4 New Messages
Digest #9414
Messages
Mon Mar 4, 2013 12:35 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"neelie" neeliec2000
I wanted to thank everyone for the helpful input with regard to my original posting. I have learned a lot from the replies and appreciate the information provided.
neelie
neelie
Mon Mar 4, 2013 1:00 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Dane Reugger" dar2112
OS X is inherently more secure. OSX is based on OpenBSD a flavor of Unix.
Unix was designed from the ground up as a secure OS and *BSD even more so.
*nix/BSD have many security feature designed into the OS - primarily User
Access Controls. Windows on the other hand has evolved from DOS/CPM and
wasn't wasn't a real concern. Microsoft Vista added UAC and stopped
encouraging users to all be administrator which helped but it's still a far
cry from *nix based security.
Security by obscurity doesn't hold water either - there are a lot of macs
and most aren't running any security software - it's a worthy target just a
more difficult one.
That said both Apple and Microsoft were recent victims to attacks on the
Mac. No OS is full proof.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:56 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.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> O'Brien ––– –... .-. .. . -.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Unix was designed from the ground up as a secure OS and *BSD even more so.
*nix/BSD have many security feature designed into the OS - primarily User
Access Controls. Windows on the other hand has evolved from DOS/CPM and
wasn't wasn't a real concern. Microsoft Vista added UAC and stopped
encouraging users to all be administrator which helped but it's still a far
cry from *nix based security.
Security by obscurity doesn't hold water either - there are a lot of macs
and most aren't running any security software - it's a worthy target just a
more difficult one.
That said both Apple and Microsoft were recent victims to attacks on the
Mac. No OS is full proof.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:56 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.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> O'Brien ––– –... .-. .. . -.
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Mar 4, 2013 1:13 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"James Robertson" jamesrob328i
On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:22 AM, Charles Carroll 911@learnasp.
> Boot Camp is much better than VM/Parallels and less likely to need support.
Interestingly, I'm exploring this issue on the VMware community forums as well. One person there was VERY specific about avoiding a WDE (acronym I didn't know existed before, stands for Whole Disk Encryption) with Boot Camp, as a likely way to "brick" a Mac computer (I don't know on what that's based, but the poster has over 1700 prior posts on those forums and designation as a "Master" in the forums.
As for the cost: I may not really need the huge external SSD (or any external boot device); I already have a perfectly good Windows Computer that lives inside my Mac; I have limited room on my desks at home AND at work, so I'm still hoping for the virtual machine solution.
Jim
Mon Mar 4, 2013 1:14 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"wallegirl62" wallegirl62
I have stupidly let my iPhoto library grow to just under 21,000 photos and iPhoto has slowed to a crawl. I am now making a concerted effort to edit my collection and trying to do this within iPhoto is driving me nuts.
The alternatives I have considered are
1. Move sections to Aperture (which I have installed but have not used very much so maybe this would make me explore it) then edit and move back (or not).
2. Copy to the desktop / external drive and edit using finder.
3. Export to the desktop / external drive and edit using finder.
I have tried googling the difference between export and copy but couldn't easily find anything. My collection is purely personal and the only metadata I care about is the date the photo was taken.
Thoughts and advice would be very gratefully received.
Thanks in anticipation,
Sarah.
The alternatives I have considered are
1. Move sections to Aperture (which I have installed but have not used very much so maybe this would make me explore it) then edit and move back (or not).
2. Copy to the desktop / external drive and edit using finder.
3. Export to the desktop / external drive and edit using finder.
I have tried googling the difference between export and copy but couldn't easily find anything. My collection is purely personal and the only metadata I care about is the date the photo was taken.
Thoughts and advice would be very gratefully received.
Thanks in anticipation,
Sarah.
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
