If you don't it slows down. Windows has no on-the-fly defragmentation like *nix systems do. Take a look at your disk profiler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
I said average.Quote:
Originally Posted by slayer
Printable View
If you don't it slows down. Windows has no on-the-fly defragmentation like *nix systems do. Take a look at your disk profiler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Replicon
I said average.Quote:
Originally Posted by slayer
I'm running Ubuntu, so no need to profile the disk. :)
The one weakness of filesystems like ext3, as I heard, is that while they handle themselves as far as fragmentation goes, if the disk gets pretty full (don't know HOW full - does anyone know?) the defragmentation process breaks down. I don't know if it ever recovers once you delete stuff from it, but you cannot manually defrag an ext3 filesystem without taking some unsupported, hacky risks.
I'm about to begin studying coding games, and programs, i'm very intelligent in the issue with software makeup and hardware setup, i find PC's to have to have more maintenance than a Mac but a Mac is easier and less frustrating to try to get more graphics and hardware strainging work done, if you're only worrying about gaming and performing less intense opperations on the system, Go for a PC but if you're wanting to start making/coding your own stuff, Mac flows far faster and better to see end results, although PC's Windows OS are VERY easy to hack into it's operating system and customize it to run the way you want it to... but that goes to show you the integrity of them, as to Mac i haven't been too successful with that yet, although that may be because i haven't made myself familiar with it's system.
Sorry i'm rambeling, but basically for speed and highout put without much work on your part choose a Mac, for more options in gaming and low powered operations choose a PC or just take a couple of years and learn about creating your own OS and write it up yourself with your own hardware.... I'm thinking on attempting the last suggestion myself...
ctrl+alt+del shows all running processes, even viruses and malicious software. A swift google search turns up all sorts of data on unknown processes. Never had a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Problem?Quote:
All this usually happens without the owner of the compromised machine even knowing
Really? It's that difficult for you to run CCleaner and defrag your hard drive once a month? :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Mac OS is UNIX, you can customize it to run however you'd like.Quote:
Originally Posted by MementoMori
Nope, lots of malicious programs replace dlls. These dlls can run in a legitimate process's program space. Ctrl+Alt+Del will not show you these.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
Hmm, guess i haven't started looking at them enough yet, i just got my Mac book and haven't started dissecting yet, Thanks though, those are words of encouragementQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Also, rootkits can hide malwareQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578Nope, lots of malicious programs replace dlls. These dlls can run in a legitimate process's program space. Ctrl+Alt+Del will not show you these.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
A rootkit is (typically) a kernel-level hypervisor that runs your OS on top
Same as a VM cannot detect it's running in a virtualised environment, an OS (and by extension, any program it's running) cannot detect it's running on top of a rootkit
Ain't no way you can detect that without outside help
Can't you just get a piece of antivirus that scans for rootkits? :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
I'm sure someone will try to sell you one, but no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
You cannot diagnose rootkits (or other malware "underneath" an OS) on the infected OS itself
Anything you do to combat rootkits has to be done externally to the OS (Ie. another OS)
yep, Then you've got a cyber boot up your ass.... :bang:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Spybot Search and Destroy should be included in with Windows....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit#Detection
Quote:
Rootkit binaries can often be detected by signature or heuristics-based antivirus programs, at least until they're run by a user and are able to attempt to conceal themselves. There are inherent limitations for any program that attempts to detect rootkits while the program is running under the suspect system. Rootkits are suites of programs that modify many of the core system tools and libraries upon which all programs on the system depend. Some rootkits attempt to modify the running operating system via loadable modules on Linux (and some other UNIX varieties), and through VxDs, virtual external device drivers on MS Windows platforms. The fundamental problem with rootkit detection is that if the operating system currently running has been subverted, it cannot be trusted, including to find unauthorized modifications to itself or its components. In other words, actions such as requesting a list of all running processes, or a list of all files in a directory, cannot be trusted to behave as intended by the original designers. Rootkit detectors running on live systems currently only work, because the rootkits they can detect have not yet been developed to hide themselves fully against these detectors. A reasonable analogy would be asking a brainwashed person if they had been brainwashed; obviously their answer could not be trusted.
The best, and most reliable, method for operating system-level rootkit detection is to shut down the computer suspected of infection, and then to check its storage by booting from an alternative trusted medium (e.g. a rescue CD-ROM or USB flash drive)[citation needed]. A non-running rootkit cannot actively hide its presence, and most established antivirus programs will identify rootkits armed via standard OS calls (which are often tampered with by the rootkit) and lower level queries, which ought to remain reliable. If there is a difference, the presence of a rootkit infection should be assumed. Running rootkits attempt to protect themselves by monitoring running processes and suspending their activity until the scanning has finished; this is more difficult if the rootkit is not allowed to run.[citation needed]
Security software vendors have attempted a solution by integrating rootkit detection into traditional antivirus products. Should a rootkit decide to hide during scanning, it will be identified by the stealth detector. If it decides to temporarily unload from the system, the traditional antivirus will find it using fingerprint detection. Since anti-virus products are almost never entirely capable of catching all viruses in public tests, this approach may be doubted on past behavior. But this combined approach may force attackers to implement counter-attack mechanisms (so called retro routines) in their rootkit code that will forcibly remove security software processes from memory, effectively killing the antivirus program. As with computer viruses, the detection and elimination of rootkits will be an ongoing struggle between tool creators on both sides of this conflict.
There are several programs available to detect rootkits. On Unix-based systems, three of the most popular are chkrootkit, rkhunter and OSSEC. For Windows, there are many free detection tools such as avast! antivirus, Sophos Anti-Rootkit, F-Secure Blacklight, and Radix. Another Windows detector is RootkitRevealer from Microsoft (formerly Sysinternals) which detects rootkits by comparing results from the OS against expected results obtained by bypassing the operating system and analysing the raw underlying structures in the file system (cross-checking). However, some rootkits started to add RootkitRevealer to a list of files it does not hide from, so in essence, they remove differences between the two listings, and the detector doesn't report them (most notably the commercial rootkit Hacker Defender Antidetection). Rootkit Revealer has apparently fixed this problem as they stated on their official page: "The reason that there is no longer a command-line version is that malware authors have started targeting RootkitRevealer's scan by using its executable name. We've therefore updated RootkitRevealer to execute its scan from a randomly named copy of itself that runs as a Windows service. This type of execution is not conducive to a command-line interface. Note that you can use command-line options to execute an automatic scan with results logged to a file, which is the equivalent of the command-line version's behavior."[18]
Another method is to compare content of binaries present on disk with their copies in operating memory — however some valid differences can be introduced by operating system mechanisms, e.g., memory relocation or shimming, but some can be very likely classified as system call hooks introduced by a running rootkit (System Virginity Verifier). Zeppoo is another software product which detects rootkits under Linux and UNIX systems.
As always, prevention is better than cure, for being certain you have removed a rootkit typically involves re-installation of all software. If the integrity of the system install disks is trusted, cryptography can be used to monitor the integrity of the system. By "fingerprinting" the system files immediately after a fresh system install and then again after any subsequent changes made to the system, e.g., installing new software, the user or administrator will be alerted to any dangerous changes to the system's files. In the fingerprinting process a message digest is used to create a fixed-length "digest" dependent on every bit in the file being fingerprinted. By calculating and comparing message digest values of files at regular intervals, changes in the system can be detected.
Detection in firmware can be achieved by computing a cryptographic hash of firmware and comparing hash values to a whitelist of expected values, or by extending the hash value into TPM (Trusted Platform Module) configuration registers, which are later compared to a whitelist of expected values. Code that performs hash, compare, and/or extend operations must itself not be compromised by the rootkit. The notion of an immutable (by a rootkit) root-of-trust, if implementable, ensures that the rootkit does not compromise the system at its most fundamental layer. A method of rootkit detection using a TPM is described by the Trusted Computing Group.[19]
The antivirus will simply try to detect the installation of the rootkit in the first place, once it's in place, it's like the dll impostor, it's impossible to detect. Microsoft tried to remedy this by introducing UAC, but, most users disable UAC because it's such a pain in the ass. You can't add protection from viruses on top of the operating system with extra programs like microsoft is doing. Anti-virus security systems have to be inherent in the OS itself, like it is with UNIX and Linux.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
Mac Wins. Every PC I've ever owned died. The mac I'm using, an iBook G4, is about 4 years old and going strong. I mostly use my computer for graphics and music, and internet. If I want to play a game, I use my PS3. I've owned 4 PCs and a dell laptop, and all of them died from either a virus or just something stupid (blue screen.)
Mac
Christ, what do you people do on your computers, anyway? Holy crap! The last computer I had lasted for 6 long years. Not once was there a noticeable drop in speed, and it only went kaput because the motherboard crapped out. We could've fixed it, but decided an upgrade would be worth it (computer power having tripled by this point). :? No malicious programs, major security threats, etc. Never had a problem.
What the hell kind of virus did you have? And I'm pretty sure you can fix the blue screen thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarboy
People just need to learn how to take care of their computer.
Ynot compared a PC to a hammer. Bad comparison. Comparing a PC to a car is much better. If your car dies, you won't go out and buy a new car, you would just fix the part(s) that's broken.
And I don't understand how Macs are better for graphics and editing...
iMovie is confusing as hell for editing movies and Photoshop is a lot easier to use on a PC imo.
Photoshop is the same for both o.O I don't use iMovie (final cut and after effects) and I don't feel like spending hundreds of dollars to fix a crappy computer that was slow as shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by slayer
Go to Help > Video Tutorials :P iMove is a lot easier to understand than WMM, and iMovie uses H.264. WMM uses WMV, which nothing other than windows media player understands.
I don't use Mac at home (ever) however, I've used them a lot at school. I've used just about every type of Mac Computer since the old iBooks, and I don't like a single one. I use one of the new Macs for my journalism class ( a G4, maybe ) and it's decent. But I'd take a PC any day. The Macs are good for... well, with Adobe programs on them, they're good for Word Processors with immense learning curves and photo/movie editing that I can essentially get open source for free. On a Mac, it's very easy to create programs and place them in files on your desktop.
I will say, however, that most of the semi-recent Macs I've used run more smoothly than Windows. From the second they start up, there is almost zero lag unless the program encounters a glitch.
I've used PC's since I was 7 (we've still got my original PC, still in working order, and the only thing we've done to it is increased the RAM so my little brother could play Quake 2 on the LAN with us) it works fine. It's slightly slow, and it takes forever to shut down, but for such a long lifespan, I would expect that. I'm perfectly happy with my custom Dell laptop. However, if we ever got the 1 one and a half thousand dollars to buy everyone a Mac, we would buy them, erase the OS, and use it to run Windows or Linux. In fact, I imagine Linux running on a brand-new Mac would be very smooth.
By the way, on Macs, do the Adobe programs come pre-installed, or do you have to buy all of them?
You have to buy the Adobe suite, same as Windows. I think it's $1400.
Linux runs very smoothly on the Mac, I use it. Both Mac (UNIX) and Linux use what's called lazy page swapping, so loading things is very very smooth. Windows uses an aggressive page swapping routine. It's legacy from the days of where there was just enough RAM to load a few programs at a time, it was faster then, now it just causes Windows to lag. Microsoft hasn't figure out how to fix it yet. :P
Blue Is Better Than Red
~
That's not true. If you format your Mac you will notice a speed increase, its just not as great as with windows.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
If you've got the proper driver installed for your graphics card, then windows supports all the output resolutions the card can display. The only reason Mac can support it "natively" is that they have limited hardware they need to support.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Edit: And what are you people doing with your computers? I've had two laptops and three stationary, the first laptop lasted five years before the hardware limitations became a problem (it still runs fine, it's just that the hardware's not powerful enough to play HD videos or games or anything), the first stationary lasted a good many years before I installed Linux and set it up as a server, and both stationary computers are still in use (the oldest 3 years and counting).
I had the exact same question.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
Still awaiting a response. :chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
Not true, red is a lower intensity light. Because of this, if you look at red light, you can instantly go into a dark area and see because your eyes are already adjusted.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I'm a developer and a graphics designer, I use my computer hard. Lots of my own software write to the registry, while building software, it often crashes, causing temp files to not be cleaned correctly, memory to not be restored...
Maya and Blender can shoot memory usage up to 16GB and run processors at 100% for weeks at a time. If the computer dies 13 days into a 14 day render, lots of that work has to be redone. Its absolutely imperative that the computer not crash under these extreme conditions, which is why rendering is always done on Mac.
That doesn't mean it is better, noobQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
~