15 New Messages
Digest #9413
Messages
Mon Mar 4, 2013 7:05 am (PST) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
Excellent. They should put that in their FAQ. I guess it's not that "frequently" asked. ;)
Now I'll have to try it. I do like nvAlt though. Sooo simple. I like simple.
Cheers,
tod
On Mar 3, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
> GrowlyNotes, under File --> Export, has a large selection of formats that it can export to, including plain text and Word format.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Now I'll have to try it. I do like nvAlt though. Sooo simple. I like simple.
Cheers,
tod
On Mar 3, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:
> GrowlyNotes, under File --> Export, has a large selection of formats that it can export to, including plain text and Word format.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Mar 4, 2013 7:18 am (PST) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
>
> On Mar 3, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Carol Corley wrote:
>
> > Does that not make your Mac susceptible to all the Windows viruses? And then don't you have to have Norton (or similar) on your Mac?
>
It is important to understand that it is not the operating system (Mac, Windows, Linux) per se that makes one vulnerable. Current OS's are all technically vulnerable to attack. The real issue is whether you are a target.
Mac users are generally not targets. The main reason Mac OS is "safe" is simply that it has not historically been a hacker target. There are still FAR fewer Macs and, more important, Macs are mostly consumer-only products and hackers are most interested in governments and corporations, which use Windows. Attackers have far fewer tools and much lower incentive to attack Macs, and so they generally don't. Plus, hackers themselves are Windows people. It's almost comical, but you attack what you know. Ever wonder why there are more crimes in low income areas? It's not because crime is easier there. It's because that's where the criminals are.
But that does NOT mean criminals can't and won't attack Macs. They absolutely can. You are not invulnerable on a Mac. It's like living in a "good" neighborhood. The odds are much, much lower, but not zero.
Cheers,
tod
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> On Mar 3, 2013, at 7:17 AM, Carol Corley wrote:
>
> > Does that not make your Mac susceptible to all the Windows viruses? And then don't you have to have Norton (or similar) on your Mac?
>
It is important to understand that it is not the operating system (Mac, Windows, Linux) per se that makes one vulnerable. Current OS's are all technically vulnerable to attack. The real issue is whether you are a target.
Mac users are generally not targets. The main reason Mac OS is "safe" is simply that it has not historically been a hacker target. There are still FAR fewer Macs and, more important, Macs are mostly consumer-only products and hackers are most interested in governments and corporations, which use Windows. Attackers have far fewer tools and much lower incentive to attack Macs, and so they generally don't. Plus, hackers themselves are Windows people. It's almost comical, but you attack what you know. Ever wonder why there are more crimes in low income areas? It's not because crime is easier there. It's because that's where the criminals are.
But that does NOT mean criminals can't and won't attack Macs. They absolutely can. You are not invulnerable on a Mac. It's like living in a "good" neighborhood. The odds are much, much lower, but not zero.
Cheers,
tod
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Mar 4, 2013 7:31 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
>> Does that not make your Mac susceptible to all the Windows viruses? And then don't you have to have Norton (or similar) on your Mac?
>
> It is important to understand that it is not the operating system (Mac, Windows, Linux) per se that makes one vulnerable. Current OS's are all technically vulnerable to attack. The real issue is whether you are a target.
You're going to advocate the classic "security through obscurity" fallacy again?
Really?
> Mac users are generally not targets. The main reason Mac OS is "safe" is simply that it has not historically been a hacker target. There are still FAR fewer Macs...
The ratio of Windows computers to Mac computers does NOT, however, seem to relate in any way to the ratio of Windows malware to MacOS X malware.
> Attackers have far fewer tools and much lower incentive to attack Macs, and so they generally don't.
So why has there NEVER been even ONE *virus* in the wild that attacks MacOS X?
EVER, in 12+ years?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
>
> It is important to understand that it is not the operating system (Mac, Windows, Linux) per se that makes one vulnerable. Current OS's are all technically vulnerable to attack. The real issue is whether you are a target.
You're going to advocate the classic "security through obscurity" fallacy again?
Really?
> Mac users are generally not targets. The main reason Mac OS is "safe" is simply that it has not historically been a hacker target. There are still FAR fewer Macs...
The ratio of Windows computers to Mac computers does NOT, however, seem to relate in any way to the ratio of Windows malware to MacOS X malware.
> Attackers have far fewer tools and much lower incentive to attack Macs, and so they generally don't.
So why has there NEVER been even ONE *virus* in the wild that attacks MacOS X?
EVER, in 12+ years?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
Mon Mar 4, 2013 8:41 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Carol Botteron" were_koala
> Posted by: "Randy B. Singer" randy@macattorney.com randybrucesinger
> ... Why don't you teach them a lesson in economics by switching to a competing program?
> There are tons of choices for genealogy software, some of which are even free
Dick Eastman's March 2 newsletter has a list too:
http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2013/03/genealogy-programs-for-macintosh.html
I'm another long-time and very happy user of Reunion.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> ... Why don't you teach them a lesson in economics by switching to a competing program?
> There are tons of choices for genealogy software, some of which are even free
Dick Eastman'
http://blog.
I'm another long-time and very happy user of Reunion.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Mar 4, 2013 8:56 am (PST) . Posted by:
"OBrien" conorboru
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:18:40 -0500, T Hopkins wrote:
> The main reason Mac OS is "safe" is simply that it has not
> historically been a hacker target. There are still FAR fewer Macs…..
I'm no expert on this subject, but I don't think this is correct. As I understand, the Mac OS +is+ inherently more secure.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O'Brien ––– –... .-. .. . -.
> The main reason Mac OS is "safe" is simply that it has not
> historically been a hacker target. There are still FAR fewer Macs…..
I'm no expert on this subject, but I don't think this is correct. As I understand, the Mac OS +is+ inherently more secure.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O'Brien ––– –... .-. .. . -.
Mon Mar 4, 2013 11:18 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Earle Jones" earlejones501
On Mar 4, 13, at 8:56 AM, OBrien bco@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:18:40 -0500, T Hopkins wrote:
> > The main reason Mac OS is "safe" is simply that it has not
> > historically been a hacker target. There are still FAR fewer Macs…..
>
> I'm no expert on this subject, but I don't think this is correct. As I understand, the Mac OS +is+ inherently more secure.
>
>
*
I think you are both right. According to Dr. Peter Neumann (Director of the Computer Security Team at SRI), the Mac is less likely to be invaded by malware for two reasons.
1. As you say above, the Mac is a smaller target and not as attractive to hackers.
2. In addition, the Mac OS is built on a Unix kernel, which was designed for what, at the time were called "minicomputers
earle
*
____________
Earle Jones 鵃�br> earle.jones@
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Mar 4, 2013 11:25 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Charles Carroll" charlesmarkcarroll
Well I love BootCamp so one can always buy win version and boot camp it.
The good news is macBook pro and MBP Retinas are really growing fast as
people who love iDevices and people just sick of Windows bugs are willing
to spend. More market share = lower prices. The next 5 years should see
serious Mac growth and a viable #2 competitor to windows as people run Mac
OSX and BootCamp/Parallels just because the hardware is so sleek, light and
fast.
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM, neelie neeliec2000@yahoo.com > wrote:
> **
>
>
> I'm a Mac user from the mid 1990's and LOVE all Apple
> products....BUT....I'm so tired of the premium prices we sometimes have to
> pay for software!
>
> Today I got an email from Ancestry.com for a special price on family tree
> software. It sounded good - regular price $59.99 on sale for $39.99. But at
> the bottom of the notice was the dreaded "not for Macs" message, with a
> link for the Mac version. That turns out to be $69.99, with NO sale price.
>
> Will this ever cease?
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The good news is macBook pro and MBP Retinas are really growing fast as
people who love iDevices and people just sick of Windows bugs are willing
to spend. More market share = lower prices. The next 5 years should see
serious Mac growth and a viable #2 competitor to windows as people run Mac
OSX and BootCamp/Parallels just because the hardware is so sleek, light and
fast.
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM, neelie neeliec2000@
> **
>
>
> I'm a Mac user from the mid 1990's and LOVE all Apple
> products....
> pay for software!
>
> Today I got an email from Ancestry.com for a special price on family tree
> software. It sounded good - regular price $59.99 on sale for $39.99. But at
> the bottom of the notice was the dreaded "not for Macs" message, with a
> link for the Mac version. That turns out to be $69.99, with NO sale price.
>
> Will this ever cease?
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Mar 4, 2013 7:31 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
>> SATA-3 480 GB SSD for $494.99 from OWC.
>
> SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially if it's being done just to run one Windows app.
I'm not trying to claim they are inexpensive; I just thought there should be an actually number out there in this thread to focus on.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
>
> SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially if it's being done just to run one Windows app.
I'm not trying to claim they are inexpensive; I just thought there should be an actually number out there in this thread to focus on.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
Mon Mar 4, 2013 8:23 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Tim O'Donoghue" timodonoghue
In defense of SSDs - the speed increase and power savings more than
justify the higher cost. It's something that you need to try and
compare. Or watch the OWC comparison videos that Jim posted earlier.
Night and day.
> Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.com >
> March 4, 2013 7:31 AM
>
> >> SATA-3 480 GB SSD for $494.99 from OWC.
> >
> > SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially
> if it's being done just to run one Windows app.
>
> I'm not trying to claim they are inexpensive; I just thought there
> should be an actually number out there in this thread to focus on.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
>
>
> Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com >
> March 4, 2013 4:25 AM
>
> On 4 March 2013 02:08, Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.com
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > SATA-3 480 GB SSD for $494.99 from OWC.
> >
>
> SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially if
> it's
> being done just to run one Windows app.
>
> Otto
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.com >
> March 3, 2013 6:08 PM
>
> > But you realise that a *large* SSD (500 GB) would be *very* expensive?
> > I'm not clear how this makes any sense.
> > Otto
>
> SATA-3 480 GB SSD for $494.99 from OWC.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
>
>
> Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com >
> March 3, 2013 4:20 PM
>
> On 3 March 2013 20:43, James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.net
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > That ultimately will be the ticket. Thanks!
> >
>
> But you realise that a *large* SSD (500 GB) would be *very* expensive? I'm
> not clear how this makes any sense.
>
> Otto
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.net >
> March 3, 2013 12:43 PM
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Tim O'Donoghue tjod@runbox.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Or rather, an SSD drive will be faster than a spinning drive in the
> same
> > enclosure - USB, FireWire, Thunderbolt, etc.
>
> That ultimately will be the ticket. Thanks!
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
justify the higher cost. It's something that you need to try and
compare. Or watch the OWC comparison videos that Jim posted earlier.
Night and day.
> Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.
> March 4, 2013 7:31 AM
>
> >> SATA-3 480 GB SSD for $494.99 from OWC.
> >
> > SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially
> if it's being done just to run one Windows app.
>
> I'm not trying to claim they are inexpensive; I just thought there
> should be an actually number out there in this thread to focus on.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
>
>
> Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@
> March 4, 2013 4:25 AM
>
> On 4 March 2013 02:08, Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > SATA-3 480 GB SSD for $494.99 from OWC.
> >
>
> SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially if
> it's
> being done just to run one Windows app.
>
> Otto
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.
> March 3, 2013 6:08 PM
>
> > But you realise that a *large* SSD (500 GB) would be *very* expensive?
> > I'm not clear how this makes any sense.
> > Otto
>
> SATA-3 480 GB SSD for $494.99 from OWC.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
>
>
> Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@
> March 3, 2013 4:20 PM
>
> On 3 March 2013 20:43, James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > That ultimately will be the ticket. Thanks!
> >
>
> But you realise that a *large* SSD (500 GB) would be *very* expensive? I'm
> not clear how this makes any sense.
>
> Otto
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.
> March 3, 2013 12:43 PM
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Tim O'Donoghue tjod@runbox.
> > wrote:
>
> > Or rather, an SSD drive will be faster than a spinning drive in the
> same
> > enclosure - USB, FireWire, Thunderbolt, etc.
>
> That ultimately will be the ticket. Thanks!
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Mar 4, 2013 9:03 am (PST) . Posted by:
"James Robertson" jamesrob328i
On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:25 AM, Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@
> SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially if it's
> being done just to run one Windows app.
>
> Otto
Of course, that "one Windows app" will soon be running 4-8 hours per day (the portion of my workday that's usually spent physically in my office).
Jim Robertson
(who went to an Apple Retail Store yesterday to inquire about this; at first I was impressed; the sales associate I spoke with immediately suggested using an external SSD in a Thunderbolt enclosure, or, failing that, a USB enclosure, and populating it with my current internal (boot drive) SSD contents via Carbon Copy Cloner. However, then she proceeded to try to sell me a string of external rotating platter drives, each of which she CLAIMED was an SSD).
Mon Mar 4, 2013 9:44 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Tim O'Donoghue" timodonoghue
To complicate the scenery, yes, there are hybrid drives such as the
Seagate Momentus XT which consist of a standard rotating drive plus a
generous cache of SSD that speeds up common operations by caching. I had
two of them in a Mac Mini - one of them failed in a little over a year
and was replaced after a loooooonnnggg wait by Seagate. I'd stick with
standard SSD rather than the hybrids at this time if you have a choice
and the $$.
> James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.net >
> March 4, 2013 9:03 AM
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:25 AM, Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially
> if it's
> > being done just to run one Windows app.
> >
> > Otto
>
> Of course, that "one Windows app" will soon be running 4-8 hours per
> day (the portion of my workday that's usually spent physically in my
> office).
>
> Jim Robertson
>
> (who went to an Apple Retail Store yesterday to inquire about this; at
> first I was impressed; the sales associate I spoke with immediately
> suggested using an external SSD in a Thunderbolt enclosure, or,
> failing that, a USB enclosure, and populating it with my current
> internal (boot drive) SSD contents via Carbon Copy Cloner. However,
> then she proceeded to try to sell me a string of external rotating
> platter drives, each of which she CLAIMED was an SSD).
>
>
> Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com >
> March 4, 2013 4:25 AM
>
> On 4 March 2013 02:08, Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.com
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > SATA-3 480 GB SSD for $494.99 from OWC.
> >
>
> SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially if
> it's
> being done just to run one Windows app.
>
> Otto
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.com >
> March 3, 2013 6:08 PM
>
> > But you realise that a *large* SSD (500 GB) would be *very* expensive?
> > I'm not clear how this makes any sense.
> > Otto
>
> SATA-3 480 GB SSD for $494.99 from OWC.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.com
>
>
> Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com >
> March 3, 2013 4:20 PM
>
> On 3 March 2013 20:43, James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.net
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > That ultimately will be the ticket. Thanks!
> >
>
> But you realise that a *large* SSD (500 GB) would be *very* expensive? I'm
> not clear how this makes any sense.
>
> Otto
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.net >
> March 3, 2013 12:43 PM
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Tim O'Donoghue tjod@runbox.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Or rather, an SSD drive will be faster than a spinning drive in the
> same
> > enclosure - USB, FireWire, Thunderbolt, etc.
>
> That ultimately will be the ticket. Thanks!
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Seagate Momentus XT which consist of a standard rotating drive plus a
generous cache of SSD that speeds up common operations by caching. I had
two of them in a Mac Mini - one of them failed in a little over a year
and was replaced after a loooooonnnggg wait by Seagate. I'd stick with
standard SSD rather than the hybrids at this time if you have a choice
and the $$.
> James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.
> March 4, 2013 9:03 AM
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:25 AM, Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@
> > wrote:
>
> > SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially
> if it's
> > being done just to run one Windows app.
> >
> > Otto
>
> Of course, that "one Windows app" will soon be running 4-8 hours per
> day (the portion of my workday that's usually spent physically in my
> office).
>
> Jim Robertson
>
> (who went to an Apple Retail Store yesterday to inquire about this; at
> first I was impressed; the sales associate I spoke with immediately
> suggested using an external SSD in a Thunderbolt enclosure, or,
> failing that, a USB enclosure, and populating it with my current
> internal (boot drive) SSD contents via Carbon Copy Cloner. However,
> then she proceeded to try to sell me a string of external rotating
> platter drives, each of which she CLAIMED was an SSD).
>
>
> Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@
> March 4, 2013 4:25 AM
>
> On 4 March 2013 02:08, Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > SATA-3 480 GB SSD for $494.99 from OWC.
> >
>
> SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially if
> it's
> being done just to run one Windows app.
>
> Otto
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Jim Saklad jimdoc@icloud.
> March 3, 2013 6:08 PM
>
> > But you realise that a *large* SSD (500 GB) would be *very* expensive?
> > I'm not clear how this makes any sense.
> > Otto
>
> SATA-3 480 GB SSD for $494.99 from OWC.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@icloud.
>
>
> Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@
> March 3, 2013 4:20 PM
>
> On 3 March 2013 20:43, James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > That ultimately will be the ticket. Thanks!
> >
>
> But you realise that a *large* SSD (500 GB) would be *very* expensive? I'm
> not clear how this makes any sense.
>
> Otto
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.
> March 3, 2013 12:43 PM
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Tim O'Donoghue tjod@runbox.
> > wrote:
>
> > Or rather, an SSD drive will be faster than a spinning drive in the
> same
> > enclosure - USB, FireWire, Thunderbolt, etc.
>
> That ultimately will be the ticket. Thanks!
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Mar 4, 2013 10:33 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Dane Reugger" dar2112
Personally - I'd get a Windows Laptop for this purpose - maybe 2 laptops
if I need to have it both home and office. Better support from your IT, no
hassle with VM, and not much difference in cost considering the upgrade,
VM software, and Windows license.
Just my $0.02.
-Dane
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:03 AM, James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.net > wrote:
>
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:25 AM, Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com >
> wrote:
>
> > SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially if
> it's
> > being done just to run one Windows app.
> >
> > Otto
>
> Of course, that "one Windows app" will soon be running 4-8 hours per day
> (the portion of my workday that's usually spent physically in my office).
>
> Jim Robertson
>
> (who went to an Apple Retail Store yesterday to inquire about this; at
> first I was impressed; the sales associate I spoke with immediately
> suggested using an external SSD in a Thunderbolt enclosure, or, failing
> that, a USB enclosure, and populating it with my current internal (boot
> drive) SSD contents via Carbon Copy Cloner. However, then she proceeded to
> try to sell me a string of external rotating platter drives, each of which
> she CLAIMED was an SSD).
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
if I need to have it both home and office. Better support from your IT, no
hassle with VM, and not much difference in cost considering the upgrade,
VM software, and Windows license.
Just my $0.02.
-Dane
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:03 AM, James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.
>
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:25 AM, Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@
> wrote:
>
> > SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially if
> it's
> > being done just to run one Windows app.
> >
> > Otto
>
> Of course, that "one Windows app" will soon be running 4-8 hours per day
> (the portion of my workday that's usually spent physically in my office).
>
> Jim Robertson
>
> (who went to an Apple Retail Store yesterday to inquire about this; at
> first I was impressed; the sales associate I spoke with immediately
> suggested using an external SSD in a Thunderbolt enclosure, or, failing
> that, a USB enclosure, and populating it with my current internal (boot
> drive) SSD contents via Carbon Copy Cloner. However, then she proceeded to
> try to sell me a string of external rotating platter drives, each of which
> she CLAIMED was an SSD).
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Mar 4, 2013 10:58 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Otto Nikolaus" nikyzf
Exactly, and probably for no more $.
No hassle, and you are also preventing the possibility of any problem being
blamed by your IT people on it being "a Mac, what do you expect?"!
Otto
On 4 March 2013 18:33, Dane Reugger dane@downtownpc.com > wrote:
> Personally - I'd get a Windows Laptop for this purpose - maybe 2 laptops
> if I need to have it both home and office. Better support from your IT, no
> hassle with VM, and not much difference in cost considering the upgrade,
> VM software, and Windows license.
> Just my $0.02.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No hassle, and you are also preventing the possibility of any problem being
blamed by your IT people on it being "a Mac, what do you expect?"
Otto
On 4 March 2013 18:33, Dane Reugger dane@downtownpc.
> Personally - I'd get a Windows Laptop for this purpose - maybe 2 laptops
> if I need to have it both home and office. Better support from your IT, no
> hassle with VM, and not much difference in cost considering the upgrade,
> VM software, and Windows license.
> Just my $0.02.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Mar 4, 2013 11:22 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Charles Carroll" charlesmarkcarroll
Boot Camp is much better than VM/Parallels and less likely to need support.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Dane Reugger dane@downtownpc.com > wrote:
> **
>
>
> Personally - I'd get a Windows Laptop for this purpose - maybe 2 laptops
> if I need to have it both home and office. Better support from your IT, no
> hassle with VM, and not much difference in cost considering the upgrade,
> VM software, and Windows license.
>
> Just my $0.02.
> -Dane
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:03 AM, James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.net >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:25 AM, Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially if
> > it's
> > > being done just to run one Windows app.
> > >
> > > Otto
> >
> > Of course, that "one Windows app" will soon be running 4-8 hours per day
> > (the portion of my workday that's usually spent physically in my office).
> >
> > Jim Robertson
> >
> > (who went to an Apple Retail Store yesterday to inquire about this; at
> > first I was impressed; the sales associate I spoke with immediately
> > suggested using an external SSD in a Thunderbolt enclosure, or, failing
> > that, a USB enclosure, and populating it with my current internal (boot
> > drive) SSD contents via Carbon Copy Cloner. However, then she proceeded
> to
> > try to sell me a string of external rotating platter drives, each of
> which
> > she CLAIMED was an SSD).
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Group FAQ:
> > http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Dane Reugger dane@downtownpc.
> **
>
>
> Personally - I'd get a Windows Laptop for this purpose - maybe 2 laptops
> if I need to have it both home and office. Better support from your IT, no
> hassle with VM, and not much difference in cost considering the upgrade,
> VM software, and Windows license.
>
> Just my $0.02.
> -Dane
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:03 AM, James Robertson jamesrob@sonic.
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:25 AM, Otto Nikolaus otto.nikolaus@
> > wrote:
> >
> > > SSD prices *have* come down, but that's still a lot IMO, especially if
> > it's
> > > being done just to run one Windows app.
> > >
> > > Otto
> >
> > Of course, that "one Windows app" will soon be running 4-8 hours per day
> > (the portion of my workday that's usually spent physically in my office).
> >
> > Jim Robertson
> >
> > (who went to an Apple Retail Store yesterday to inquire about this; at
> > first I was impressed; the sales associate I spoke with immediately
> > suggested using an external SSD in a Thunderbolt enclosure, or, failing
> > that, a USB enclosure, and populating it with my current internal (boot
> > drive) SSD contents via Carbon Copy Cloner. However, then she proceeded
> to
> > try to sell me a string of external rotating platter drives, each of
> which
> > she CLAIMED was an SSD).
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > Group FAQ:
> > http://www.macsuppo
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Mar 4, 2013 11:03 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
Passing on a link to a good article in MacWorld with steps to take when
you can't print.
Mac troubleshooting: What to do when you can't print
by Ted Landau @tedlandau
Mar 4, 2013 3:30 AM
http://www.macworld.com/article/2029528/mac-troubleshooting-what-to-do-when-you-cant-print.html >
Denver Dan
Passing on a link to a good article in MacWorld with steps to take when
you can't print.
Mac troubleshooting: What to do when you can't print
by Ted Landau @tedlandau
Mar 4, 2013 3:30 AM
http://www.macworld
Denver Dan
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
