sasser w0rm n00b caught. - Page 4

Wondah Vocal · 21st May 2004, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKY

okkkkk so.... anything relesled by mac and isint gonna be made available for pc is because it isnt good enuff? no its because whoever made it has made it a mac or a pc only program, also, wotever, i can show you many a things that show that a mac is faster more effecent and all around better than a pc, and right now im gonna die from heat so im goin for a piss and a drink, im out see ya
http://www.apple.com/software/pro/
look around on that link it SHOUD show you a mac is the far better choice

unlesss like you say all you do is play the latest games and cant wait 5 months for the best games to get ported to mac

maybe if we all went onto a pro-pc webiste it would say differentl?, all the links your posting all start with www.APPLE.com/.................
if its an apple mac site then its obviously gonna say good things about it, right?

humndislocation · 21st May 2004, 02:34 PM

The question is, would you have to pay MORE money for mac that's as fast as your PC? If so, then it's irrelevant whether the mac has a better architecture. It's the same arguement that PS2 fanboys come out with when trying to say it's better than Xbox. Yes the PS2 might have a better architecture, but the Xbox is just plain faster. So unless you're some kind of freak that sits there going "mmm I'm sure glad the game I'm playing is running on a RISC architecture and not CISC!" then the Xbox has better hardware.

Besides, what's the point in having it run faster if there's still hardly any software for it, compared with the PC? Just go into game, how many mac games do you see? Compare that with PC games.

Saying that you can use a PC emulator to play PC games on a Mac is a pointless argument, because emulators are much slower than hardware, and you just destroy your arguement about PCs being slower.

It's not that the Mac can't play these games, it's just that there's no market for it, because only about 12 people have macs. This is the same reason that there are hardly any Mac viruses. Hardly anyone has a Mac.

It's just the same with linux software on PC. Hardly anyone uses linux compared with windows, so there's not much out for it.

Speed in photoshop? Does anyone here find photoshop to be too slow on their PCs? I certainly don't. I never have to wait for it to do anything.

6months of evrything · 21st May 2004, 05:04 PM

yeah the guy who made the virus should be jailed. what would have happened if one of the hospitals that got infected caused problems which stopped a patient getting the right treatment and they died or the virus got into the emergency services computers and teh same thing happened someone died.......little shits like him dont think of that!

i dunno if 5 years is enough tho..............i just think of the movie hackers when the guy isnt aloud to use a computer for liek 10 years of isnt aloud to go near certain kinds of telephones!!! i dunno how ya would police it but something needs to be done.

and no my pc is quite happy at running photoshop

: : Scott : : · 21st May 2004, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6months of evrything

yeah the guy who made the virus should be jailed. what would have happened if one of the hospitals that got infected caused problems which stopped a patient getting the right treatment and they died or the virus got into the emergency services computers and teh same thing happened someone died.......little shits like him dont think of that!

i dunno if 5 years is enough tho..............i just think of the movie hackers when the guy isnt aloud to use a computer for liek 10 years of isnt aloud to go near certain kinds of telephones!!! i dunno how ya would police it but something needs to be done.

in my opinion five years is well harsh.

computers are open to attacks like this, so why blame opportunists?

it's like leaving yr front door wide open with a flashing neon sign beside it reading "NO ONE HOME!!!" and an arrow pointing to the door.

would you expect to be robbed?

plus you mentioned the hackers movie. which is a pretty damn accurate representation of how hacking works.

HACK THE GIBSON!!! HACK TEH PLANET!1

6months of evrything · 21st May 2004, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperbitch

in my opinion five years is well harsh.

computers are open to attacks like this, so why blame opportunists?

it's like leaving yr front door wide open with a flashing neon sign beside it reading "NO ONE HOME!!!" and an arrow pointing to the door.

would you expect to be robbed?

plus you mentioned the hackers movie. which is a pretty damn accurate representation of how hacking works.

HACK THE GIBSON!!! HACK TEH PLANET!1

i do agree with what you are saying in a way, in my opinion if an operating system is made it should be tested by different people before it is released, if microsoft had say 10 hackers working for them whos job was to find flaws and ways in then hopefully the software when released would be secure. yes the release date would go back but atleast you would have a secure product which wouldnt fail every few months getting your company shitty rep from the worlds media.

if a car companys made cars which was full of faults and was only suitable to a minimum level for use was released and "updates" were to follow shortly then everyone would take the bus!

browneyedboy00 · 21st May 2004, 07:39 PM

If the flaw in security was THAT obvious then people would have already done it. It wasnt soem obvious securty fault mentioned ont he back of the XP box.

And of cource if you steal from a house with its door open saying "no-ones" home you should be punished!

Just because its EASY (which it unlikely was) to do somethign wrong dosnt make it ok.

I mean no-one walks around with head protection but if somone smacked our heads in with blunt objects we wouldnt say

"jolly good show. I mean I was just walking down the street there I wasnt even facing you, What an excelent opertunist you are!"

6months of evrything · 21st May 2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by browneyedboy00

I mean no-one walks around with head protection but if somone smacked our heads in with blunt objects we wouldnt say

"jolly good show. I mean I was just walking down the street there I wasnt even facing you, What an excelent opertunist you are!"

legend!!!!!!! hahahahaha spot on hahahaha

: : Scott : : · 22nd May 2004, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by browneyedboy00

If the flaw in security was THAT obvious then people would have already done it. It wasnt soem obvious securty fault mentioned ont he back of the XP box.

And of cource if you steal from a house with its door open saying "no-ones" home you should be punished!

Just because its EASY (which it unlikely was) to do somethign wrong dosnt make it ok.

I mean no-one walks around with head protection but if somone smacked our heads in with blunt objects we wouldnt say

"jolly good show. I mean I was just walking down the street there I wasnt even facing you, What an excelent opertunist you are!"

: )

humndislocation · 22nd May 2004, 02:45 AM

Excuse this post cause I am munted, muntered if you will.

IT doens't matter how many people microsoft employ, there are still going to be exploitable bugs. Such a huge amount of code, and so many people looking for holes in it.

It's especially bad when you've got software written in a language like C or C++ ( but to a lesser extent, if you're writing in ANSI/ISO C++ ), it's just so easy to create buffer overflow vulnerable code in these kinds of languages.

: : Scott : : · 22nd May 2004, 02:50 AM

to be honest, windows is a pretty good o/s. it's also pretty reliable, as long as you aren't a dipshit.

humndislocation · 22nd May 2004, 03:01 AM

Nowadays, with Win2K/WinXp/Anything based on the NT kernel yeah I'd agree. But Win 9x/Me were pretty diabolical.

: : Scott : : · 22nd May 2004, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by humndislocation

Nowadays, with Win2K/WinXp/Anything based on the NT kernel yeah I'd agree. But Win 9x/Me were pretty diabolical.

i've only ever used 9x's and XP, and XP is a hyo0oge improvement and i actually really like it.

shoot me down, linux kidz.

browneyedboy00 · 22nd May 2004, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by humndislocation

Excuse this post cause I am munted, muntered if you will.

IT doens't matter how many people microsoft employ, there are still going to be exploitable bugs. Such a huge amount of code, and so many people looking for holes in it.

It's especially bad when you've got software written in a language like C or C++ ( but to a lesser extent, if you're writing in ANSI/ISO C++ ), it's just so easy to create buffer overflow vulnerable code in these kinds of languages.

Jesus if thats you muntered you must be Steven Halking when you're sober!

21st May 2004, 02:34 PM	#47 (permalink)
humndislocation Hardcore is serious guys Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dundee Posts: 6,009 Band: Blasphemous Necrorapist	The question is, would you have to pay MORE money for mac that's as fast as your PC? If so, then it's irrelevant whether the mac has a better architecture. It's the same arguement that PS2 fanboys come out with when trying to say it's better than Xbox. Yes the PS2 might have a better architecture, but the Xbox is just plain faster. So unless you're some kind of freak that sits there going "mmm I'm sure glad the game I'm playing is running on a RISC architecture and not CISC!" then the Xbox has better hardware. Besides, what's the point in having it run faster if there's still hardly any software for it, compared with the PC? Just go into game, how many mac games do you see? Compare that with PC games. Saying that you can use a PC emulator to play PC games on a Mac is a pointless argument, because emulators are much slower than hardware, and you just destroy your arguement about PCs being slower. It's not that the Mac can't play these games, it's just that there's no market for it, because only about 12 people have macs. This is the same reason that there are hardly any Mac viruses. Hardly anyone has a Mac. It's just the same with linux software on PC. Hardly anyone uses linux compared with windows, so there's not much out for it. Speed in photoshop? Does anyone here find photoshop to be too slow on their PCs? I certainly don't. I never have to wait for it to do anything. Last edited by humndislocation : 21st May 2004 at 02:36 PM.

21st May 2004, 05:04 PM	#48 (permalink)
6months of evrything Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Glasgow Posts: 875	yeah the guy who made the virus should be jailed. what would have happened if one of the hospitals that got infected caused problems which stopped a patient getting the right treatment and they died or the virus got into the emergency services computers and teh same thing happened someone died.......little shits like him dont think of that! i dunno if 5 years is enough tho..............i just think of the movie hackers when the guy isnt aloud to use a computer for liek 10 years of isnt aloud to go near certain kinds of telephones!!! i dunno how ya would police it but something needs to be done. and no my pc is quite happy at running photoshop

21st May 2004, 07:39 PM	#51 (permalink)
browneyedboy00 Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Kettle, Fife Posts: 872	If the flaw in security was THAT obvious then people would have already done it. It wasnt soem obvious securty fault mentioned ont he back of the XP box. And of cource if you steal from a house with its door open saying "no-ones" home you should be punished! Just because its EASY (which it unlikely was) to do somethign wrong dosnt make it ok. I mean no-one walks around with head protection but if somone smacked our heads in with blunt objects we wouldnt say "jolly good show. I mean I was just walking down the street there I wasnt even facing you, What an excelent opertunist you are!"

22nd May 2004, 02:45 AM	#54 (permalink)
humndislocation Hardcore is serious guys Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dundee Posts: 6,009 Band: Blasphemous Necrorapist	Excuse this post cause I am munted, muntered if you will. IT doens't matter how many people microsoft employ, there are still going to be exploitable bugs. Such a huge amount of code, and so many people looking for holes in it. It's especially bad when you've got software written in a language like C or C++ ( but to a lesser extent, if you're writing in ANSI/ISO C++ ), it's just so easy to create buffer overflow vulnerable code in these kinds of languages.

22nd May 2004, 02:50 AM	#55 (permalink)
: : Scott : : Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dundee Posts: 7,138	to be honest, windows is a pretty good o/s. it's also pretty reliable, as long as you aren't a dipshit.

22nd May 2004, 03:01 AM	#56 (permalink)
humndislocation Hardcore is serious guys Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dundee Posts: 6,009 Band: Blasphemous Necrorapist	Nowadays, with Win2K/WinXp/Anything based on the NT kernel yeah I'd agree. But Win 9x/Me were pretty diabolical.