From: Whisky-dave <>
Subject: Re: Windows 10. Horrible!
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id z4mr5248930qkf.56.1509720146720;
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 07:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by with SMTP id r127mr529502vke.8.1509720146532;
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 07:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 07:42:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <othskk$146l$>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=Fal3rgoAAABua4brvRuRwdmPfigIDi6x
References: <>
<ota72v$a08$> <>
<> <otbah6$10c3$>
<otbuml$qkc$> <otchr5$v4h$>
<otcslc$do7$> <>
<otf9e1$1kd$> <>
<otfkge$ppg$> <>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Windows 10. Horrible!
From: Whisky-dave <>
Injection-Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 14:42:26 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 170
Print Article
Forward Article
On Friday, 3 November 2017 13:57:46 UTC, Mayayana  wrote:
> "Whisky-dave"<> wrote
> >   Long story short, WannaCry was just a single bug
> > that happened to be patched in Win10.
> | Just happened to be patched how did that happen, fairy dust in the air ?
>   You're missing the point.

No you've missed the point.

> David gave a real example
> of a bug that Win10 is protected from.

So upgrade to W10 if you want to be protected from that bug.

> But it's
> only one bug of thousands in a complex "ecosystem".
> You're indulging in twisting valid facts into invalid
> cherry picking.

No that's you.
W10 is the most recent windows OS so has all the protection needed up to date unlike XP or W7 or W8 .

> >But the
> > way it attacked was through SMB -- networking
> > functionality. For anyone not on a corporate network
> > it doesn't need to be a risk at all.
> | windows computers are on corporate networks you know.
>   I don't know about you but my compter isn't.

I have about 50 in my lab.
But even home users running out of date software got wannacry.

> I've disabled networking functions and blocked
> risky ports. By networking I don't mean connecting
> to the Internet. I mean being part of a network,
> with things like remote running of software, file
> sharing, etc.

We have that on, including printing software that decicts the cost of studetn printing from their
account. we registared usage and they student upload their work to a server where the marking staff
mark their work.
We no longer hand out pieces of slate with chalk.
>    The corporate model is like a house with no
> front door lock but a lock on every cabinet and
> door inside. 

you're talking crap.

>The network is trused. The person
> using the computer is not. The SOHo model is
> the opposite. The person using the computer is
> trusted but the Internet is not. Windows is designed
> to be a corporate workstation. Highly risky networking
> functionality that most people don't need is enabled
> by default.

so anothe rreason to avoid windows then.

> | And why attack SMB ?
> Look it up. I already explained it.

No you haven't understood it.

> | So why weren't Macs compromised ?
>   Macs are safer because Apple closely controls the
> system.

Well done, so this care generally makes Macs safer, anothe rreason to buy a Mac and not a PC.

 >Macs are the AOL of computers.

No they aren't

AOL was for the masses and those without specific reqirements .

 >You get
> less control but in exchange you get more stability
> and security without needing to understand it. Macs
> are also a very small minority of computers.

about 14% but it varies depending on how you count them.

> Big with
> phones, but almost non-existent in places like
> hospitals and police depts and other corporate locations
> being attacked.

So some people think saving money by buying cheap computers is the best option like we do here for
most things.

>   But be patient. Macs will get their chance, I'm sure.

They all ready have it.
 Apple have no intrest in suplying the cheapest computers money can buy.
They want the high end market share where there's large profits to be made.

 Apple are making more money than just about any other tech company.

MS can't even make a decent phone.

> | So it wasn't the NSA then was it.
>   I gave you 5 links. 

and I repleied telling you what;s wrong with them.

>But all you want to do is use
> the data to argue about how Macs are better. I'm
> not going to join your mudfest.

You'll lose is that why ?

> > but I know a lot of people who do nearly everything
> > electronically. Direct deposit, automatic withdrawal,
> > credit cards and debit cards to buy food and other
> > necessities.
> | I do, but not using windows.
>   That's good. Stick with Macs. 

I intend to unless anothe rmanufacture produces a better product that I want.
I brought my first mace in about 1994 second hand, and have only brought Macs since.

>If you can't be bothered
> to understand security then Macs are a much safer
> option. 

True they are also better if you understand security.

>If you want to enjoy e-conveniences, services
> and shopping without worry then Macs and iPhones are
> the only way to do it. At least for now.

I think some can use PCs and the like, some seem to manage OK,
it's people like you that have problems because they don't update their software.

>   So why are you worrying about me using Windows?
> The AppleSeed doth protest too much?

Couldn;t care less what you use, but when you start claiming that XP is more secure then yuo are
wrong, very wrong.