TiVo OS is not PNP

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-
> You'd rather have a Doom Game machine than a reliable computer?

No, I'd rather have the option to use any number of vendors for my
accesories instead of overpriced ones from a limited set of vendors.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> The biggest problem I have these days are with Mac zealots, not Macs. I
> manage *one* employee who refuses to use anything but Macs.

Heh, the 'underdog' syndrome. Pathetic, isn't it?

Macs work great if you're one person doing one person's job. As you start
scaling up into shifts of people across departments the utter lack of any
enterprise features make the MacOS a complete non-starter. But those
'empowered' induhviduals don't see the big picture. It's sad, but hey,
that's marketing for you. Who wants to be sold on being a productive wage
slave as part of a well functioning large company? Nobody. Everybody wants
to pretend they're something special. Ain't gonna happen but advertising
pimps the message anyway. Thus, Apple.

> so switching to Macs would pretty much put him out of a job.

Tempting propostion, eh?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <FYKdndspfYjVkfDfRVn-2w@speakeasy.net>,
"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > The biggest problem I have these days are with Mac zealots, not Macs. I
> > manage *one* employee who refuses to use anything but Macs.
>
> Heh, the 'underdog' syndrome. Pathetic, isn't it?
>
> Macs work great if you're one person doing one person's job. As you start
> scaling up into shifts of people across departments the utter lack of any
> enterprise features make the MacOS a complete non-starter.

Total fiction. Macs are for more manageable and predictable in the
enterprize than PCs. They dont get turned into S{AMMing zombies for one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jack Zwick (jzwick3@mindspring.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> > Macs work great if you're one person doing one person's job. As you start
> > scaling up into shifts of people across departments the utter lack of any
> > enterprise features make the MacOS a complete non-starter.
>
> Total fiction. Macs are for more manageable and predictable in the
> enterprize than PCs.

Not really. If you want to enforce a policy across a bunch of machines,
Mac OS has nothing that matches Active Directory for that sort of thing.
Sure, you can configure each Mac separately, but if you want to change
from expiring passwords every 180 days to every 120 days, it's a bear to
do when you have to touch 500 machines.

There are 3rd-party *nux solutions to this sort of thing, but nothing
straight from Apple.

> They dont get turned into S{AMMing zombies for one.

This is another fallacy. This won't happen to a correctly configured PC
in an enterprise. You can easily make sure that every machine has the
latest anti-virus software and definitions.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/SlowInternet.jpg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <R8ednUzeBcU9lvDfRVn-og@speakeasy.net>,
"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:jzwick3-
> > You'd rather have a Doom Game machine than a reliable computer?
>
> No, I'd rather have the option to use any number of vendors for my
> accesories instead of overpriced ones from a limited set of vendors.

With Blue Tooth, USB 2 and Firewire 800, there is plenty of choice in
the Macintosh paradigm. You can choose on price or quality.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <s9KdnRHdvLTDl_DfRVn-tQ@speakeasy.net>,
"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > My point really was to quarrel with the statement that Mac peripherals
> > had to be manufactured specifically for Macs. That is not true.
>
> Oh it certainly is true. Once you get outside the mere basics of device
> features unless Mac drivers are written for it you can't make use of it's
> features.

Nice try. Obviously never used a Mac.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jack Zwick (jzwick3@mindspring.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> In article <s9KdnRHdvLTDl_DfRVn-tQ@speakeasy.net>,
> "wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My point really was to quarrel with the statement that Mac peripherals
> > > had to be manufactured specifically for Macs. That is not true.
> >
> > Oh it certainly is true. Once you get outside the mere basics of device
> > features unless Mac drivers are written for it you can't make use of it's
> > features.
>
> Nice try. Obviously never used a Mac.

Although the broad generalization about there not being many peripherals
that a Mac can use is false, it's 100% true that without drivers, the
hardware just doesn't work. This is true for any OS.

Mac OS (like Windows and Linux) has drivers for a *lot* of hardware built
in, and 3rd parties often make drivers for the Mac. But, there is a lot
of hardware that isn't supported. Since this is a newsgroup about DVRs,
it seems appropriate to mention that there are very few HDTV cards that
have Mac drivers. The Mac solution has been to use FireWire to capture
from STBs, but that doesn't work for encrypted channels, and ties up the
STB. A card like the MIT MDP-130 will capture the same digital cable
channels that you could using a cable STB and FireWire, and free up the
STB to watch TV while you record something else.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http/www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TreeChainsaw.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <s9KdnRbdvLTAl_DfRVn-tQ@speakeasy.net>,
"wkearney99" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I run a four-year-old Mac. My keyboard, trackball, scanner and laser
> > printers (b&w and color) were not built for the Mac.
>
> Yeah, except those USB keyboard requirements are a bit of a pain. Oh,
> powering up from the keyboard? Not without spending extra for apple's
> bastardization of the usb spec for it...
>
> > Everything worked the first time, too. In fact, everything works all
> > the time. My stuff always works.
>
> As do all the devices on my PCs.
>
> > Paying less so you can buy more stuff that doesn't work correctly seems
> > counter-productive to me.
>
> Except that it does work. Hey, I'm all for choice. PCs give me more of it.
> That some folks don't choose wisely doesn't mean they should forsake choice
> for a dictatorial and obscenely proprietary vendor.

You need to have the choice of hundreds of keyboards instead of only
d0zens with a Mac? Get Real. I have a Microsoft Wireless Elite Keyboard
on my G5 tower as I type this.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

On 2005-04-25, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
> This is another fallacy. This won't happen to a correctly configured PC
> in an enterprise. You can easily make sure that every machine has the
> latest anti-virus software and definitions.
>

But you can't make sure the latest anti-virus software and definitions
will protect your PC from the latest worms/virus/etc. out there.

Plus, you then need to talk about Windows patches which may actually break
required software so then you're talking about staffing to test that the
patches don't break stuff and that causes a time delay between the release
and the installation of the patches, and this says nothing of the case of
what to do when your required software applications don't work with the
patches.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <s9KdnRbdvLTAl_DfRVn-tQ@speakeasy.net>, wkearney99
<wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I run a four-year-old Mac. My keyboard, trackball, scanner and laser
> > printers (b&w and color) were not built for the Mac.
>
> Yeah, except those USB keyboard requirements are a bit of a pain. Oh,
> powering up from the keyboard? Not without spending extra for apple's
> bastardization of the usb spec for it...

You originally said peripherals for the Mac have to be built
specifically for the Mac. Let's not forget the original point here.

Now it's "powering up from the keyboard"? Who cares? I have to reach
over a whole six inches or so to hit the power button on the Mac
itself. If this powering up from the keyboard thing is important to
you, fine, but to me it sounds like a reach (no pun intended).

As for the "bastardiazation of the USB spec," I'm running a scanner and
three printers off USB. All non-Apple. No problems.

> > Everything worked the first time, too. In fact, everything works all
> > the time. My stuff always works.
>
> As do all the devices on my PCs.
>
> > Paying less so you can buy more stuff that doesn't work correctly seems
> > counter-productive to me.
>
> Except that it does work. Hey, I'm all for choice. PCs give me more of it.
> That some folks don't choose wisely doesn't mean they should forsake choice
> for a dictatorial and obscenely proprietary vendor.

I see those choices as uselessly broad. They don't matter to me at all.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <s9KdnRHdvLTDl_DfRVn-tQ@speakeasy.net>, wkearney99
<wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > My point really was to quarrel with the statement that Mac peripherals
> > had to be manufactured specifically for Macs. That is not true.
>
> Oh it certainly is true.

Of course it's not true. Worse, it's obviously false. And as I've
already said, I don't have a single peripheral that was built for the
Mac (except the speakers that came with it, as I've mentioned).

> Once you get outside the mere basics of device
> features unless Mac drivers are written for it you can't make use of it's
> features.

Yes, you (occasionally) need device drivers written for the Mac. You
need drivers for any OS. Could that be more obvious? However, these
drivers are almost always provided with the device, and sometimes
they're already included in the OS. I have never bought a peripheral
that didn't come with a Mac driver, and sometimes I didn't need the
driver anyway because it was already in the OS.

You like "choice." That's fine, but it doesn't persuade me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Mike Hunt wrote:
> On 2005-04-25, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:
>
>>This is another fallacy. This won't happen to a correctly configured PC
>>in an enterprise. You can easily make sure that every machine has the
>>latest anti-virus software and definitions.
>>
>
>
> But you can't make sure the latest anti-virus software and definitions
> will protect your PC from the latest worms/virus/etc. out there.

Mike, if you have enterprise level solutions (which is what we're
discussing here) you can be pretty much on top of this with little
effort. And even with the increased attack levels on PC's, the tools
that are available make it faster and easier to patch 1000 PC's than 20
Macs. So even if I have to patch Macs twice a year, and PC's 30 times,
the PCs actually take me less time.

> Plus, you then need to talk about Windows patches which may actually break
> required software so then you're talking about staffing to test that the
> patches don't break stuff and that causes a time delay between the release
> and the installation of the patches, and this says nothing of the case of
> what to do when your required software applications don't work with the
> patches.

This is a relative rarity in a controlled enterprise environment. The
real problem where this occurs is on servers, not clients, and that's
going to be a problem no matter which OS you are using.

But the truth is, I manage both, though far fewer Macs. The Macs play
well on the network, are very stable and the users love them. But I
have very little policy enforcement flexibility on them so users screw
them up more often *or* have to bring them to me far too often to
install things. Plus it's *extremely* frustrating to me to have to pay
for virtually every point release of their OS, though I understand
their numbering system is different than MS's. A good metaphor is
herding cows versus herding cats; the cows (pc's) are boring and
predictable and easily led, the cats (Macs) are clever and pretty and do
things you told them not to (like install forbidden applications) ;-).

Plus, Mac needs to build in a remote desktop parallel, right now the
only similar solution is quite expensive!

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> Mac OS (like Windows and Linux) has drivers for a *lot* of hardware built
> in, and 3rd parties often make drivers for the Mac. But, there is a lot
> of hardware that isn't supported. Since this is a newsgroup about DVRs,
> it seems appropriate to mention that there are very few HDTV cards that
> have Mac drivers. The Mac solution has been to use FireWire to capture
> from STBs, but that doesn't work for encrypted channels, and ties up the
> STB. A card like the MIT MDP-130 will capture the same digital cable
> channels that you could using a cable STB and FireWire, and free up the
> STB to watch TV while you record something else.
>

To be fair, unless I was buying a machine for a *specific* purpose (like
an HTPC), I wouldn't avoid a Mac because of lack of peripherals. There
may be some holes (and you make a good example), but you can get pretty
much anything you need. Plus, they're generally designed nicer. One
thing I will always give credit to Apple for, they are some of the best
industrial designers out there, period. They understand the importance
of UI as well as Tivo does, which is why I think a lot of people draw
parallels between the two.

The failing of Apple in the Enterprise right now is not their hardware,
but that they still take a bottom up (clients) approach when business
managers and admins want a top down (administration, policy enforcement,
manageability) approach. Microsoft cracked that market *well* when they
released Active Directory (a *huge* upgrade from the old NT domains),
and have nearly blown Novell out of the market with it. There is a
middle ground. If Apple doesn't want to get into that software segment,
they could build in and release Active directory policies that could be
managed by Active Directory. Then my department could be truly OS
agnostic because I could enforce policies on *all* clients. Of course
that will happen when pigs fly ;-).

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> Yes, you (occasionally) need device drivers written for the Mac. You
> need drivers for any OS. Could that be more obvious? However, these
> drivers are almost always provided with the device, and sometimes
> they're already included in the OS. I have never bought a peripheral
> that didn't come with a Mac driver, and sometimes I didn't need the
> driver anyway because it was already in the OS.
>
> You like "choice." That's fine, but it doesn't persuade me.

I've seen a lot of peripherals that didn't ship with Mac drivers, but
that very prominently displayed a web site to go to download them. Not
that I have any problem with that, or that it should make anyone pause
from purchasing it. Just a clarification.

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <116qebudjm3mr42@corp.supernews.com>,
Mike Hunt <in2sheep@yahoo.com> wrote:

> But you can't make sure the latest anti-virus software and definitions
> will protect your PC from the latest worms/virus/etc. out there.

DUH, THATS EXACTLY WHAT ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE DOES, PROVIDED YOU KEEP IT
UPDATED.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <d4k6p0$1cvo$2@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, Randy S.
<rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes, you (occasionally) need device drivers written for the Mac. You
> > need drivers for any OS. Could that be more obvious? However, these
> > drivers are almost always provided with the device, and sometimes
> > they're already included in the OS. I have never bought a peripheral
> > that didn't come with a Mac driver, and sometimes I didn't need the
> > driver anyway because it was already in the OS.
> >
> > You like "choice." That's fine, but it doesn't persuade me.
>
> I've seen a lot of peripherals that didn't ship with Mac drivers, but
> that very prominently displayed a web site to go to download them. Not
> that I have any problem with that, or that it should make anyone pause
> from purchasing it. Just a clarification.

I haven't run into that myself, but I'm always happy to have the record
clarified. Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>> But you can't make sure the latest anti-virus software and definitions
>> will protect your PC from the latest worms/virus/etc. out there.
>
>DUH, THATS EXACTLY WHAT ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE DOES, PROVIDED YOU KEEP IT
>UPDATED.

No, it doesn't. Someone has to get the virus FIRST. It then takes
time to turn a virus sample into a virus definition and get it into
the distributed updates. Anti-virus companies may act quickly, but
they will always lag behind the virus writers. And during that lag,
some systems will get the virus.

Gordon L. Burditt

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Gordon Burditt wrote:
>>>But you can't make sure the latest anti-virus software and definitions
>>>will protect your PC from the latest worms/virus/etc. out there.
>>
>>DUH, THATS EXACTLY WHAT ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE DOES, PROVIDED YOU KEEP IT
>>UPDATED.
>
>
> No, it doesn't. Someone has to get the virus FIRST. It then takes
> time to turn a virus sample into a virus definition and get it into
> the distributed updates. Anti-virus companies may act quickly, but
> they will always lag behind the virus writers. And during that lag,
> some systems will get the virus.
>
> Gordon L. Burditt

But this applies to *all* OS'es not just MS. If you look closely at
vulnerability announcements you will notice that MS announcements are
fairly steady (SP2 has helped some), while OS X announcements are UP
(bugtraq shows 5 flaws in OS X from last October through January, and
*14* from January till now. Windows had 23 from October through
January, and 27 from January until now). I'm not trying to say that
Windows is getting any better, but that hackers are becoming more
familiar with OS X. Don't kid yourself in thinking that OS X is
invulnerable, it's only a matter of time. And the more popular it
becomes, the more of a target it will be.

For comparison, look at Firefox. As nice as a browser as it is (and I
use it all the time), folks were touting it as *inherently safer*. But
now we've three security releases in as many months. *ALL* software is
vulnerable to security flaws, it's just a fact of life.

Randy S.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <116qv3ha22cs173@corp.supernews.com>,
gordonb.3pf64@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

> >> But you can't make sure the latest anti-virus software and definitions
> >> will protect your PC from the latest worms/virus/etc. out there.
> >
> >DUH, THATS EXACTLY WHAT ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE DOES, PROVIDED YOU KEEP IT
> >UPDATED.
>
> No, it doesn't. Someone has to get the virus FIRST. It then takes
> time to turn a virus sample into a virus definition and get it into
> the distributed updates. Anti-virus companies may act quickly, but
> they will always lag behind the virus writers. And during that lag,
> some systems will get the virus.
>
> Gordon L. Burditt

OK be paranoid

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> No, it doesn't. Someone has to get the virus FIRST. It then takes
> time to turn a virus sample into a virus definition and get it into
> the distributed updates. Anti-virus companies may act quickly, but
> they will always lag behind the virus writers. And during that lag,
> some systems will get the virus.

Uh, no. A great many are variants or attempt to use predictably troublesome
behaviors. That's detectable and can be guarded against.