New Virus starting to run wild

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Norton had a fix for this one on 12/19, so you should be good. I was working on installing a new puter and i'm finally done. Now all i have to do is clean up the rest of the room : ( Sean
>

Yeah, you could buy a Mac. Then all you would have to do is be able to find all the programs that you want to run. While this is not a problem for me ( since i don't have a Mac ), i know others that have run into this situation. They've gotten "upset" that the manufacturers of some killer software don't make programs for Mac's. Guess who gets to run programs for them as a "favor" ??? You can talk all the "smack" that you want about Mac's, but when you can't do simple tasks or what you want to do with them, the "superiority" factor goes down hill REAL fast.

Besides that, some companies are moving away from Mac's. With their commercial based products weakening, they might not be around a lot longer. I've got a few friends that work on puters for a living and they've told me that more than a few design & engineering companies are slowly leaving Mac's behind.

On top of that, Mac's are just as susceptible to virus' as PC's are. It is just that they comprise such a microscopic portion of active internet users, the "idiots" writing virus' don't waste their time toying with them. Why screw around with infecting 100 people when you can create chaos with 10,000 people ???

Then again, this just made me think of something. Wouldn't it be "somethin" if the boys at Mac were responsible for exposing all of the problems with Microsoft / PC based problems via writing Windoes based virus' ???? What a GREAT way to generate sales and demonstrate the "superiority" of Mac's.

To be fair though, i do have to admit that Mac users tend to be FAR more computer literate and of a higher average IQ. Even with the Mac user's greater operating skill and higher level of intelligence, you still can't beat the momentum of mob action that Windows has generated. Sean
>

Albert, i new that you had a Mac from previous posts but didn't know ( might've forgotten ) that Kelly was a member of that crowd also. With the two of you in the Mac crowd, i might have to re-assess my comments about them having higher than average intelligence : )

With all of the problems that i've been having with Windows glitching, various virus problems, etc.., i keep talking to my business partner ( he's pretty savvy with puters ) about buying a Mac. All he gives me is TONS of negative points about them. Maybe i need to do some further research for myself and look at things with an open mind. I went the PC route as that is what most of my friends had and i knew that they would help me out if i got stuck somewhere. Like most others new to any hobby, i was looking for guidance. Only problem is, i think that they set me up with the equivalent of a Pioneer receiver, Technics CD player and Blose speakers. Reputable and "good" stuff if you don't know any better.

To get an idea of what i've been going through with Windows and MicroShaft, take a look at a post that i did on AA today. For those considering going to XP or someone who already has it, make sure that you read my other post way down at the bottom of this same thread. You might find it interesting to find out that MicroShaft's "new and improved / latest and greatest" is actually "slower and stupider" with even more bugs than normal. Then again, we should be expecting this by now.... Sean
>

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/164605.html

From doing a little research since i've gone to using XP, it appears as if Windows 2000 is the fastest and most reliable version yet. I guess it has problems with some DOS based programs though, so it may not be universal for all applications. For those not using DOS and wanting to stick with a Windows based system, it is probably the best way to go. That is what i'll be installing on this one and several other puters. Sean
>

XP just MIGHT be more stable in the long run, but it is also slower than 2000 no matter what you do to it. I had a link to a website that did a very in-depth comparison between those two using several different computers, etc... Even under optimum conditions, the VERY BEST that XP was able to do was to run 89% as fast as Windows 2000 did. The more windows that you had running at the same time ( multi-tasking ), the bigger the difference in speed. At one point, XP literally took twice as long to process the same amount of information. As for me, i didnt buy a faster computer to load it up with a slower operating system. Sean
>