Discussion in 'Computer and Console Gaming' started by patbattlefield, Dec 6, 2007.
I've never had a virus on XP or Vista. Fuck the Mac!
I've been saying it forever. Apple just seems more secure because hackers don't give a shit about Apple when there are far more PC's available. They also have a grudge against Microsoft so they work extra hard to go after Mocrosoft programs. The only secure computer is an offline computer. If they want into your shit they are getting in.
No apple is more secure because they don't allow all applications to have root access.....fundamentally speaking the Mac is more secure.
If a program wants to alter a system file it has to be approved by an administrator of the computer. Most apps are able to be installed by any user but if you want to access a system file a password must be put in.
Vista tried to replicate this but they ask you are you sure about 1,000 times. Eventually the end user is annoyed and just clicks yes. This UAC security in vista is less secure then not popping up a message because the user is bombarded.
Also these supposed hacks are all garbage. The involve the end user doing some really dumb stuff in order for them to be initiated.
Apple users are hipsters anyway, they're too smug to get a virus on their little colorful comp.
Sums it all up right there
yep but what most fanboys and techies dont take into account is the business side of it. Both companies can give a shit what fanboys want unless it makes them money.
M$ knows that they cant stop backwards compatibility because 90% of the OS market share is theirs and 85% of that is running legacy OS in which people still use their 10 year old programs. Convincing 90% of the home market share that they have to buy all new equipment and software to do the things are already done is not feasible.
Apple in the mac os 9 days with 3% market share had nothing to loose. so they did it, marketed its benefits (see business, not technology) and gained a huge chunk of market share which is now in the 10's i believe.
hackers and spammers go after whats out there the most. now they are seeing the trend in apple, they will exploit it. if linux gaines huge popularity, they will exploit it.
While I agree with you to some extent I think that if MSFT would force people to upgrade their apps they would. If you used the mac back when they made the transition to OSX they had a mode called classic mode. This would allow you to install both OS9 and OS X at the same time. Whenever a classic app was launched it would launch in a classic environment. Baiscally with MSFT owning virutal PC they probably should have used this technology to do this with Vista.
Microsoft is all about moving products rather than thinking about the customer. If they would have turned off backwards compatibility they could have moved forward much faster. Sure your customers may be upset about having to upgrade their apps but in the long run it would be for their own good.
thats fine for you and me. but will your stubborn grandmother want to spend $1000 to upgrade her computer, install virtual pc and learn how to use virtualization and understand just so she use her Recipe software from 1997? no, i dont think so. consumers dont think about their own good, they think about cost and necessity. if there is no necessity to upgrade, there i no necessity to invest in new technology. and let me tell you, stupid computer user outnumbers the educated computer user much, much more.
you dont get it, they did think of the consumer. thats why they support legacy applications and thats why they still build of win32, and they will always build of win32.
when longhorn was first announced almost 8 years ago now i believe, there big thing was that they were going to get away from the registry and build a whole new OS that doesnt run on DLL's and the registry. tell me this, why didnt that happen?
if it was reversed were apple had the the business and consumer marketshare that M$ enjoys now, do you honestly think they would disable legacy application like they do now?
I've seen articles like this at least once a year for a decade. The message is always the same: Macs are more secure than PCs; will that change when the imac/ipod/iphone/macbook becomes more popular?
It's always the same shit!
Enough already! Hackers will come after us mac users when and if they give a shit. ANY system can be hacked! Fuck!
Aero my cunt grandma shouldn't update to Vista....nobody is forcing...when the time comes to upgrade her computer she will be dead anyway....oh wait she already is dead.
Point is everyone feels the need to upgrade but a lot of times there is no reason to upgrade
It took Apple from 2001 to the release of Leopard to finally drop classic support. The cost didn't have to $1,000 the virtualization should have been built into the OS until the time comes to remove it from the software. My sons eMac is currently running Panther because I realize the next steps up will ruin his classic support and I have a lot of education games that are OS9 only.
The cost of a PC is $299 for a shitty one and I see no reason why this would change if they would have built in Virtualization. Hell they overcharge for the OS in the first place so this addition would be nothing.
If Apple has 7% marketshare why aren't 7% of the virus's out there for the Mac. The security through obscurity theory holds no water.
did you just ask that question? are you equating the physical number of pc's out there to the number of physical viruses?
so with your logic: the US has roughly 165 million PC's, if mac has 7% of that, that will make about 153 million windows pcs. so there should be 153 million viruses out there that have caused problems?
let me preface this before you continue to get upidity, i own a mac, i prefer it over windows and i administer a huge windows corporate network. THE ONLY REASON windows is attacked is because of its huge presence, and its vulnerability in its legacy architecture. IF EVERYONE IN THE WORLD dumped their computers and got to MS "safest" OS "Vista", I will guarantee you that spam will be reduced by 90% (also if people move away from the flawed SMTP protocol, but thats for another discussion), and virus production would be greatly reduced UNTIL hackers found another or easier thing to exploit.
ill say it agian. if apple had the presence that MS has and their roles are reversed, you would see stupid bill gates in a turtle neck telling people that their product is safer and you would see the pc guy making fun of the apple guy in witty commercials.
P.S. waiting for beemans intellectual comment on this.....
Too many words!!!
Macs are for fags.
I am simply arguing against he marketshare issue as being the sole reason that the Mac is not eploited as much as the PC.
The Mac OS was built from the ground up with security as the #1 concern. Windows is a security layer built on a foundation that wasn't secure.
There are millions of macs out there so one would only assume there should be at least a hundered viruses for the Mac and that simply isn't true. The ones that they have claimed to be a virus aren't really a virus and don't replicate.
I know the Mac is not 100% secure but I would say that it is 100 times more secure then Windows....
Let's put it this way...if Mac and Windows had equal marketshare which would have more issues?
A smart user can run XP or Vista without an issue and may never have a problem but when dealing with the average user (dumbasses) that isn't the case. My XP box at home doesn't even have a virus scanning software on it and it has been running for over a year.
In contrast my brothers computer was reinstalled 2 months ago and it is a disaster. My brother is much better off with a Mac but is afraid to make the switch.
If windows is so unsecure, why have I never had a virus? SHUTUP ASSCUNTFANBOYS!!!!
I am forced to agree, I have had very few problems with Windows when I think of it. Sure, I've had spyware before and when I did I was fucking pissed as hell. But it all comes back to the fact that there are many times more PCs than Apples out there. The people trying to get at us are not going to concentrate on like 5% of the market.
Also, since PC is cheaper and therefore more accesable to users, those new users make more mistakes and open an E-mail with some crazy program in it.
It's really a case of the big dog in the yard getting picked on more than the little guy on the block.
you are so wrong cunt
I've never had a virus with windows, and I love my mac
It should also be noted that the majority of corporate networks run a windows client/server architecture. Simply, the payload of hacking a corporate network is much more lucrative for a hacker than a Mac server/client in some publishing company.
Also, indeed the market share makes a difference, look at the storm worm, 2 million PCs, a hacker can lease 50-100 of those computers for spam for $1,000+/month. So in essence, it's easier and more worthwhile for a hacker to develop a replicating virus for PCs since it will effect the majority of the market share, rather than slave for months programming the perfect virus for maybe a handful of macs.
You may have never had a virus but that is because you are not a complete boob. You are actually in the minority with windows users.
No OS X users have ever had a virus.
Conclusion: Mac's are better MV
You act like there are only 5 Macs in the world.
I was comparatively speaking in regards to the corporate IT world and the payoff. Don't make it look like I'm picking a side, because frankly I don't give a shit about the flame war in this thread.
surprisingly I don't care that much either.....I was just wondering why I even started posting on this