office foryou. It's designing it foreveryone, and that means some compromises. One could argue (quite convincingly, frankly) that trying to be everything to everyone is a bad thing, but let's face it, the overwhelming majority of document creation is done in Microsoft Office (and much of the balance is done in open-source apps that are shitty clones of MS Office). As such, it has to be usable by novices (who make up a huge percentage of the user base), yet also contain tons of very niche features for power users and business workflows.In doing the research for Office 2007, MS collected millions upon millions of user data reports ("telemetry") from Office 2003 users who participated in the telemetry program, which gave them info on which features were used, in what order, and how (menu, toolbar, etc.). They learned tons of useful stuff from that, and one interesting nugget is that just as they expected, about 20% of features got used 80% of the time — but that contrary to their expectations, among the remaining 80% of features that get used 20% of the time, there were no clear "winners". (They'd hoped to jettison rarely used features, but nothing stood out as particularly unused.) The upshot is that even the features that any given user thinks are useless fluff are in fact regularly used, when all users are taken as a whole.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 amBut most users are. They have trouble finding what they need.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 amEveryonehated the personalized "smart" menus, which is why they only stuck around for one or two versions of Office.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 amIt takes up less space than the menu barandthe toolbars that most users kept around. Remember that you can double-click the Ribbon tabs to collapse it, at which point it's basically a menu bar. In that state, it uses no more space than the traditional window title bar and menu bar together.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 amAverage screen sizeshave grown a lot since 2003. Back then,less than halfof users had 1024x768 or higher, meaning thatover half were on 800x600 or 640x480!!So you'd very easily be running into long menus that had to scroll, and many users have trouble with that.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 amBut ultimately, it's not about space, it's about being able to find things. Real users were consistently having trouble finding things. And despite individual reports like yours, the user research showed that on average, users have less trouble finding things in the Ribbon. To a large extent, this has nothing to do with whether the commands are housed in menus or toolbars (the Ribbon being, in essence, a glorified toolbar), but rather how the commands are grouped.In Office, the menu commands had accreted over 20 years, and their groupings were often really haphazard. So when they did develop the Ribbon, it was to a large extent merely about re-grouping commands into better groupings. In all likelihood, it isthischange, and not the visual presentation, that bothers you more. (The groupings in the Ribbon are designed for efficiency in command chains, that is, putting commands that are frequently used in sequence onto the same tabs.)Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 amIt's not arrogance when it's founded in really solid user research. I'm not even a fan of MS (I'm a Mac guy!), but as a UX professional, there is nothing to fault in MS's methodology in the Ribbon.Is it not arrogant ofyouto expect that MS bow to your needs, even in light of evidence that most users benefit from the newer system?Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 amAgain, the menus had long ceased being effective. But regardless, developing two user interfaces in parallel is, well, dumb. That's already what menus+toolbars were, and part of the goal of the Ribbon was to unify, rather than to further replicate.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 amI hadn't noticed!Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 amYou aren'talonein feeling like this. I've met a few (very few, but non-zero) who feel this strongly about it. However, the goal of the Ribbon wasn't to make it better foryouspecifically, but to make it better formost users, and it succeeded at that.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 12:13:21 amIt would be arrogant for anyone to suggest how your mind needs to work — and nobody has in any way.All you need to understand is that it's not a custom product for you, it's a mass-market product that has to work well formostpeople.

author: julianhigginson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 01:15:26 am
content: Mac os isn't for me, but plenty of people seem to like it.if it runs the software you want to run then it's a viable OS choice I suppose.One thing though - as well as being specifically not licensed for use in a VM, it seems like it's deliberately hobbled to NOT WORK on a VM. That is, Apple seems to expend some energy writing their software to fail in a virtualbox VM. So to even have a n OSX machine running in virtualbox you end up with constant issues with update compatibility and general system robustness and stability.. so really, you are not going to have the same experience as if you run it on apple hardware.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 01:22:59 am
content: Quote from: julianhigginson on August 08, 2018, 01:15:26 amThat's one of the things I LOVE about Mac OS X: it has all the key commercial software (MS Office, Adobe, etc.)andthe entire world of open source software from the UNIX/Linux world. And the quality of Mac software tends to be really good. (In contrast, on Windows, there are invariably 100 different programs to do the same thing, but only 1 or 2 of those are any good. So the actual number ofgoodapps for a given task on Mac vs. Windows tends to be really similar.) Open source is hit or miss, but it fills a lot of gaps!Quote from: julianhigginson on August 08, 2018, 01:15:26 amWeeeeellll… not exactly. As of 10.7 (i.e. around 6 years ago), the EULAdoesallow Mac OS X to run inside VMs, and commercial VMs, like VMware, do support it, with one caveat: only when running on a Mac as a host. (That's what the EULA allows for, and the commercial VM vendors enforce it.)If it's failing in VirtualBox, it's probably because VirtualBox is crap. I can't tell you how much trouble I've had with customers using VirtualBox for a Windows or Linux VM, in stark contrast to VMware or Parallels, both of which work extremely well. You get what you pay for…

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 am
content: Dude, I'm not going to quote that huge wall of text, but arrogance, arrogance, arrogance. You make all kinds of claims, but cite no sources. Studies I read showed users being sharply divided between preference of ribbon vs traditional menus, yet you act as though there is some massive overwhelming unequivocal preference for ribbons. You talk as though I'm some kind of crazy one-off anomaly demanding a custom product just for me, when in fact there is enough backlash against the ribbon to have spawned quite popular aftermarket addons to support sensible menus. Office 97? Who said anything about Office 97 until you brought it up? That's called a straw man argument. What new features do you use that aren't in Office 2003? Please list the features that are in the ribbon that would not fit in the traditional menus because I can't for the life of me find anything that wouldn't be trivial to put there.Compromises, yes, "You will take the ribbon and you will like it because WE said so!" Yeah, that sounds like a compromise to me. Compromise would be continuing to include the standard menu as an option, like they did on the Mac version. They already had to do the work to find places for all these new features so why couldn't they compromise and continue to provide the original option for the ~40-50% of users who prefer it? If it is SOOOOOOOOO hard to do this then how did the aftermarket menu addon manage this impossible task? If the ribbon is so vastly superior then why do they have to FORCE it on users rather than offering a choice? I mean yeah, it's SO hugely impossible to pack anything in a sensible menu that an aftermarket program came out within a short time to do just that.The level of arrogance is astounding.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 01:32:56 am
content: Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 am

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 01:47:10 am
content: Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amThe source is actually the tons and tons of stuff Microsoft posted at the time, and presented in videos, about the Ribbon design process. (As a UX professional, I found it absolutely fascinating.) I can dig it up if you actually have any intention of reviewing it in earnest. Otherwise I won't bother.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amNotpreference, but rathertask performance.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amI already said you're not alone. I even said I know that your level of hatred (namely, "extreme") is something I've encountered before. It doesn't make you a majority, though.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amYou did.You asked, and I quote: "what compelling features have been added to spreadsheets and word processors in the last 20 years?"20 years ago, Office 97 was the current version.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amQuote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amI've been civil and stuck to rational argument this entire time. Can you please do the same?I honestly couldn't tell you off the top of my head what new features were added when, it's been too long. But I know that when I've had to go back and use Office 2003, I have run into various missing features.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amYou're bitter. I get it. But the point is that on the whole, the Ribbon performs well. That is testable, and it was tested extensively.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amAs I already said, the menus on the Mac version are essentially frozen. New features have not been added to them.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amI doubt that anywhere near that many people care either way. Sources for your claim?Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amNobody said it was impossible. Just that it's wasted effort.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amBecause excessive choice is bad in a user interface. It's multiple interfaces to support, both from a technical and user support standpoint. There's a saying in usability: "every [preference setting] is a decision you refused to make". Obviously, some settings are needed. But often it's because the designers or engineers refused to make a decision and instead pawned off that effort onto the user.Quote from: james_s on August 08, 2018, 01:32:10 amNo, it's Microsoft finally learning to a) do good usability research and design testing, b) make decisions, and c) follow through with them, instead of trying to please everybody.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 04:11:27 am
content: Quote from: tooki on August 08, 2018, 01:47:10 amI don't think Microsoft have learned anything. Look at Windows 8 and 10, they've made a dogs breakfast of it and instead of making people happy, they pissing their users off. I'm not alone when I say I'm looking at non-Microsoft alternatives for everyday use.

author: julianhigginson
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 05:41:06 am
content: Quote from: tooki on August 08, 2018, 01:22:59 amsorry, I mean run it in a VM on a *real* computer....

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 05:45:19 am
content: QuoteThanks very much for that. I notice, though, that you run Safari more or less full screen, so I don't really see much difference between that and a Windows app running the same way.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 05:57:36 am
content: QuoteNot quite. When you open or collapse the ribbon your document goes up and down as the space available to it changes. With a traditional menu the document position is static. It's very annoying, just like those awful web pages that, just as you click a button, something causes it to move out of the way and you click something else.QuoteIt is for me. My normal screen is 1200 deep, and when I use my FHD laptop at 1080, it seems that the space for document data is miniscule compared to furniture. We are used to reading in portrait mode (and, indeed, if a page is wide we use multiple columns). Modern screen are great for video but terrible for text, yet it's the text stuff that has ribbons.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 06:03:50 am
content: QuoteWhoah! These are the people that have undiscoverability as a major feature of their OS, with invisible buttons, no change in cursor as you roll over things you can click, not difference in the text, flat windows with no edges, etc. And you say they somehow got things right there when everything they are currently doing is really terriblyawfuluser interface?

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 07:57:37 am
content: Quote from: julianhigginson on August 08, 2018, 05:41:06 amQemu/kvm has no problems doing that, you just have to violate Apples copyright to do it by reading the key string out of the SMC on a real Mac.I've been doing that for years for compatibility testing.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 03:14:06 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 08, 2018, 05:45:19 amActually I don't. I only maximized the Word window for privacy and simplicity in the screenshot! I actuallydetestmaximized windows and full-screen mode with the fire of a million burning suns!!! (It boggles my mind, actually, that people buy 27" 2560x1440 displays and then run their fucking windows maximized, such that most websites and apps just have gigantic margins on the sides… As a Mac user, one of the things that always surprised me about Windows users is their de-facto aversion to, well, windows. Maximized all the time, in essence just context-switching between apps.)Bear in mind also that I'm on my MacBook at the moment, where around 2/3 of the screen width is a comfy reading size. On my desktop (a Mac Pro with a 27" 2560x1440 display), the windows are even narrower with respect to the screen size.I hate tabs for the same reason!Quote from: Halcyon on August 08, 2018, 04:11:27 amErr, yes, agreed. I actually should have said that itwasMS learning to do good usability. I have no idea what substance the designers of Win 8 were on — trying to merge touch and mouse GUIs was absolute lunacy!Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 08, 2018, 06:03:50 amI wasonlytalking about the Ribbon, whose usability is quite good. And I specifically praised theirmethodologyin its design process. Unless you've looked at that process, you can't really comment on it.As for their current OS: The whole flat, undiscoverable design language that the entire computer industry has embraced is, to me,insane. It flies in the face of the usability research that's been done over the past 50 years.I don't know whether the it's the same UX team behind the Ribbon as behind Metro. I sure hope not, because if the same people did the Ribbon (great work) and then Metro (batshit crazy), I'd have to question their precipitous decline in mental health. That, or bean counters with no idea about UX forced decisions.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 03:47:07 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 08, 2018, 05:57:36 amHuh, you're right! That is annoying! (I never use the Ribbon collapsed so I never noticed.)Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 08, 2018, 05:57:36 amI agree with you on this, too. I do not at all agree with the move to 16:9 displays in computing. I much prefer 4:3 myself. Even 16:10 is preferable to 16:9. But man, if somebody made a 32" 2560x1920 (4:3) LCD, or even better as 5120x3840, I'd be all over that… (You can get close with specialty radiography LCDs, but at $37,000 for a 33.6" 4200x2800 (3:2) Barco, it's a bit rich for my blood.)Sadly, the economies of scale of using 16:9 foreverystep in LCD production in both TVs and computing means we're stuck with this.There is one glimmer of hope: with "retina" resolutions, we're able to move away from subpixel rendering, which was a major hurdle with regards to 90˚ rotation on displays designed as landscape. (Mac OS X definitely cannot do subpixel rendering on rotated displays, and I'm not even sure Windows can, though I know it supports BGR, i.e. 180˚ rotation.) So "retina" displays using regular antialiasing can be rotated 90˚ to a nice portrait mode.What's even more insane to me are those ultrawide screens (21:9). They're pointless as home theater screens (since an equally wide 16:9 LCD gives you the same image for a lot less cost, just letterboxed), and they're even more insane as computer displays, other than perhaps for VR and gaming.And that curved LCD bullshit. It addsnothingat the viewing angles we use them at, yet makes them take up more space (especially in TVs) and likely makes them easier to break.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 04:08:49 pm
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on August 07, 2018, 01:40:25 pmI didn't see why the moderators would have a problem with the thread. You seemed to imply that this discussion might not be allowed, but had different reasons for why it might be deleted, a Mac OS X vs Windows/Linux debate, than I did: discussion of pirate software. In any case I don't see the issue, as long as it stays civilised.There was no negativity intended. It was a genuine question. I wanted to know the purpose of creating the thread, because it wasn't clear from the first post.Whether you like it or not, this kind of thread will always stir up, OS X vs other OSes debates, regardless of the original intention. Hopefully it will stay civilised and run its course, otherwise it will get petty and no doubt locked.Post count makes no difference to anything.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 04:15:58 pm
content: Prompted by this thread I have ordered High Sierra and will install itin a VMon my Mac to find out for myself how addictive it is

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 05:32:49 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 08, 2018, 04:15:58 pmIt takes about a month of day to day use, to wrap your head around a few concepts, or at least it did for me.At first I hated the alt-tab behaviour in MacOS but after I got it it's way superior to Windows. In Windows you have alt-tab and that's it.. it switches between all the windows you have open.On a Mac Alt tab only switches between the Appls you have opened. If you want to switch between windows of the same app you have to use Alt-~. Pain to get used to at first but way better for power users. Like it's really amazing to have that sort of granularity if you're say working on a laptop and screen real-estate is an issue and you're working with multiple programs.Windows is an OS better suited to casual people, while MacOS is better suited for power users in my opinion. If only Apple didn't drag their feet with upgrading their computers, I would still be using MacOS. The two models I am interested in are woefully outdated. MacPro and Mac Mini.Also it is ridiculous how much more power I can get on the Windows/Linux side with things like the new Threadripper 2 for way less money. Apple never had a good value/performance proposition, but I feel like ever since AMD kicked off the core war, it's never been this bad.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 08:55:16 pm
content: QuoteAlready sounds simpler than W10QuoteThere is also Ctl-Tab whcih switches between windows of an app. Been there since forever, and I have to say that's a bit more consistent than the Alt-~ on OSX. I use Ctl-Tab a lot more than I do Alt-Tab.But thanks for the hints.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 08, 2018, 09:04:44 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on August 08, 2018, 05:32:49 pmRumours abound about a refreshed Mac Mini coming in the fall. I really hope they're true. The mini is a nifty little machine.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 09, 2018, 02:40:37 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on August 08, 2018, 05:32:49 pmFYI, it's not Alt-tab and Alt-~, it's Command-Tab and Command-~ to cycle between apps and between windows within an app, respectively.The Mac essentially (perhaps strictly?) never uses Option (the Mac name for Alt) and a character key alone as a shortcut: Option- accesses extra characters. But Option can tag along with another modifier key (like Command) to modifythat.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 06:47:13 am
content: I sincerely thank 'ALL' those who posted a response to this!!By virtue of the 'comments', I at least have an 'insight' into the likes/concerns, from "The Other Side"I just want to appreciate that which I am ignorant of... (and with my 'blatant' Hack Version !!!)Although "All I Know", (knew), was 'PC's' all my life, (building/programming etc), I was never so ignorantto not know/sense that "Apple/Mac" systems must still have major 'importance', especially as they (seem?)to have MAJOR places in a multitude of Medical/Scientific Fields etcI don't doubt the experts knowledge.And, YES, to answer some peoples queries, I was not talking initially about 'Servers' and such, but 'Home'computer systems, when 'putting aside' Linux/Bsd etc. I KNOW how important they are under the 'hood'.I understand the multitude of 'ShortFalls' with MS-Windows, as have worked with them for years....NOTE/Question 1......I've always 'heard' that there are NO 'real' Viruses for a Mac........ For 2 reasons.... One, that it is saidto be 'difficult' due to the 'O.S.', and that 'people' 'RESPECT' the 'O.S.' and so less inclined to attack it??NOTE/Question 2......Is the ability to run 'OS-X' (modified) on a PC using a Virtual O.S. only possible, because of the fact(?) thatMacs are now using 'Intel' Processors ?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 07:17:29 am
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on August 10, 2018, 06:47:13 amThis is false. My professional recommendation is that regardless of OS your run a basic file/memory virus scanner. No system is totally immune to viruses, malware, data miners etc... Without something at least doing a cursory check, you wouldn't know until perhaps it's too late. This is especially important if you're sharing files across different platforms. At work, we even scan iOS devices for known viruses, it's very unlikely but it's not unheard of, especially when handling jail broken/rooted phones.I would seriously question the expertise and qualifications of anyone who gives you advice to the contrary. A virus scanner of course won't protect you from most vulnerabilities and exploits that exist in operating systems.Quote from: GlennSprigg on August 10, 2018, 06:47:13 amYes.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 09:47:24 am
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on August 08, 2018, 09:04:44 pmThis will only have value to me if (a) they reintroduce 4+ core 45W TDP processors like they had in the 2012 models and (b) reintroduce user upgradeable RAM (and allow internal storage upgrades).The 2014 Mac Mini was a fail as far as I’m concerned, a shame because the quad core 2012 models remain pretty good machines, up to 16GB RAM and two 2.5” SATA 3 slots, all user upgradeable.

author: gnif
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 10:22:46 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 10, 2018, 07:17:29 amOh no... well I'm boned!Seriously though, I have not run AntiVirus since the last good version of Norton's AV (2002). But then again, I run Linux, use ZFS snapshots and daily backups to an encrypted enterprise SAS cold storage array.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 11:27:51 am
content: Quote from: gnif on August 10, 2018, 10:22:46 amYou're excused. ;-)I was generalising a little. 90% of IT "experts" are not experts at all.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 12:23:00 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 10, 2018, 07:17:29 amIt depends on what you mean by virus scanner. If you're talking about the type which don't run in the background, then yes I agree: scan downloads and periodically scan the hard drive for viruses, but if you're on about the memory resident variety, which run in the background, I wholeheartedly disagree. Memory resident virus scanners are bad things, not only do they use resources, although in practice this makes little difference on modern hardware, but they introduce new vulnerabilities which weren't there before. I avoid them like the plague.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 02:24:42 pm
content: QuoteLinux has exploits, and whilst having backups/archives is jolly useful, you have to know your data is changed before you can know to do a restore. Being able to restore doesn't pull back exfiltrated data, though.However, the real issue is not so much your system but what could use that as a stepping-stone to something else. Like you, I am careful as to what I do, but even so I've been lucky a couple of times.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 06:25:33 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on August 10, 2018, 09:47:24 amThe 2014 Mac Mini was a fail as far as I’m concerned, a shame because the quad core 2012 models remain pretty good machines, up to 16GB RAM and two 2.5” SATA 3 slots, all user upgradeable.My miniisthat quad Core i7. I dunno why the follow-on minis were dual core, it was a step backwards, I think, even if the processors had higher clock speeds. If you could get a quad core machine in a MacBook Pro, why not a mini?

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 06:27:22 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 10, 2018, 07:17:29 amCan someone, anyone, point me to an up-to-date list of viruses which affect the Mac?[quote[At work, we even scan iOS devices for known viruses, it's very unlikely but it's not unheard of, especially when handling jail broken/rooted phones.What viruses exist for iOS? What is the vector for infection?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2018, 07:26:37 pm
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on August 10, 2018, 06:27:22 pmSomeone, anyone, Google maybe?Here's a recent lists of viruses, malware etc. which have gained some notoriety:https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/mac-software/mac-viruses-malware-security-3668354/

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2018, 12:24:10 pm
content: As a follow-on from my last comment, about Apple/Mac now using 'Intel' processors...(Remember, I'm just trying to understand "The other side", as a Windows user).Although it's now easier (possible!) to Virtualize a Mac with Windows, why did they do it ?What was wrong with the OS/Hardware/Chips that Apple originally had ?

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2018, 01:03:43 pm
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on August 11, 2018, 12:24:10 pmPerformance. First the 68000, and later the Power PC processors, were falling behind.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2018, 10:46:25 pm
content: Quote from: ebastler on August 11, 2018, 01:03:43 pmIt’s certainly true that at the end, the PowerPC stagnated, right as Intel really got its shit together and started making really efficient CPUs. But the 68k series was quite strong to the end, Apple jumped to PPC before the 68K line had in any way fallen behind.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 12, 2018, 02:07:04 am
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on August 10, 2018, 06:27:22 pmThe defence of "I wasn't me, a virus must have done it" has been brought up in court many times. The prosecution needs to negate that argument and simply saying "Apple products don't get viruses" is not only false, but won't stand up as evidence.No where does Apple claim that their products are immune or free from viruses.There are a bunch of resources on the net if you want to know more about viruses/malware etc... which specficially targets iOS and OS X products:Here are just a few:https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Malware_for_iOShttp://www.reedcorner.net/mmg-catalog/https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/mac-viruses-are-here-to-stay10-examples-of-mac-viruses/556/As I said, anti virus becomes increasingly important if you're sharing files between different platforms. Simply blocking your ears and covering your eyes isn't a form of protection.

author: shteii01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2018, 05:03:19 am
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on August 11, 2018, 12:24:10 pmYou will need to check wiki, but I think IBM was designing and making G chips for Apple. The thing is... lately cpu design has become a very expensive process. Fabrication also became much more expansive, I think mostly due to updates for the fabrication equipment. It seems in the consumer area only Intel and AMD make cpu now. And note that these two are literally ONLY MAKE SILICON. Nothing else. IBM let Apple know that they were getting out of cpu business so Apple had to find a new cpu designer/manufacturer. The rest is history.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2018, 09:34:23 am
content: (I don’t need to check wiki, I know this stuff by heart!) PowerPC chips were made by several vendors, primarily Motorola and IBM. At the time that Apple switched to Intel, they were still using Motorola’s G4 (PPC7400 series) chips in the PowerBook, iBook, and Mac mini, and IBM’s G5 (PPC970 series) in the Power Mac and iMac (and xServe).IBM had promised both 3GHz chips and mobile versions, and delivered neither.IBM still makes CPUs, but only for high end servers.

author: gnif
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 12, 2018, 11:27:05 am
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 10, 2018, 02:24:42 pmVery correct, which is why I do not allow code or binary blobs from untrusted sources into my work network, and run a enterprise grade firewall that restricts outgoing traffic from mission critical infrastructure. Even still there are still risks, but no more then when running AV which is unable to catch viruses that have not yet crossed the AV companies research desk. AV is only as good as it's definition updates, the bigger risk are zero day exploits which AV is useless against.In the professional hosting world, as soon as a server has been compromised, with or without AV, the server is removed from service, rebuilt and any web apps are redeployed from a known clean source. Even if the AV does catch/alert on something, odds are that you can't trust the machine anymore.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2018, 01:39:16 pm
content: QuoteNot quite true (and if someone does get hit by a zero-day, it's not a zero-day for long). My AV, for instance, watches for changes to certain registry keys (which malware would usually need to change to allow persistence), access to certain facilities, etc. I don't trust it enough to blithely blunder around the interwebs clicking hither and yon, but as that last "Er, you don' t really want to do that" catcher when I have the security equivalent of fat fingers, it can be very useful.At one time I used to consider my system immune because it was isolated behind a firewall and I didn't run dodgy stuff, but when another users PC got hit (via a secure VPN to HP, stunningly) and then had free access to everything on the network, I understood better the risks I'd previously dismissed as scaremongering.

author: gnif
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 12, 2018, 09:15:06 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on August 12, 2018, 01:39:16 pmI do not disagree that there are still some merits, but AV software has become so bloated for the few little protections it adds (registry key monitoring, etc.), it's not worth the overheads. As for your unfortunate incident with the VPN, this is something that has always worried me and as such I run virtual lans (VLAN) and a managed switch to allow me to isolate users from my trusted systems. Even my wireless users that are "trusted" are on their own VLAN to prevent a roaming target from being able to access resources they don't need access to.Thankfully my users do not need file server access, all mission critical services are accessed via SSH and live on a server attached to a HSM which is used to authenticate the user with a smart card. To be affected by a virus it would have to be specifically designed to attack our custom infrastructure and custom software in a very specific way. Not to say we are immune, thus the backups and snapshots, encrypted volumes and encrypted databases. I just do not see how AV would save anyone when the attacker is out specifically to attack you, anything used will be unknown by the AV as it would be custom developed to attack you specifically.There is more risk from a rogue or careless employee then a virus as the employee is "trusted" and already has access.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2018, 12:13:32 am
content: QuoteAye, you're not wrong there! Reminds me of the wonderful Nero DVD-buring utility which gradually, over the years, acquired features until its original functionality was pretty much forgotten. Gosh, and Norton's. <tear falls from eye>

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 13, 2018, 12:29:14 am
content: Absolutely, a lot of AV packages are garbage bloat ware. I think I must have trialled about 5 or 6 offerings from different vendors before I settled on ESET NOD32. I've mentioned this before on a number of threads but it does exactly what it says on the box. It's a basic file and memory-based virus scanner and nothing more. It uses bugger all RAM or CPU resources. I have it set to scan every single file upon access (whether it's an executable or not) and I honestly can't tell the difference with it on or off. It doesn't nag me and just sits quietly in the background.The great thing is, it still runs on Windows XP (the installer warns you that it may not work properly) but at least it gives you the option to install and try, unlike some other vendors that flat out refuse to run on obsolete systems and force you to upgrade to their newer products.All I want my AV to do is to scan every file that touches my machine against known viruses. Nothing more, nothing less. That's my first line of defence.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2018, 12:44:59 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 13, 2018, 12:29:14 amI agree... but'gnif' failed to mention the ubiquitous'P.U.P.'s (which are mostly annoying), and'Heuristic'detections !which don't just rely on the present 'known' list of viruses/malware etc.I used to LOVE the free AVAST software, for it's functionality, configurability & detection rate. But it has become bloat-ware, with tooMUCH advertising for it's own various/many products, and definitely uses my processor/memory like a rabid shark!, according to'Task-Manager' even when it should be only putting along in the background, or paused, when the CPU is busy elsewhere !I ALSO like a 'tool' to do one thing, well... I use 'Malwarebytes' for anti-malware, and Avast now seriously warns (warned) meabout that, telling me to UNINSTALL IT !!... Yea right. Told Avast where to go, although still using it due to the above reasons.For extra insurance and following advice given by Malwarebytes staff, I've added the files below toAvast's exclusions:-C:\Windows\System32\drivers\mbae64.sysC:\Windows\System32\drivers\mbam.sysC:\Windows\System32\drivers\MBAMChameleon.sysC:\Windows\System32\drivers\MBAMSwissArmy.sysC:\Windows\System32\drivers\mwac.sysC:\Windows\system32\Drivers\farflt.sysC:\Program Files\Malwarebytes\Anti-Malware\MbamPt.exeC:\Program Files\Malwarebytes\Anti-Malware\mbam.exeC:\Program Files\Malwarebytes\Anti-Malware\assistant.exeC:\Program Files\Malwarebytes\Anti-Malware\MBAMWsc.exeC:\Program Files\Malwarebytes\Anti-Malware\mbamtray.exeC:\Program Files\Malwarebytes\Anti-Malware\MBAMService.exeI'vealsoadded theAvast program foldertoMalwarebytesexclusions.'Avast' have also tried to get into the 'RansomWare' market, and although I've left it active, and after MUCH research,I additionally use another 3rd party App called 'CyberSight-RansomStopper'. There are quite a few out there now,and some that 'sound' the same, but are not as refined, proficient or all-encompassing. But that's my opinion ! :-)P.S...'Avast' has even jumped on the band-wagon regarding "WebCam Protection"... (to protect your privacy)...Well, they EVEN threw up a 'Warning' that I am 'vulnerable', and to CLICK here to show you !!!...OBVIOUSLY they are a multitude of app-modules, allowed to run on your system. By them SHOWING you some sortof result, is just SCARE-MONGERING for the elderly/ill-informed, to upgrade for monetary gain.I thought that was FUCKING abhorrent !!! (excuse my language).

author: gnif
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 16, 2018, 03:19:47 am
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on August 15, 2018, 12:44:59 pmActually I did not mention them on purpose, heuristic detection is useless today with the advent of self unpacking and self modifying code, most of which are using commercial packing mechanisms that are used to protect legitimate applications from reverse engineering and as such can not have a generic detection pattern or there will be continual false positives.QuoteThe problem with this is it has to perform a static analysis of the binary to determine what API call's it is making and/or doing. But with a packed/encrypted executable the AV software can not determine anything other then the program does some memory work. In order to unpack the binary the AV software would have to run it, let it unpack in the hopes of halting it before it does any damage and then scan it's process space. Security researchers perform such research, by running the binary inside a VM under a debugger and then dumping it from memory for analysis.The modern way to handle this is "sandboxing" where the AV software itself executes the binary inside a VM of it's own design in the hopes of seeing it use malicious commands. The overhead of this is enormous and why AV software causes such a huge performance hit.With a major focus on security over the last 10 years viruses are nothing like they used to be, if they were we would have seen another CodeRed or Nimda like virus already. The most recent one to scare the world was a cryptolocker that used a hole in windows that was known, and a patch existed for it for years before hand. If you're not bothering to apply security updates to your OS, then its very likely your AV software is also out dated and not going to protect you, or can not because it relies on the underlying OS to work a specific way.Also remember that back then many people had their PCs connected directly to the internet without a router/firewall and as such were exposing their unprotected/unpatched PCs to the world without a firewall or NAT to protect it. The CoreRed virus spread through the windows RPC service and would infect the system without the AV software being able to do a thing about it. Even after infection the virus had to be removed with a special tool as the AV software couldn't remove it by itself. Nimda was the same, etc.The only real solution to viruses are incremental daily backups, preferably via a separate backup server running in passive mode (See Bareos (free) or R1Soft (commercial)). It should also be noted that more people lose their data due to hardware failure then viruses. Your HDD dies and you lose everything. Rather then investing in expensive AV software put the money into a backup solution instead and let Bit Defender do it's thing, it's actually quite good.QuoteI could not agree more. AV software went from being a requirement to trying to convince you that you require it by alerting on every little thing including stupid things like "tracking cookies".

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2018, 09:56:08 am
content: And this is one reason why I still prefer using a Mac. It’d be unfair to say there isn’t no malware for Mac (though I don’t think there are any true viruses for Mac OS X — by the strict definition of a virus — there certainly are Trojans and various other exploits), but the sheer number in the wild is minuscule, and the built in virus checker in Mac OS X keeps the serious ones out. I’ve never run any additional antivirus on Mac OS X, and at this rate it’ll probably stay that way.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 16, 2018, 10:00:46 am
content: Quote from: tooki on August 16, 2018, 09:56:08 amTo be fair, there is no need to run "additional" antivirus on Windows or any other platform either. Windows Defender actually does a decent job, however if you do decide to use something else, use something decent that isn't just shitty bloat-ware. There is no point running two different virus scanners simultaneously. There was little merit for that in the 1990's and there is even less merit for it now.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 16, 2018, 01:14:47 pm
content: But even Windows Defender is a much more heavyweight antivirus than what Mac OS X includes (or needs, for most people).

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 16, 2018, 08:53:36 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on August 16, 2018, 01:14:47 pmPerhaps it is, I don't use either so I can't really compare.

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 12:12:42 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on August 16, 2018, 10:00:46 amWow, sorry mate, but that's the last thing I thought someone would say. "Windows Defender" is as basic as it gets, in the hope that people who have STARTED with no other 'protection' at least have SOMETHING, when starting up a new system...It can not 'compare' at all with the 'experts' in that field, with/without bloatware...Most people tend to use a dedicated AV system, for just that. And an Anti-Malware system for just that, etc.IF NASA used Windows systems, would they use their basic O.S. to send people to outer space ?

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 01:44:31 pm
content: Not sure where this thread was going (or if it even had a direction from the first post) but to get back on track, below is a video of my foray into running Mac OS on my ASUS laptop. By the way, I boot Ubuntu and just set up a number of virtual machines in Virtual box for Win XP, Mac OS, Android, and Win 10. I do all my work in Ubuntu though, and use the VM's mostly to play around.Anyways if you need help installing it there are a few tricks you need to do which are explained in the video with links to virtual images. Individual success and results may vary, but I am running it fine minus a few features having to do with graphics (any app that uses more sophisticated graphics features will not work, but browsing, Whatsapp, iTunes and podcasts, Safari, etc all work fine).https://youtu.be/SXffFlO7mFM

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 01:54:08 pm
content: QuoteOh yes! Have an upgrade USB which will allegedly install to clean hardware. In a VB VM I can boot from that (by making it look like a disk) and even install OSX on the real VM disk, but it won't boot from that. I will be perusing that video for clues!Windows is a lot easier to get running in a VM

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 02:23:10 pm
content: Here is a guide I wrote (which you can see in the video) which I put together after looking at a number of sites. Adjust the parameters below as necessary (memory RAM size, serial number, name of machine, etc). By the way these work on my UBUNTU Linux machine as of VirtualBox 5.12:QuoteHere's another link:https://techsviewer.com/install-macos-sierra-virtualbox-windows/You may have trouble finding a virtual disk image as the above links are a bit old. However, if you look around Google you should find something to download (they have newer images anyways). You may be better off mounting an installation ISO anyways and having it install to a virtual HD by itself in VirtualBox anyways. Finally, the "legality" of all this is all fairly obviously against Apple's rules but they don't really seem to care or enforce much against the Hackintosh community because of the minimal impact it has on them, plus the often flaky performance of the machines, lack of full graphics support, issues with some of the MacOS apps, and so on. You are better off buying Apple hardware and using bootcamp to install Windows 10 if you want to dabble in both OS's. Or better yet, try a Linux distro like Ubuntu and forget about all this virtualizing illegal mumbo-jumbo which will give you variable performance.The OP sounded like they were using Win10 and finally "broke free" and feel like they for the first time are trying MacOS and liked it. They may as well do this with Linux and see if that also blows their mind.Ultimately, the OS you use will depend on the applications you intend on using it for. I can't stand these "OS wars" arguments... there is no place for them. Each has it's unique characteristics which make them better for some jobs and not for others. At the end of the day, you would be wise to be well-versed in *ALL* OS's and know the strengths and weaknesses of each, and pick the rights ones to do the job you want them to do, on the hardware you have available and willing to afford! We are lucky these days to have computers strong enough and virtualization technology that gives the average user the power to try all these systems and learn it all!

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 07:30:19 pm
content: QuoteThat is where I've come unstuck on all these guides and videos. If I had the image, I wouldn't need a video to tell me how to use it...

author: edy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 17, 2018, 07:57:21 pm
content: Try this page, there are some working links:https://techsviewer.com/install-macos-high-sierra-vmware-windows/

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2018, 06:40:33 am
content: The links worked great for me. Thanks very much