> Ok like I said you don’t consider 0-day exploits as real issues until they get exploited. So why bother even fixing them right?
No, of course they should get fixed. Don't be silly.
I'm talking about actual security threats. Something that is broken should get fixed, of course. But not everything that is broken represents a big freaking deal, security-wise. If the vuln can't be used, then it's just a software error, no big deal, fix it, move on to the next one.
But instead, Apple-bashers go out of their way to make a big deal out of every Mac vuln, just as Windows-bashers do the same thing with every Win vuln. It's marketing bullshit, having no real effect on system security.
Wankers are wankers, regardless of operating system. And the tech journalists who sit around having wet dreams about how they're going to show up Apple or show up Microsoft because their scripted exploit runs 15 seconds faster than the other guy's are wankers, pure and simple, nothing more.
My advice to you: don't follow wankers.
Item #2, emulation vs. virtualization.
> Actually I do know quite a bit about it, but if you read for understanding the response I was making was about the fact that windows could run on a Mac pre-Intel proc days... And most with a reasonable understanding would understand that. But for those needing a lesson, well I can take you to school on virtualization. But then that’s outside this issue...you’re wanting to play gotcha is jsut silly.
Thanks for the offer, but no need. I've been using VMware since 2005, presently have a couple of 8-core Xeon servers running ESX with over 4 dozen VMs on them, along with VMware Workstation on my Windows boxes, Fusion on my Macs, and VMware Server on my Linux boxes. Have used Parallels (don't like it as much), and am setting up Xen for a few installs where it makes sense. It's very unlikely you could teach me anything I don't already know in that regard, although you're welcome to try.
> Actually after re-reading my statements I see you don’t understand English.
Indeed, this should be fascinating.
> Let me disect it for you.
For starters, Mr. English, it's spelled "dissect".
> I’m pretty sure Mac had emulation before Intel. -> I’m saying I am pretty confident that Mac was able to emulate the hardware for Windows to run on a Mac before adopting the Intel platform.
Close enough, I won't pick nits.
> Next sentence. It just runs better on Intel...now this is where you have to think and realize the post I was referring to...this means It (Windows) runs better on Intel. In other words on Intel hardware (you wanted to read that as emulated Intel).
Sorry, that excuse doesn't wash. Windows ONLY runs on Intel x86/x64 hardware. You're surely not going to haul out the early 90's Alpha builds of NT, or HP's Itanium servers, to claim that Windows is CPU-independent in any sense that applies to this conversation.
Neither of us is silly enough to claim that Windows could conceivably run better in emulation on a PPC, than on an Intel CPU. Saying "Windows runs better on Intel" is like saying "Automobiles run better with round tires"... ummm, that's right, where's your point?
Anyway, I'm not playing "gotcha", I'm simply pointing out your apparent mistakes, just as you are doing to me. But that process seems to annoy you, and I don't care to annoy anyone, so I'll leave you to your own devices.
Have a good evening. Cheers! :)
This is like trying to talk to an 8 year old. You have to go back to my reply to another post (before you jumped in)...where it was implied that Windows can NOW run on Mac. My point was it could run on Mac previously under emulation but at a cost to performance.
Really, what's so hard to understand about that? You're just looking to pick a fight to try and show how smart you are, but in reality you're showing your ignorance.