PDA

View Full Version : Conficker worm preparation


Black Mamba
03-31-2009, 08:53 PM
Tomorrow -- April 1 -- is D-Day for Conficker, as whatever nasty payload it's packing is currently set to activate. What happens come midnight is a mystery: Will it turn the millions of infected computers into spam-sending zombie robots? Or will it start capturing everything you type -- passwords, credit card numbers, etc. -- and send that information back to its masters?

No one knows, but we'll probably find out soon.

Or not. As Slate notes, Conficker is scheduled to go "live" on April 1, but whoever's controlling it could choose not to wreak havoc but instead do absolutely nothing, waiting for a time when there's less heat. They can do this because the way Conficker is designed is extremely clever: Rather than containing a list of specific, static instructions, Conficker reaches out to the web to receive updated marching orders via a huge list of websites it creates. Conficker.C -- the latest bad boy -- will start checking 50,000 different semi-randomly-generated sites a day looking for instructions, so there's no way to shut down all of them. If just one of those sites goes live with legitimate instructions, Conficker keeps on trucking.

Conficker's a nasty little worm that takes serious efforts to bypass your security defenses, but you aren't without some tools in your arsenal to protect yourself.

Your first step should be the tools you already have: Windows Update, to make sure your computer is fully patched, and your current antivirus software, to make sure anything that slips through the cracks is caught.

But if Conficker's already on your machine, it may bypass certain subsystems and updating Windows and your antivirus at this point may not work. If you are worried about anything being amiss -- try booting into Safe Mode, which Conficker prevents, to check -- you should run a specialized tool to get rid of Conficker.

Microsoft offers a web-based scanner (note that some users have reported it crashed their machines; I had no trouble with it), so you might try one of these downloadable options instead: Symantec's Conficker (aka Downadup) tool, Trend Micro's Cleanup Engine, or Malwarebytes. Conficker may prevent your machine from accessing any of these websites, so you may have to download these tools from a known non-infected computer if you need them. Follow the instructions given on each site to run them successfully. (Also note: None of these tools should harm your computer if you don't have Conficker.)

As a final safety note, all users -- whether they're worried about an infection or know for sure they're clean -- are also wise to make a full data backup today.

What won't work? Turning your PC off tonight and back on on April 2 will not protect you from the worm (sorry to the dozens of people who wrote me asking if this would do the trick). Changing the date on your PC will likely have no helpful effect, either. And yes, Macs are immune this time out.

mikthehick
03-31-2009, 09:03 PM
WAR MACS!!!

That's why i own one :)

County Mike
03-31-2009, 11:28 PM
WAR MACS!!!

That's why i own one :)

I'm not worried. It couldn't happen to ME.

rockdawg21
04-01-2009, 12:05 AM
WAR CONFLICKER WORM!!! Wait...:blink:

J.B.
04-01-2009, 12:25 AM
This worm is not nearly as dangerous as some media outlets are making it out to be. It has already been around for months and the people who made it have already taken out the commands that make the worm replicate itself. So whoever made the worm has probably already accomplished whatever goal they had in mind. Anybody with updated anti-virus definitions and Windows latest update should be fine.

The only reason we don't see as much malicious code designed to attack Macintosh computers is simply because in the grand scheme there are just not nearly as many people using Macs. While Macs are great for multimedia, they are WAY overpriced and not nearly as user friendly for everyday computing.

I've been a hardcore PC user for about 14 years, and about 12 computers later, I can only recall one problem that I could not fix on my own. So bring it on, I am ready. :wink:

rockdawg21
04-01-2009, 12:31 AM
JB Rattlesnake is a blasphemer! How dare you say that about our wonderful, honest, and ethical news reporters! :tongue0011:

J.B.
04-01-2009, 01:29 AM
JB Rattlesnake is a blasphemer! How dare you say that about our wonderful, honest, and ethical news reporters! :tongue0011:

When the first thing I read was that I am a "blasphemer", I thought you were an angry Mac user, lol.

rockdawg21
04-01-2009, 01:30 AM
When the first thing I read was that I am a "blasphemer", I thought you were an angry Mac user, lol.
LOL, yeah, I thought you might think that! :laugh:

What you wrote about Mac's is true, but not our news :Whistle:

J.B.
04-01-2009, 01:35 AM
LOL, yeah, I thought you might think that! :laugh:

What you wrote about Mac's is true, but not our news :Whistle:

:laugh:

Yeah, we all know how ethical and factual the media is...:rolleyes:

NateR
04-01-2009, 02:05 AM
While Macs are great for multimedia,

True.

they are WAY overpriced

It's a "you get what you pay for" scenario. A Macintosh is overpriced in comparison to a PC in the same way that a Mercedes-Benz is overpriced in comparison to a Ford Fiesta.:wink:

and not nearly as user friendly for everyday computing.

Now this is either just an outright lie or you've never actually used a Mac before. Either way, the complete opposite is true.

Of course, if you are just used to doing everything the hard way, like Windows forces you to do, and you've somehow convinced yourself that that is the "right way" to use a computer; then I could see how you'd be reluctant to adapt to a Macintosh and it would appear to be more difficult. But saying that PCs are more user-friendly is just not true by any stretch of the imagination.

Black Mamba
04-01-2009, 02:20 AM
I wouldn't say that's an outright lie Nate. Initially, from someone who only uses Macs at school (both college and high school) to using a PC at home 99.9% of the time, it does take some time to get used to a Mac. And a course having the Mac pocket, but that's a different story. If my baby wasn't on sale for $1700 (not including tax, adding on Office, and protection plan), then I couldn't have afford it. But it does pay off, it's nice to know I don't have to worry about viruses when I use it (and when I get internet).

The more you use a Mac the easier it becomes. I fell in love with mine in 2 days and know the basics on it, but the dang internet connection is driving me nuts.

NateR
04-01-2009, 02:23 AM
I wouldn't say that's an outright lie Nate. Initially, from someone who only uses Macs at school (both college and high school) to using a PC at home 99.9% of the time, it does take some time to get used to a Mac. And a course having the Mac pocket, but that's a different story. If my baby wasn't on sale for $1700 (not including tax, adding on Office, and protection plan), then I couldn't have afford it. But it does pay off, it's nice to know I don't have to worry about viruses when I use it (and when I get internet).

The more you use a Mac the easier it becomes. I fell in love with mine in 2 days and know the basics on it, but the dang internet connection is driving me nuts.

Well, for someone who is used to the counter-intuitive Windows interface, it is going to take some time to get used to a Mac. But to say that a Mac is not user friendly is such an ignorant statement that it is laughable.

Black Mamba
04-01-2009, 02:33 AM
Well, for someone who is used to the counter-intuitive Windows interface, it is going to take some time to get used to a Mac. But to say that a Mac is not user friendly is such an ignorant statement that it is laughable.

That is true. And the new Mac book and Mac book Pro are even better now that the company has gotten the kinks out from their previous model.

I also have to say the Apple company has some of the best customer service that I've ever been exposed to. I waited on the phone less than 3 minutes to talk to someone from the United States. I have a friend who owns a Dell, and she was put on the phone with someone from overseas. :blink:

J.B.
04-01-2009, 02:42 AM
True.



It's a "you get what you pay for" scenario. A Macintosh is overpriced in comparison to a PC in the same way that a Mercedes-Benz is overpriced in comparison to a Ford Fiesta.:wink:



Now this is either just an outright lie or you've never actually used a Mac before. Either way, the complete opposite is true.

Of course, if you are just used to doing everything the hard way, like Windows forces you to do, and you've somehow convinced yourself that that is the "right way" to use a computer; then I could see how you'd be reluctant to adapt to a Macintosh and it would appear to be more difficult. But saying that PCs are more user-friendly is just not true by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not an outright lie, and I could just as easily say that you have convinced yourself that Macintosh is somehow the Holy Grail of computers simply because of their price. Mac users need to tell themselves that to justify spending $3,000 on a machine.

I have used Macs plenty. Not only in Audio College, but in a lot of professional and home studios I have worked in. They ARE great computers, but they disgustingly overpriced in my opinion. For the price of a typical new mac, I could build a much better PC. Windows can also do a LOT more than Mac OS, simply because more people use Windows. Mac OSX is also limited to ONLY Apple computers, and that is BULLCRAP.

Macs are not hard to use or figure out, but most new users are more familiar with navigating through the Windows environment , thus making the little nuances in using Macs more annoying and stupid. So, in my opinion, while it may be "dumbed down", it's not as user friendly IMO.

The first 3 seconds of this video pretty much sums it up :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jJh_Rjsea8

mikthehick
04-01-2009, 04:16 AM
If Macs are so user 'unfriendly', then why was I able to fully use mine within an hour??? :laugh:

Another great part is customer service that are there to help you. AND they speak english, or spanish if you prefer that.

I've probably logged on about 50 total hours with DELL support with my 2002 Dimension Desktop. They would tell me the same problem after a 3 hour session, after I told them that I thought it was the problem at the beginning of the conversation :wacko: So after deciding not to waste another hour of my life on hold, I bought a refurbished C drive and installed it myself. The Dimension has worked like a champ in the 3 years since.

And while I did invest in this lil Apple Mac book for school, it's been awesome. Couldn't ask more from a little machine, other than internet, watching a movie, or writing a paper. Besides, I've got an XBOX and a Nintendo DS for gaming :)

rockdawg21
04-01-2009, 04:23 AM
The dorms at the University of Missouri had free Mac computers for the students. I hated them.

However, that was back in 1999. One of my best friends uses one with the Virtual PC and he swears he will never purchase a PC again.

Anyways, I'm happy with my Dell Inspiron laptop :)

Mac
04-01-2009, 04:26 AM
it is going to take some time to get used to a Mac.


Agreed, I may be a little tough to figure out at first.


But to say that a Mac is not user friendly is such an ignorant statement that it is laughable.


Thanks for sticking up for me Buddy. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

J.B.
04-01-2009, 04:37 AM
If Macs are so user 'unfriendly', then why was I able to fully use mine within an hour???

Another great part is customer service that are there to help you. AND they speak english, or spanish if you prefer that.

I've probably logged on about 50 total hours with DELL support with my 2002 Dimension Desktop. They would tell me the same problem after a 3 hour session, after I told them that I thought it was the problem at the beginning of the conversation So after deciding not to waste another hour of my life on hold, I bought a refurbished C drive and installed it myself. The Dimension has worked like a champ in the 3 years since.

And while I did invest in this lil Apple Mac book for school, it's been awesome. Couldn't ask more from a little machine, other than internet, watching a movie, or writing a paper. Besides, I've got an XBOX and a Nintendo DS for gaming

It's not that they are "unfriendly", I just said they are not as user friendly as Windows in my opinion. I have been able to fully use every Windows based PC I have ever bought within an hour also. How about the fact that I can't use Mac OSX on a computer I build? That's not too user friendly for advanced users. That is Apple forcing me to pay for their shiny overpriced machine if I decide I want to upgrade.

People have lots of problems with macs too, and for the price people are paying for them they should have the best customer service. I can only think of a couple times I have ever called customer service for any of my machines, and only once that I ever called Microsoft directly. Microsoft was actually very helpful. I never liked Dell computers either, and I have heard horror stories about their customer service, so I can believe that.

NateR
04-01-2009, 04:43 AM
It's not an outright lie, and I could just as easily say that you have convinced yourself that Macintosh is somehow the Holy Grail of computers simply because of their price. Mac users need to tell themselves that to justify spending $3,000 on a machine.

I have used Macs plenty. Not only in Audio College, but in a lot of professional and home studios I have worked in. They ARE great computers, but they disgustingly overpriced in my opinion. For the price of a typical new mac, I could build a much better PC. Windows can also do a LOT more than Mac OS, simply because more people use Windows. Mac OSX is also limited to ONLY Apple computers, and that is BULLCRAP.

Macs are not hard to use or figure out, but most new users are more familiar with navigating through the Windows environment , thus making the little nuances in using Macs more annoying and stupid. So, in my opinion, while it may be "dumbed down", it's not as user friendly IMO.

The first 3 seconds of this video pretty much sums it up :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jJh_Rjsea8

Now I'm even more convinced that you don't know what you are talking about. :laugh:

I started using computers with a PC in 1999 and never touched a Macintosh until starting college in 2002. Now I use both Mac and PC, but do all of my actual work on the Macintosh. The interface is just simpler and more straightforward on the Mac and I find using a PC counterintuitive and annoying.

I also like not having to worry about drivers for peripherals and not having to uninstall programs when I want to delete them (you just put them in the trash and their gone). Oh yeah, and the virus-free thing is nice too.:tongue0011:

rockdawg21
04-01-2009, 04:44 AM
I've been extremely pleased with Dell's Customer Service. One time, I spilt a beer in my machine. They sent DHL and I had it back in 2 days. Another time, I spilt an iced tea in it, had it back in 2 days. Another time, the screen went completely black, they had a person come on-site, replace the keyboard and the screen.

However, I was able to get those services because I paid for Accidental Damage & Protection.

One time though, with this new PC, I was upset because I wanted to get a recovery disc that had XP instead of Vista, but they said I was past 90 days and they couldn't do that. I didn't fight it, but was kind of upset because it was my 2nd computer in 3 years and together, they were about $5000.

J.B.
04-01-2009, 04:56 AM
Now I'm even more convinced that you don't know what you are talking about. :laugh:

I started using computers with a PC in 1999 and never touched a Macintosh until starting college in 2002. Now I use both Mac and PC, but do all of my actual work on the Macintosh. The interface is just simpler and more straightforward on the Mac and I find using a PC counterintuitive and annoying.

I also like not having to worry about drivers for peripherals and not having to uninstall programs when I want to delete them (you just put them in the trash and their gone). Oh yeah, and the virus-free thing is nice too.:tongue0011:

I started using computers in 93/94, and worked on the Apple IIe and early Macintosh systems in middle and high school, and also owned systems at home with Dos and Windows 3.1. I'm old school. :wink:

The interface is dumbed down. So, YES, it may be easier to use in some ways, but it's still not what MOST people are used to. That is the idea of being user friendly. Last time I checked Apple had about 3% of the market in the USA, so it makes sense that more people are used to the Windows environment.

Saying that Macs are virus free and don't need drivers is an outright lie if there are any in this thread. :laugh:

Mac OSX is actually a lot less secure than Windows Vista, but in the scope of how many people are actually using Mac, it makes sense that you see A LOT more threats attacking PC's.

NateR
04-01-2009, 05:08 AM
I started using computers in 93/94, and worked on the Apple IIe and early Macintosh systems in middle and high school, and also owned systems at home with Dos and Windows 3.1. I'm old school. :wink:

The interface is dumbed down. So, YES, it may be easier to use in some ways, but it's still not what MOST people are used to. That is the idea of being user friendly. Last time I checked Apple had about 3% of the market in the USA, so it makes sense that more people are used to the Windows environment.

User friendly in the sense that someone who has never used a computer will be able to learn the interface on a Macintosh much easier.

Saying that Macs are virus free and don't need drivers is an outright lie if there are any in this thread. :laugh:

Mac OSX is actually a lot less secure than Windows Vista, but in the scope of how many people are actually using Mac, it makes sense that you see A LOT more threats attacking PC's.

Again, I've been using Macintosh's for 7 years now and you're words just don't line up with my experiences at all.

bradwright
04-01-2009, 05:29 AM
one of my brothers writes software for a vast range of applications and he tells me while he actually likes Macs he does most of his work on a PC,he says its only because the majority of his clients use PCs and when he has to do any work on them from a remote location its just easier if they are compatible,
he also says the only reason Macs are virus free is because there are so few of them compared to PCs that people writing viruses couldn't be bothered to go after them,
he said if they did decide to target them, in his opinion,it would be like dip netting fish in a barrel,PCs are just more secure because they had to adapt over time from constantly being under attack.
but in the end he did say he prefers Macs.

J.B.
04-01-2009, 05:37 AM
User friendly in the sense that someone who has never used a computer will be able to learn the interface on a Macintosh much easier.



Again, I've been using Macintosh's for 7 years now and you're words just don't line up with my experiences at all.


I actually do not hate Macs, not at all. But the truth is that they are not "better" than Windows machines. They have some great capabilities when it comes to high-end multimedia programs, but Macs also have their drawbacks. I understand that the interface is easy to use, but Windows is easy to use also, and Windows is capable of a lot more than Mac OSX.

The bottom line is simple, there are MORE people using Windows. If Apple had the majority of people using Mac's, the roles would be flip flopped and you would be seeing viruses and worms infecting Macs all the time. It's actually a stupid argument. I like both machines, but my gripe with Macs is really the price and the fact that Apple is suckering people into thinking they are getting a better product for a ridiculous amount of money.

You may have not ever had a single problem with your Mac, and that is totally awesome, but people DO have problems. Just like people have problems with their PC's. I am willing to bet that if I owned a Mac, I would never have a problem with it, at least not one I could not fix, but that is still not gonna get $3000 out of my pocket for a machine I could essentially build for MUCH less by using Windows or Linux.

The only reason I could see myself buying a Mac would be to use programs like Logic or Mac's version of Pro Tools, but for the work I do I get the same results I would using Windows based programs like FL Studio, Cubase, and Adobe Audition. They are just not worth the extra money IMO.

NateR
04-01-2009, 06:20 AM
I actually do not hate Macs, not at all. But the truth is that they are not "better" than Windows machines. They have some great capabilities when it comes to high-end multimedia programs, but Macs also have their drawbacks. I understand that the interface is easy to use, but Windows is easy to use also, and Windows is capable of a lot more than Mac OSX.

The bottom line is simple, there are MORE people using Windows. If Apple had the majority of people using Mac's, the roles would be flip flopped and you would be seeing viruses and worms infecting Macs all the time. It's actually a stupid argument. I like both machines, but my gripe with Macs is really the price and the fact that Apple is suckering people into thinking they are getting a better product for a ridiculous amount of money.

You may have not ever had a single problem with your Mac, and that is totally awesome, but people DO have problems. Just like people have problems with their PC's. I am willing to bet that if I owned a Mac, I would never have a problem with it, at least not one I could not fix, but that is still not gonna get $3000 out of my pocket for a machine I could essentially build for MUCH less by using Windows or Linux.

The only reason I could see myself buying a Mac would be to use programs like Logic or Mac's version of Pro Tools, but for the work I do I get the same results I would using Windows based programs like FL Studio, Cubase, and Adobe Audition. They are just not worth the extra money IMO.

I don't see where you're getting the $3000 number from. I paid $1300 for my iMac 3 years ago and have never had a problem with it at all. I also helped run two Mac Labs at my college and was responsible for the maintenance and updates on over 30 Macintosh G4s and G5s. During the 3 years that I was there, we only had to send one Mac G5 back to Apple to be replaced. Some of the older G4s ran into problems when they just didn't have enough memory to run programs like Maya or Final Cut Pro. However, during my time there, we almost never had computers go down at all. They were amazingly reliable.

J.B.
04-01-2009, 06:42 AM
I don't see where you're getting the $3000 number from. I paid $1300 for my iMac 3 years ago and have never had a problem with it at all. I also helped run two Mac Labs at my college and was responsible for the maintenance and updates on over 30 Macintosh G4s and G5s. During the 3 years that I was there, we only had to send one Mac G5 back to Apple to be replaced. Some of the older G4s ran into problems when they just didn't have enough memory to run programs like Maya or Final Cut Pro. However, during my time there, we almost never had computers go down at all. They were amazingly reliable.

A decent Mac desktop or laptop is running over 2 thousand dollars, and some are over 3 thousand. Sure you can get a macbook for like a grand, but it's got a 2gHz Intel processor. That ain't much nowadays. Going back to the point I already made, I can build a much stronger computer for that kind of money, but you can't build a Mac.

I never said Mac's were BAD computers, just that they are not immune to all problems or viruses. I also don't see the point in paying extra money for Apple's name, when essentially the machine they are offering is not nearly as strong as a PC for the same price.

I have had multiple machines from HP and Compaq and I have found them to all to be reliable. The computers I have built have all been great, and my newest laptop is a Toshiba that has been awesome for me for over a year and half, and I beat the crap out of my computers. The only time I ever had a computer that just had multiple problems was an EMachine with Windows ME, and I still never had to send it back, I fixed it myself.

NateR
04-01-2009, 06:54 AM
A decent Mac desktop or laptop is running over 2 thousand dollars, and some are over 3 thousand. Sure you can get a macbook for like a grand, but it's got a 2gHz Intel processor. That ain't much nowadays. Going back to the point I already made, I can build a much stronger computer for that kind of money, but you can't build a Mac.

I never said Mac's were BAD computers, just that they are not immune to all problems or viruses. I also don't see the point in paying extra money for Apple's name, when essentially the machine they are offering is not nearly as strong as a PC for the same price.

I have had multiple machines from HP and Compaq and I have found them to all to be reliable. The computers I have built have all been great, and my newest laptop is a Toshiba that has been awesome for me for over a year and half, and I beat the crap out of my computers. The only time I ever had a computer that just had multiple problems was an EMachine with Windows ME, and I still never had to send it back, I fixed it myself.

Well, I'm not a computer hardware guy. So building my own system is out of the question. I did have a friend of mine build a computer for me once and I'll never make that mistake again. I've learned that just because someone says they can build a good computer for a fraction of the price doesn't mean it's true.

Plus, Mac has the most stable operating system out there, so I'll gladly pay a little more for reliability. When Microsoft ditches Vista, then I'll consider a PC again.

J.B.
04-01-2009, 07:21 AM
Well, I'm not a computer hardware guy. So building my own system is out of the question. I did have a friend of mine build a computer for me once and I'll never make that mistake again. I've learned that just because someone says they can build a good computer for a fraction of the price doesn't mean it's true.

Plus, Mac has the most stable operating system out there, so I'll gladly pay a little more for reliability. When Microsoft ditches Vista, then I'll consider a PC again.

Even if you don't build it yourself, you can get a lot more machine for your money when you buy a PC as opposed to a Mac. Also, my other point is that even if you wanted to, you cannot build a Mac because Apple makes it next to impossible. You may have had a bad experience, but there is no argument that it is cheaper and better to build a PC yourself if you have the means to do it.

Saying Mac has the most stable OS is simply a matter of opinion. Vista has been great for me. Have you actually used Vista? Or have you solely relied on reviews from people who upgraded and probably did not know what they were doing? I am always fixing problems for people, friends, family, whatever, and I find that most problems people have is because of things THEY have done, it's not always Windows.

NateR
04-01-2009, 08:13 AM
Even if you don't build it yourself, you can get a lot more machine for your money when you buy a PC as opposed to a Mac. Also, my other point is that even if you wanted to, you cannot build a Mac because Apple makes it next to impossible. You may have had a bad experience, but there is no argument that it is cheaper and better to build a PC yourself if you have the means to do it.

Saying Mac has the most stable OS is simply a matter of opinion. Vista has been great for me. Have you actually used Vista? Or have you solely relied on reviews from people who upgraded and probably did not know what they were doing? I am always fixing problems for people, friends, family, whatever, and I find that most problems people have is because of things THEY have done, it's not always Windows.

I helped Mark buy a new laptop and we started out with the $500 Dell computer with 1 GB of RAM and Vista pre-installed. It was useless and slow as molasses. We had to return the machine and exchange it for an $850 2 GB machine.

I saw all that I needed to see. For me a computer is a tool and if Microsoft makes a faulty tool, then I have no use for them. I'd rather pay a little extra for a machine that I KNOW will work and do what I need it to do.

I've owned 4 Windows based PCs and only one, so far, has run smoothly and reliably (the Sony Vaio with XP installed). I have owned 2 Macs and worked on probably 8 or 9 others over the course of the 3 years I was in college and have only had one machine that had any kind of problem at all (one faulty USB port). So, I'm not saying that Macs are more reliable because I heard it on a TV ad. I'm saying it because it's the truth based on ten years of experience working with these computers.

J.B.
04-01-2009, 09:36 AM
Well, as I stated previously, I would never buy Dell either, but that is besides the point. Running Vista on 1GB of Ram is asking for troubles, just like running anything with the minimum requirements. There is also usually pre-installed crap from the manufacturer that bogs stuff down. But that is not Microsoft's fault.

I don't have anything against Mac's,I think they are cute. If I had the extra money lying around, I would probably buy one just for Logic Pro. Heck, for anybody who is doing high end pre-press design work or photography, Mac's are awesome.

Still, in my opinion, Windows gives you way more bang for your buck. It's faster, and overall more accessible.

County Mike
04-01-2009, 12:25 PM
Oh yeah? Well I started programming on a Commodore 64 around 1980.

:tongue0011:

J.B.
04-01-2009, 04:44 PM
Oh yeah? Well I started programming on a Commodore 64 around 1980.

:tongue0011:

Nerd :laugh:

County Mike
04-01-2009, 05:50 PM
Nerd :laugh:

Being a nerd pays the bills.
Being a jock gets the girls.
It's good to be both.

NateR
04-01-2009, 06:38 PM
Well, as I stated previously, I would never buy Dell either, but that is besides the point. Running Vista on 1GB of Ram is asking for troubles, just like running anything with the minimum requirements. There is also usually pre-installed crap from the manufacturer that bogs stuff down. But that is not Microsoft's fault.

I don't have anything against Mac's,I think they are cute. If I had the extra money lying around, I would probably buy one just for Logic Pro. Heck, for anybody who is doing high end pre-press design work or photography, Mac's are awesome.

Still, in my opinion, Windows gives you way more bang for your buck. It's faster, and overall more accessible.

Well, for me a computer is like a car, it's a means to an end, nothing more. A car is just a mode of transportation. Some people get into the mechanical side of things and want to learn how to repair or even build their own cars from scratch, which is great. However, personally, I just need a car for getting from point A to point B with as little hassle as possible.

A computer is the same way. I want it to run smoothly out of the box and be able to produce what I need it to produce. So I honestly can't be bothered with learning about drivers and motherboards and hardware conflicts. I want it to work right the first time and if it doesn't, then I have no use for it. I would rather pay a little more for someone else to worry about all that stuff for me.

Also when you start getting into the hardware necessary to create hi-end 3D animations, then you'll see that gap in Mac vs. PC prices start to close very quickly. Because if you need your computer to do millions of mathematical calculations every second for literally days on end, then you're not going to want bargain basement hardware.

(On a side note, 3D animation is also where you start to see the limits of a computer's mathematical abilities. A computer can multiply 5 times 2 a million times a second with no problems; but when it has to multiply 4.976365838636449824362 by 1.899987234983243829483424 a million times a second, then you will see the computer get hung up and actually start to make mistakes. Anyone who thinks computers never make mistakes has obviously never worked in 3D animation :laugh: )

This is a short film that I made as part of my Intro to 3D Animation class. This is roughly 6 months of work and it took about 5 different Mac G5s running constantly to render during the last three weeks (fortunately the class was small so I had a lot of computers at my disposal). The final scene took about 49 hours to render and I had to render it at least twice because of mistakes that the computers would make. Which is nothing, PIXAR's films can take up to 90 hours to render PER FRAME (24 frames per second).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLSkVFFrwvk

J.B.
04-01-2009, 06:41 PM
Being a nerd pays the bills.
Being a jock gets the girls.
It's good to be both.

Can't argue that

J.B.
04-01-2009, 06:59 PM
Well, for me a computer is like a car, it's a means to an end, nothing more. A car is just a mode of transportation. Some people get into the mechanical side of things and want to learn how to repair or even build their own cars from scratch, which is great. However, personally, I just need a car for getting from point A to point B with as little hassle as possible.

A computer is the same way. I want it to run smoothly out of the box and be able to produce what I need it to produce. So I honestly can't be bothered with learning about drivers and motherboards and hardware conflicts. I want it to work right the first time and if it doesn't, then I have no use for it. I would rather pay a little more for someone else to worry about all that stuff for me.

Also when you start getting into the hardware necessary to create hi-end 3D animations, then you'll see that gap in Mac vs. PC prices start to close very quickly. Because if you need your computer to do millions of mathematical calculations every second for literally days on end, then you're not going to want bargain basement hardware.

(On a side note, 3D animation is also where you start to see the limits of a computer's mathematical abilities. A computer can multiply 5 times 2 a million times a second with no problems; but when it has to multiply 4.976365838636449824362 by 1.899987234983243829483424 a million times a second, then you will see the computer get hung up and actually start to make mistakes. Anyone who thinks computers never make mistakes has obviously never worked in 3D animation :laugh: )

This is a short film that I made as part of my Intro to 3D Animation class. This is roughly 6 months of work and it took about 5 different Mac G5s running constantly to render during the last three weeks (fortunately the class was small so I had a lot of computers at my disposal). The final scene took about 49 hours to render and I had to render it at least twice because of mistakes that the computers would make. Which is nothing, PIXAR's films can take up to 90 hours to render PER FRAME (24 frames per second).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLSkVFFrwvk

Very cool video Nate, I did not know you did animation, very cool.

You are exactly right. When it comes to doing high-end animation and video editing and high quality printing, Mac has the edge right out of the box. Yes, you could build a PC to rival what a Mac does in that sense, but it will cost you about the same, and you still won't have that "colorsync" technology that is exclusive to Mac.

As you know, I am an audio guy. A lot of my fellow engineers would say Mac is the best for Audio Production and Recording, and in some cases they are right. But the truth is, it's not really the Mac that enhances the audio quality, it's the software that is exclusive to Mac that is awesome (i.e. Pro Tools and Logic). Like I said, I would probably buy one if I had the extra money, but even if I never had one, I would still be able to do everything I wanted to and needed to do.

I hear your point about paying a little more for something you can trust, and I agree. There are places and things I prefer simply because I have had good experiences with them, so I will choose those things first even if it costs me more money. I completely get that.

My point was more centered around looking at what you actually get from a Mac compared to a PC at the same price. It's no contest, Windows gives you more options, and runs faster. You could say Mac is "more reliable" based on your experiences, but to me Mac is just too limited for it's price. The truth is, every OS and manufacturer has it's pros and cons. I never intended to really argue about which is better, but I also feel that Windows kinda gets a bad rap when it does not always deserve it.

NateR
04-01-2009, 07:26 PM
You never saw the 3D model of Matt that I built in the computer?

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/progress2.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/matthughes-textureMAP02.jpg

Crisco
04-01-2009, 07:29 PM
You never saw the 3D model of Matt that I built in the computer?

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/progress2.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/matthughes-textureMAP02.jpg

You should do something funny like stick a nipple ring on him

J.B.
04-01-2009, 07:46 PM
You never saw the 3D model of Matt that I built in the computer?

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/progress2.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/matthughes-textureMAP02.jpg

That is very cool Nate.

What got you into 3D animation? Before I got into music I always wanted to be a video game designer growing up, but my path led me in a different direction, lol.

VCURamFan
04-01-2009, 07:54 PM
Weren't you trying to fully animate him? Did you ever finish that?

VCURamFan
04-01-2009, 07:55 PM
You should do something funny like stick a nipple ring on himHe's modelling Matt, not Trigg!!!!:scared0011:

NateR
04-01-2009, 09:15 PM
That is very cool Nate.

What got you into 3D animation? Before I got into music I always wanted to be a video game designer growing up, but my path led me in a different direction, lol.

Back in 2004, the college I was attending to get my graphic design degree at, had decided to try out a 3D animation program. So they paid for Erik Hansen (he used to work for Digital Domain and has helped with the CG effects for films like Fifth Element, Castaway, Day After Tomorrow, Bi-Centennial Man, etc.) to come and teach a seminar to the Graphic Design faculty. Not to toot my own horn, but since I was the star student, they invited me to participate in the class as well.

I actually took to 3D animation like a duck to water and I was hooked ever since. Now, however, I don't have access to the super high end computers so I haven't done much in the last couple of years.

I'm not sure what the price is now, but Maya was a $7000 program back in 2004 and you could run it with a basic computer pretty good, but you'd suffer big time in the more high end functions. To run the program smoothly and take advantage of all the features (like hair, cloth and water simulation), then you're looking at buying a machine somewhere in the realm of $5000-30,000. Plus it's highly recommended that you use more than one computer if you are interesting in making a high-quality CG film. Because if you can burn out a top-of-the-line computer really quickly if you force it to do everything by itself.

Having multiple computers also makes sense if your renders are taking several hours per frame, because you're not going to want to tie up one computer doing all that work. PIXAR has "render farms" in which hundreds of hi-powered computers are tied together as one giant super-computer and it's still taking them up to 90 hours per frame of animation.

However, if you're only interested in making short films (under 5 minutes), then you can get away with only 1 or 2 computers; but it's going to require several months of work to get the films done.

NateR
04-01-2009, 09:21 PM
Weren't you trying to fully animate him? Did you ever finish that?

Well, the goal was just to create the basic polygon model. If this was being created for a motion picture, then this poly model would have been sent off to texture artists, riggers (the people who build the skeleton and animation controls), hair specialists and cloth specialists, and they'd probably call Matt in to do motion capture work (which would require an entirely different team of people to clean up the mocap animation). Then it would go to animators, then the render farm and be cycled through the process a few times to work out the bugs. All in all, if a movie studio was really creating a photorealistic CG Matt Hughes, it would likely take a team of at least 100 computer animators a couple of years to create the finished product.

In short, no, I didn't finish it. :laugh:

Blmfighter
04-01-2009, 09:43 PM
I think that you both make good points about Windows and Macs. I must say that I have only worked on windows. Everyone says that they can't stand Vista, well I like it. knock on wood! I have it on my new laptop that I got about a year ago and I have never had a problem with it. It is fast and it never locks up.

Has far as the virus side of things Macs don't get them. why? well I will tell you. People don't make viruses to attack Macs.

The only people that I know that work on Macs and love them are graphic people. Which is why Macs were made to start with.

Would I buy a Mac, sure.

Moose
04-01-2009, 09:48 PM
Has far as the virus side of things Macs don't get them. why? well I will tell you. People don't make viruses to attack Macs.

The only people that I know that work on Macs and love them are graphic people. Which is why Macs were made to start with.

Would I buy a Mac, sure.

I love my Mac. And it makes you cool, like being vegetarian or smoking weed.

2/3rds of that is spot-on.

Anyway, Bfighter is right, hackers hate Bill Gates and his inferior product. :punch:

Blmfighter
04-01-2009, 09:50 PM
Thanks Moose

Moose
04-01-2009, 09:51 PM
Thanks Moose

Dude, do you have a membership at 4 seasons?

Blmfighter
04-01-2009, 10:01 PM
Yeah, do you?

Moose
04-01-2009, 10:07 PM
Yeah, do you?

Hellz yeah. I just signed up a few weeks ago. I'm there EVERYDAY starting at 5:30 in the AM. However, if you're ever wanting to shoot some hoops or get some cardio in, give me a shout.

Tyburn
04-01-2009, 11:09 PM
I hope I dont catch this virus :unsure-1:

J.B.
04-01-2009, 11:21 PM
Back in 2004, the college I was attending to get my graphic design degree at, had decided to try out a 3D animation program. So they paid for Erik Hansen (he used to work for Digital Domain and has helped with the CG effects for films like Fifth Element, Castaway, Day After Tomorrow, Bi-Centennial Man, etc.) to come and teach a seminar to the Graphic Design faculty. Not to toot my own horn, but since I was the star student, they invited me to participate in the class as well.

I actually took to 3D animation like a duck to water and I was hooked ever since. Now, however, I don't have access to the super high end computers so I haven't done much in the last couple of years.

I'm not sure what the price is now, but Maya was a $7000 program back in 2004 and you could run it with a basic computer pretty good, but you'd suffer big time in the more high end functions. To run the program smoothly and take advantage of all the features (like hair, cloth and water simulation), then you're looking at buying a machine somewhere in the realm of $5000-30,000. Plus it's highly recommended that you use more than one computer if you are interesting in making a high-quality CG film. Because if you can burn out a top-of-the-line computer really quickly if you force it to do everything by itself.

Having multiple computers also makes sense if your renders are taking several hours per frame, because you're not going to want to tie up one computer doing all that work. PIXAR has "render farms" in which hundreds of hi-powered computers are tied together as one giant super-computer and it's still taking them up to 90 hours per frame of animation.

However, if you're only interested in making short films (under 5 minutes), then you can get away with only 1 or 2 computers; but it's going to require several months of work to get the films done.

Thats cool stuff man. I took a couple design classes in Junior College and got into some basic flash animation, but nothing that cool. I was too wrapped up in playing out with my band at the time, but then I moved to Arizona and got into a top recording college. I had teachers who have produced more albums from major artists than I can even count, which was very cool. That was when I got introduced to Logic Pro for Macintosh, and I absolutely love that program.

Some audio applications can get pretty demanding on a computer. Especially when you are recording multiple tracks at one time. Still, getting good audio productions does not require anywhere near what doing high end video and animation does.

huan
04-02-2009, 02:30 AM
PIXAR has "render farms" in which hundreds of hi-powered computers are tied together as one giant super-computer and it's still taking them up to 90 hours per frame of animation.
I'm definitely not an expert, but wouldn't 90 hours per frame work out to almost 900 years to render an hour of footage? :P

NateR
04-02-2009, 02:43 AM
I'm definitely not an expert, but wouldn't 90 hours per frame work out to almost 900 years to render an hour of footage? :P

I think it's up to 90 hours per frame, depending on what's going on in the scene. That was what PIXAR claimed when they were making Finding Nemo, so the scenes with lots of fish and water/lighting effects would probably be the ones that took up all the time. They don't necessarily mean that every single frame of the movie takes 90 hours, otherwise they'd still be rendering it. Plus they are likely rendering more than one scene at a time, but it does give some insight into why it takes them about 5 years to make these films.

Llamafighter
04-02-2009, 01:37 PM
I think it's up to 90 hours per frame, depending on what's going on in the scene. That was what PIXAR claimed when they were making Finding Nemo, so the scenes with lots of fish and water/lighting effects would probably be the ones that took up all the time. They don't necessarily mean that every single frame of the movie takes 90 hours, otherwise they'd still be rendering it. Plus they are likely rendering more than one scene at a time, but it does give some insight into why it takes them about 5 years to make these films.

Could this mean that they had 10 people working for nine hours on the frame simultaneously?

NateR
04-02-2009, 03:34 PM
Could this mean that they had 10 people working for nine hours on the frame simultaneously?

I'm sure they probably had a few frames that took an unprecedented 90 hours to render and they thought that was worth mentioning in the interview I read. I would think that 3-4 hours per frame would probably be the average throughout the movie. If I had to hazard a guess on which scene was taking so long to render, it would probably be the one at the end of the movie where all those fish were caught in the fishing net.

Render times are the bane of computer animators because they haven't really changed much in the last few decades. As computers get exponentially faster and more advanced, filmmakers keep pushing the levels of animation farther and farther. So I guess you could say that human imagination is outpacing computer technology. We can always think of ways to push computers to their limits, no matter how fast they are. So it's something that all animators have to deal with and suffer through; but in a way it's become sort of a 'badge of honor' when your scene requires just unreal amounts of render time.

Also, rendering is a purely processor-intensive task. Meaning that it doesn't really require any human involvement at all. They do hire render watchers who maintain the computers and make sure they don't lock up during the process; but all the work is being done in the computer. Meaning that you start off the render and then go home for the weekend and hope that it's finished when you come back on Monday. :)

Llamafighter
04-02-2009, 04:50 PM
I'm sure they probably had a few frames that took an unprecedented 90 hours to render and they thought that was worth mentioning in the interview I read. I would think that 3-4 hours per frame would probably be the average throughout the movie. If I had to hazard a guess on which scene was taking so long to render, it would probably be the one at the end of the movie where all those fish were caught in the fishing net.

Render times are the bane of computer animators because they haven't really changed much in the last few decades. As computers get exponentially faster and more advanced, filmmakers keep pushing the levels of animation farther and farther. So I guess you could say that human imagination is outpacing computer technology. We can always think of ways to push computers to their limits, no matter how fast they are. So it's something that all animators have to deal with and suffer through; but in a way it's become sort of a 'badge of honor' when your scene requires just unreal amounts of render time.

Also, rendering is a purely processor-intensive task. Meaning that it doesn't really require any human involvement at all. They do hire render watchers who maintain the computers and make sure they don't lock up during the process; but all the work is being done in the computer. Meaning that you start off the render and then go home for the weekend and hope that it's finished when you come back on Monday. :)
That makes sense!

My friend Everett used to work for Blue Horizon (Ice Age I II) and then got a job out in San Fran with Pixar. Good timing for him cause he's worked on Wall-E, Ratatouille, and a few others. I think he does story boarding, but I'm not entirely sure. The whole computer animation world is mind boggling. He said they take field trips to places like the zoo and what not and they go purely to sketch and come up with ideas. What a job.

Blmfighter
04-02-2009, 07:18 PM
Moose, Do you lift every morning?

NateR
04-02-2009, 09:45 PM
Moose, Do you lift every morning?

Wow, how many unrelated conversations do we have going on in this thread?:laugh:

Crisco
04-02-2009, 09:52 PM
Wow, how many unrelated conversations do we have going on in this thread?:laugh:

It's beautiful isn't it :happydancing:

Moose
04-02-2009, 09:55 PM
Wow, how many unrelated conversations do we have going on in this thread?:laugh:

Monday, Wednesday, Friday, all at 5:30 in the AM.

/thread re-jacked