Ten reasons you should get Vista.

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

1. UI built for the era of video and digital photography.

There's inbuilt basic photo editing.

 

This is a very, very good point. Even OS X doesn't come with a basic photo editing program. You would think so considering Apple has that creativity and artistic image.

[apowerr]

OSX is nice, dont get me wrong. And there are some features I like better than Vista. But in the end Vista is still my first choice (NOT XP!). I feel like I'm in control when I use Windows. On OSX I feel like the computers trying to guess what I want to do too much for my taste. Let me tell you want I want to do and how to do it. Dont try to do everything for me.

I like Vista a lot too! I used to feel the same way about OS X... OS X felt automatic while Windows feels nice and manual, however the more you use it, the more that feeling goes away. I've come to love OS X, just not as much as Windows.

#3 EVERYTHING can be installed on Vista! Yes, Everything!

All of my applications have worked fine for me, except for KotOR II, but that issue is fixed by replacing mss32.dll. Most of the other issues I've had havent been Vista related. If I could change one thing about Windows, it would be the RAM usage, Right now Im running my antivirues, windows live messenger, xfire, iTunes (WMP11 is better on Windows but I like the iTunes store) and Object Dock, all of this is using 45% of 2 GB RAM! I also wish they would have polished it some more, you have this beautiful Aero interface but then properties for images in i.e. bring up these ugly, legacy images. Its the same way with wordpad, the icon is great, 256 by 256 but when your in the app it looks so legacy! (Doesnt matter, I use Word 07 and Notepad )

This is a very, very good point. Even OS X doesn't come with a basic photo editing program. You would think so considering Apple has that creativity and artistic image.

Do you mean Windows Photo Gallery? iPhoto can do some things like retouch and reduce redness.

In Vista all the Windows Apps start with "Windows": Windows Media Player, Windows Live Messenger, Windows Photo Gallery and Windows Movie Maker etc etc. I think they did this to gain the uniform feel that Apple has with "i".

[jcbklyny]

If I could change one thing about Windows, it would be the RAM usage

 

I've heard this many times before.

 

Windows Vista will use as much RAM as it possible can to make everything run faster. Thats the way it was designed. I've heard reports of people using 4 plus GBs of RAM and Vista takes half of it!. What everyone has to realize is that when an application launches that needs more RAM Vista will drop whatever isn't related to the stability of the OS from memory to give it to the the programs that need it. So if your memory usuage is 45 % on boot try launching Photoshop, Illustrator and Premiere. Than look at your memory. You'll see that Vista dropped a bunch of stuff from memory to allow the programs to run well.

 

BTW - Give ReadyBoost a try. It does work.

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

Do you mean Windows Photo Gallery? iPhoto can do some things like retouch and reduce redness.

In Vista all the Windows Apps start with "Windows": Windows Media Player, Windows Live Messenger, Windows Photo Gallery and Windows Movie Maker etc etc. I think they did this to gain the uniform feel that Apple has with "i".

No, I'm talking about MS Paint.

 

iPhoto doesn't come with OS X by default. Or any of the "i" suites for that matter.

 

I've heard this many times before.

 

Windows Vista will use as much RAM as it possible can to make everything run faster. Thats the way it was designed. I've heard reports of people using 4 plus GBs of RAM and Vista takes half of it!. What everyone has to realize is that when an application launches that needs more RAM Vista will drop whatever isn't related to the stability of the OS from memory to give it to the the programs that need it. So if your memory usuage is 45 % on boot try launching Photoshop, Illustrator and Premiere. Than look at your memory. You'll see that Vista dropped a bunch of stuff from memory to allow the programs to run well.

This is true. Unused ram is wasted ram. Why not use up the ram with data that can boot up your programs quicker?

[Colonel Ingus]

If you used Vista and didnt like it - Had problem s or couldn't install programs... it's your own fault for not learning more about the operating system and how it works before ditching it.

What a insensitive unrealistic load of {censored} Try telling someone who isn't computer savy, or is older and just wants to turn on and USE a computer, or someone who purchased a pre-made computer in good faith with vista installed that it's "their fault" vista has all of its inherent problems This just highlights another difference between using windows - and using OS X; vista by your own admission, equals having to get a PHd in computer science, tracking down DLL's and drivers, tweaking the finicky registry, constantly downloading virus updates and then scanning the hard drive (which usually takes (wastes) many hours) for viruses/spyware/malware, defraging the hard drive, assigning resources, ETC. which makes windows a very NON-user friendly operating system. OS X on the other hand works right out of the box. You don't need to know about how the OS works in the background for the OS to work. You don't need to waste money on extra anti-virus/spyware/malware programs, you don't have to worry about constantly defraging, you just turn the Mac on and it works, first time - every time because Apple spends millions on human engineering development to ensure that OS X is the worlds friendliest OS. So for all you windows fanboys out there - thanks for highlighting another major difference between the two operating systems. Like somebody else said earlier - a operating system should... well you know... operate on its own. So what's next for windows, are you going to have to start writing your own lines of code just to get it to work?

 

I sure hope you don't get dissapointed when it finally arives and when you discover that the "improvements" aren't that big to brag about.

I think all the improvements are note worthy, but I am still worried about being disappointed. Operating systems are getting so complicated in every phase of their development, and it's very possible for Leopard to have some issues. I do however have a lot more faith in Apple software writers, than microsoft software writers, especially after seeing vista.

 

iPhoto doesn't come with OS X by default.

It doesn't have to. EVERY new Mac comes with iLife, you know... not just 'sampler programs' like on a PC, but full-version programs that actually work

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

It doesn't have to. EVERY new Mac comes with iLife, you know... not just 'sampler programs' like on a PC, but full-version programs that actually work

What the hell... have you been watching the Apple vs PC commercials too much?

 

What about us Mac users that bought a Mac a year ago, and didn't get iLife with our systems? Even when we upgrade to Leopard, we still don't get iLife.

 

That's what I mean when the "i" suites isn't included with OS X.

 

OS X by default and bare and does not come with photo OR video editing programs, where as when you buy ANY copy of XP or Vista, you get MS Paint and Windows Movie maker. When I installed Windows XP back in 2001, and Vista 6 months ago, I didn't get any of these "sampler" programs you speak of.

[apowerr]

It doesn't have to. EVERY new Mac comes with iLife, you know... not just 'sampler programs' like on a PC, but full-version programs that actually work

My mother recently purchased a new laptop from Dell and it didnt include bloatware at all, cept for that useless dell info thing or w/e that pops up to tell you things you already know. As far as computers go, the only laptops I would buy are Apple.. (unless for whatever reason I needed something super intense like an Alienware or Voodoo).

What a insensitive unrealistic load of {censored} Try telling someone who isn't computer savy, or is older and just wants to turn on and USE a computer, or someone who purchased a pre-made computer in good faith with vista installed that it's "their fault" vista has all of its inherent problems

Someone who isnt computer savy probably wont encounter issues because they will be doing normal things.. (email, office, printing, photographs)

So for all you windows fanboys out there

I really hope that wasnt aimed at me

When I installed Windows XP back in 2001, and Vista 6 months ago, I didn't get any of these "sampler" programs you speak of.

Im pretty sure he was referring to what you get when you purchase a pre built PC from like Dell, HP or Gateway. You dont get any bloatware on a fresh install.

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

Im pretty sure he was referring to what you get when you purchase a pre built PC from like Dell, HP or Gateway. You dont get any bloatware on a fresh install.

I know, just like you don't get iLife on a fresh OS X install.

[Colonel Ingus]

What about us Mac users that bought a Mac a year ago, and didn't get iLife with our systems?

We bought a Mac Mini TWO years ago and it still came with iLife. You need to click here and read number two (2);

 

Every Mac comes with iLife, a suite of software that transforms your photos, music, and video into all kinds of projects.

 

My mother recently purchased a new laptop from Dell and it didnt include bloatware at all

Bet it didn't come with a free suite of full version programs that actually work either

 

I really hope that wasnt aimed at me

Of course not, you'll notice I used the word 'all'

[apowerr]

Of course not, you'll notice I used the word 'all'

But Im not a fanboy am I? I listen to reason and dont blindly swallow everything MS throws at me.

Bet it didn't come with a free suite of full version programs that actually work either

Nope (It was XP, if she installed Vista I would argue that it did.. i.e. Windows Movie Maker, Windows Photo Gallery and Windows Media Player are all pretty decent)

[Colonel Ingus]

But Im not a fanboy am I?

I wouldn't think so Just keep resisting going to the dark side

[jcbklyny]

What a insensitive unrealistic load of {censored} rolleyes.gif Try telling someone who isn't computer savy, or is older and just wants to turn on and USE a computer, or someone who purchased a pre-made computer in good faith with vista installed that it's "their fault" vista has all of its inherent problems rolleyes.gif This just highlights another difference between using windows - and using OS X; vista by your own admission, equals having to get a PHd in computer science, tracking down DLL's and drivers, tweaking the finicky registry, constantly downloading virus updates and then scanning the hard drive (which usually takes (wastes) many hours) for viruses/spyware/malware, defraging the hard drive, assigning resources, ETC. which makes windows a very NON-user friendly operating system. OS X on the other hand works right out of the box. You don't need to know about how the OS works in the background for the OS to work. You don't need to waste money on extra anti-virus/spyware/malware programs, you don't have to worry about constantly defraging, you just turn the Mac on and it works, first time - every time because Apple spends millions on human engineering development to ensure that OS X is the worlds friendliest OS. So for all you windows fanboys out there - thanks for highlighting another major difference between the two operating systems. Like somebody else said earlier - a operating system should... well you know... operate on its own. So what's next for windows, are you going to have to start writing your own lines of code just to get it to work?

 

 

1. If you can compare what I said is needed to run Vista correctly to "having to get a PHd in computer science" Your right... Vista isn't for you, hell a computer might not be for you. For me... finding out about Vista took me all of 5 minutes of searching google. If thats what it takes to get a PHd... dame, I'm under paid.

 

2. I'm tired of hearing about OSX as a security powerhouse. The fact is that it isn't. It's a matter of numbers. Windows holds over 95% of the market compared to Apple. If everyone switched tomorrow... you'd start to see viruses and spyware for your mac real quick. And if you dont think so your a fool!

 

3. I dont know what sites you visit or what kind of email you get... but I have never in my life had a virus on a windows PC. NEVER. And I'm 31 years old - using Windows since 95. Dont download porn, bad cracks or give out your email address to everyone on the planet.

 

4. If your running an NTFS partition defragging your hard drive daily or even weekly simply isnt needed! Info on hard drive defragging has gotten way out of control. I've been using Vista since it's release and havent had to defrag the hard drive since the day after I installed some 40 gigs of software.

 

5. I think Windows is even more user friendly than OSX! Theres nothing I cant do on a Windows PC. Nothing! I can even make it look and act exactly the same as a mac if I wanted to. You just dont have that freedom on OSX. If I need to do something there are dozens of applications I could possibly use to complete the task. You cant say that about OSX. Do I have to go on?

 

Dont get me wrong. I like OSX.... I do. I just dont think it's the end all of operating systems and it certainly isnt as good as you Apple cult followers make it out to be. And hey, apple does make some cool looking hardware. Apple is the best at one thing... creating hype!

[MadDoggyca]

and is more sective then thet FBI^^^^ the ynever give out details or info unless they have to...

[Colonel Ingus]

finding out about Vista took me all of 5 minutes of searching google.

 

Everyone that I know of that has has problems with vista has searched not only google for answers, but also many other sites, still they could not get thier computer up and running properly, imagine that. We're not even talking about the 'mom and pop' types, we're talking about trained professions! Here is a direct quote from one of them:

 

"On two separate computers I had major stability problems which resulted in loss of data. This is an unforgivable sin.

 

Additionally, Vista claims backwards compatibility, but I've had major and minor problems alike with many of my games, more than a few third-party applications, my peripherals, and, in short, I encountered problems that actively prevented me from getting my work done.

 

Burning optical discs is a very flawed process, and I could never make a data DVD on 32-bit Vista that would work on a non-Vista system. Many of these programs did work better under 64-bit Windows Vista, but there were still stability problems in that version of the OS."

 

 

There are MANY other professionals who have encountered sever problems with vista too. It would appear that you're basing your own computers "luck" with that of hundreds of thousands of unhappy vista users. The world don't work that way. Speaking of google, here is just one search for vista problems, and it already has 54,600,000 entries Wonder how high that figure will grow in a year? Two years... five years, etc... So you are more than welcome to stay in denial about vista if you want, but I think the rest of world would tend to disagree with you about how 'good' it is

 

It's a matter of numbers. Windows holds over 95% of the market compared to Apple.

This just simply shows ignorance It has NOTHING to do with market share and anyone with a little bit of common sense knows this, yet this distorted, exaggerated, and sensationalized rhetoric gets repeated over and over again by misinformed windows propagandist, and it is now officially an urban myth. Long gone are the days when size of a operating system platform had anything to do with getting, or not getting, a virus. But we’re putting the cart before the horse. A little review of virus history is needed first. Here’s a brief examination of the history of computer viruses over the past 20 years that disproves the "size of the market" theory;

 

There was a thriving virus scene for DOS in the 1980s & early 1990s, even though there weren’t as many people using DOS as people using windows today. Why?

 

It certainly had NOTHING to do with the size of the DOS community back in the 80’s.

 

Mac Systems had roughly 1/10th of the PC market in the 1980s - which means a fraction of the number of installed Mac’s of today, and a vanishingly small number compared to the Windows computers today - Yet viruses still came out for Mac Systems back then. Why?

 

It certainly had NOTHING to do with the size of the Mac Systems community back in the 80’s.

 

Returning to today… Virus writers are still writing the occasional virus for AmigaDOS for God sakes! Now ask yourself, how many people do you know that use AmigaDOS today? Yet viruses are still being released for it. Why?

 

It certainly has NOTHING to do with the size of the AmigaDOS community.

 

Yet not one virus is known for Mac OS X (and, the only reports seem to come from virus companies desperate to drum up business for themselves like Norton). Hmmm... we have far more Mac OS X computers being used today than there were Mac Systems in 1980s, yet still no viruses today. Obviously the market share argument isn’t all it’s cracked up to be!

 

So then why are there so many viruses for windows, and none for Macs?

 

Virus writers write viruses that exploit ANY vulnerability that they can find, regardless of the popularity or size of the platform. Most viruses are no longer written by 13 year olds trying to boost their ego like most people believe. Today writing viruses is BIG money, especially in countries like Russia. For example, the “whizzer worm” is a complex and sophisticated virus designed to infect a computer by exploiting an obscure flaw in one particular version - of one particular company’s software firewall program.

 

The total number of people in the whole entire world who used this version of this program was ONLY around 50,000. Yet the virus writers still found and exploited that flaw. Why? Well… because they could!

 

I think we can all agree that 50,000 users is a far smaller number than the number of people who buy a Mac every month. The point is that virus writers write WHERE-EVER they can find a vulnerability. They do not care about the platform! They only care about the vulnerabilities that they know they can exploit.

 

Now consider this, let’s say that you know how to write viruses. As low a profession as it might be, we’ll say that you are really good at writing viruses. You also know that Macs are known to be bullet proof. Now don’t you think for a minute that it might tempt you and your virus writing ego to be the very FIRST person to write a real Mac virus for OS X 10.4? Your name would go down in Cyber history if you could do that, right? But still you don’t see ANY viruses around for modern day Macs do you… why? For a clue to the answer it might be time to consider what is known as “Occam’s razor” which states: All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one. The simplest solution for the lack of Mac viruses is that these hackers and virus writers today are very capable of writing powerful, disruptive viruses, but they simply can not find a way to penetrate the OS X architecture, or they would - if for no other reason then just to become worldly famous for being the first person to successfully do so, yet still, NO Mac viruses exist! It all goes back to the OS’s foundation, and OS X was designed on top of BSD, an already EXTREMELY secure variant of Unix.

 

Windows however… was not designed this way.

 

Architectural elements between the different OS’s are key to the virus discussion. As mentioned before, MacOS was designed on top of BSD, an already extremely secure variant of Unix. On the other hand the Windows architecture has never been secure (ever) because design decisions made many, many moons ago make it almost impossible to secure it now.

 

Rule number one: an operating system can only be as secure as it’s framework allows it to be. Look at it this way, you make a house frame out of balsa wood and no matter what you would try to do afterward to make that house sturdy, it will always have a vulnerability because of the decision to use balsa wood for its frame work. For example; Windows has a feature called ‘RPC’ which makes the system very vulnerable, and you cannot turn it off because certain parts of Windows use RPC to talk to other parts of Windows, EVEN if the computer is not on a network. A long time ago Apple made the (very wise) decision to design the MacOS with RPC turned OFF by DEFAULT! Here’s another quick example; If an attacker finds a security bug in Explorer, they can use it to do anything that they want on a Windows computer–change the Registry, install any software, change the operating system, whatever — because Explorer is considered to be part of the operating system. Yes you can sometimes remove explorer but 9 times out of 10 times you will have serious OS problems down the line, and they aren’t patchable.

 

On the other hand, on a Mac the Web browser is just a program, just like any other program. Weird how they thought of that huh?

 

Now, since windows has such shotty framework to begin with, the only thing that Microsoft can do to get around these security vulnerabilities is to ‘patch’ them up with band-aids, but NO band-aid can ever be as good (or secure) as having a solid foundation. Another example; on Windows, if the user simply runs a program, that program can make changes to the system without a password. Windows is pretty famous for this. On the other hand on a Mac, the operating system makes a clear distinction between “user space” and “system space.” The user may not change parts of the operating system without entering the administrator password.

 

On Windows, one computer program can “spoof” events in another program; that means, for example, that program A can make program B believe “hey - the user just clicked this button” when really they did not. On the other hand on a Mac, programs are NOT permitted to access system events, like mouse clicks or buttons, that belong to other programs. The bottom line is that this makes OS X much more secure. So you see, size of the platform has nothing to do with why one operating system gets viruses, and another one does not. It all has to do with the operating systems architectural elements, or what some people like to explain as “what’s under the hood“. Windows is trying to play catch-up, but all the patches in the world will never be as good as a solid framework like what Mac OS X uses.

 

I have never in my life had a virus on a windows PC.

I don't have anything to do with cracks, porn, gaming sites or any other virus infested website, yet we have had 4 or 5 viruses, 2 of which lost us irreplaceable data. After the second time we thought we'd 'try' a Mac, and we have never looked back since

 

I think Windows is even more user friendly than OSX!

That's only because people with vista computers don't even bother turning them on anymore

[apowerr]

Rule number one[/u]: an operating system can only be as secure as it’s framework allows it to be. Look at it this way, you make a house frame out of balsa wood and no matter what you would try to do afterward to make that house sturdy, it will always have a vulnerability because of the decision to use balsa wood for its frame work. For example; Windows has a feature called ‘RPC’ which makes the system very vulnerable, and you cannot turn it off because certain parts of Windows use RPC to talk to other parts of Windows, EVEN if the computer is not on a network. A long time ago Apple made the (very wise) decision to design the MacOS with RPC turned OFF by DEFAULT! Here’s another quick example; If an attacker finds a security bug in Explorer, they can use it to do anything that they want on a Windows computer–change the Registry, install any software, change the operating system, whatever — because Explorer is considered to be part of the operating system. Yes you can sometimes remove explorer but 9 times out of 10 times you will have serious OS problems down the line, and they aren’t patchable.

Yep MS really needs to push 64 bit Windows so they can drop a lot of legacy issues/annoyances. Hey btw when you say "Explorer" that is what Window's file navigator/shell is called. The OS X equivalent is Finder.

On the other hand, on a Mac the Web browser is just a program, just like any other program. Weird how they thought of that huh?

So if you were referring to Internet Explorer above you should have said so. (As you know, the OS X equivalent is Safari) In Vista IE7 is run sandboxed and more separate from the OS than it was in previous Windows versions. (Im having my doubts, I was lagging real bad on my pc. Turn on my mac mini, its lagging too. I turn off the PC, its all fine. Im hoping I dont have a virus, but it looks that way. If I do I may format and install 64 bit Windows. )

As you described, Windows doesnt have as strong of as foundation as OS X does. MS should make a new OS (or, it would help). Apple made a brand new OS, and look how they are doing now!

[Colonel Ingus]

So if you were referring to Internet Explorer above you should have said so.

Yes you're right, in hindsight I probably should have just called it IE

 

Im hoping I dont have a virus, but it looks that way.

Oh no... the "V" word Hope you don't have one too. Use the mini more when you're on the net

 

MS should make a new OS (or, it would help).

Exactly, but you can see just how many people are pissed off at vista, can you image how many people would be upset about a totally new windows OS with all of its compatibility problems? There's a lot of new code in vista, but it's still a house made out of a deck of cards At least they're going in the right direction. They missed some good opportunities though.

[apowerr]

Exactly, but you can see just how many people are pissed off at vista, can you image how many people would be upset about a totally new windows OS with all of its compatibility problems? There's a lot of new code in vista, but it's still a house made out of a deck of cards At least they're going in the right direction. They missed some good opportunities though.

No no. Not new Windows. Not new NT. Not new DOS. New everything

Btw I didnt have a virus it was just unexpected lag that ended when the PC turned off.

[EFI]

All Windows needs is a new core foundation...which could happen if Microsofts gets out of its arse in the NT range (therfore giving up lots of legacy support)...which is showing its age very, very much. Microsoft doesn't necessarily have to go the UNIX like route (though that would easier) that Apple went with OS X in order to acheive stability and security. All they need to do is get off their back and start implementing WinFS + a new Graphics Foundation thats more universal (universal meaning like the Quartz Extreme foundation that Apple has...with Core Image, Core Audio, Core Animation, and Core Video) Microsoft's Avalon foundation is not even close in terms of being streamlined...its all over the place, with Direct X on one end, and the main Avalon API on the other end. Microsoft needs to learn how to make their API's work seamlessley together...this is where the real gain comes from, and If Apple...the company that nearly died in the late 90's could accomplish a 180 degree recovery by following this method....so can Microsoft...especially with billions of dollars more that they have.

[apowerr]

All Windows needs is a new core foundation...which could happen if Microsofts gets out of its arse in the NT range (therfore giving up lots of legacy support)...which is showing its age very, very much. Microsoft doesn't necessarily have to go the UNIX like route (though that would easier) that Apple went with OS X in order to acheive stability and security. All they need to do is get off their back and start implementing WinFS + a new Graphics Foundation thats more universal (universal meaning like the Quartz Extreme foundation that Apple has...with Core Image, Core Audio, Core Animation, and Core Video) Microsoft's Avalon foundation is not even close in terms of being streamlined...its all over the place, with Direct X on one end, and the main Avalon API on the other end. Microsoft needs to learn how to make their API's work seamlessley together...this is where the real gain comes from, and If Apple...the company that nearly died in the late 90's could accomplish a 180 degree recovery by following this method....so can Microsoft...especially with billions of dollars more that they have.

QFE. This post was brilliant! MS could do what you proposed above, and continue to update Windows (but only for business needs)

[Alessandro17]

All Windows needs is a new core foundation...which could happen if Microsofts gets out of its arse in the NT range (therfore giving up lots of legacy support)...which is showing its age very, very much. Microsoft doesn't necessarily have to go the UNIX like route (though that would easier) that Apple went with OS X in order to acheive stability and security. .

 

I also second that. It is basically what I have been saying for a long time.

You also rightly say that the Unix-like route would be easier. IMO, if they were humble enough to do that they wouln't need to reinvent the wheel.

[head]

this is soooo funny - i thought this was a joke first, then i saw that it is true ;-)

 

these points are the weakest reasons i ever read for anything - george bush could find better reasons for the irak-war ;-)

 

crazy, maybe i´m a little fanboyish, but calling these "reasons" the "reasons why you should get vista" are just a laugh if you use os x.

 

how many of you windows fanboys sat down before a mac, without prejudices, trying to work with it for several days (not minutes)? i cannot figure out how to NOT get convinced! ok, windows-powerusers and the senseless-gaming-fraction will still use the {censored} they get as a meal, but i prefer to eat good food ;-)

[Alessandro17]

this is soooo funny - i thought this was a joke first, then i saw that it is true ;-)

 

these points are the weakest reasons i ever read for anything - george bush could find better reasons for the irak-war ;-)

 

crazy, maybe i´m a little fanboyish, but calling these "reasons" the "reasons why you should get vista" are just a laugh if you use os x.

 

how many of you windows fanboys sat down before a mac, without prejudices, trying to work with it for several days (not minutes)? i cannot figure out how to NOT get convinced! ok, windows-powerusers and the senseless-gaming-fraction will still use the {censored} they get as a meal, but i prefer to eat good food ;-)

 

Actually Linux with KDE is also a very good alternative, but I explain the reasons why OS X is better here:

 

http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?sho...mp;#entry399575

[jcbklyny]

Yet not one virus is known for Mac OS X (and, the only reports seem to come from virus companies desperate to drum up business for themselves like Norton). Hmmm... we have far more Mac OS X computers being used today than there were Mac Systems in 1980s, yet still no viruses today. Obviously the market share argument isn't all it's cracked up to be!

 

I think you need to do more research buddy! Apple never releases "security updates" right.... lol there was never a swicthback virus right.... security experts never took total control over OSX through Quicktime in less than 5 minutes.... right! LOL

 

 

You mac fanboys are funny man..... please, keep going. I'm getting a kick out of your words of wisdom.

 

OSx IS NOT a security powerhouse. If more people used it there would be many security issues. But the fact remains..... THE WORLD USES WINDOWS AND UNTIL THAN GO CRY IN A CORNER SOMEWHERE WITH YOUR OVERPRICED MAC AND ALL OF THE LINUX LOVERS IN THE WORLD.... I'm done with this because you fanboys just dont quit.

 

 

OUT!

[Colonel Ingus]

I think you need to do more research buddy!

No, I think YOU do. Read on

 

Apple never releases "security updates" right

Of course they do, they'd be irresponsible if they didn't, BUT a security update is NOT a virus. So sad for you fanboys

 

there was never a swicthback virus right

Hello, McFly... that can only infect Macs running OS X 10.2.5 or 10.2.6. It never effected 10.3 or 10.4 They needed to also be using Safari 1.0 AND visit a specific website displaying an affiliate ad. That's a lot of things to have to happen, and most people with 10.2.5 were never effected because obviously most of them never visited that website AND click on the ad. So sad for you fanboys that don't do research. Now Einstein try to find us a virus that effected Tiger.

 

P.S. - we won't be holding our breath and you know why

 

security experts never took total control over OSX through Quicktime

LOL This was a flaw found in Safari when used with quicktime, not OS X And guess what? The same virus was found in windows too when Firefox is used Apple has since plugged the flaw in every version from 7.0.4. Nice try though, but you really need to do more than just have a fanboy play on words since this was NOT a OS X virus

 

OSx IS NOT a security powerhouse.

Then it should be easy for you to find a virus that has effected Tiger. If you can't do that, then that in itself should tell you something

[EFI]

I think you need to do more research buddy! Apple never releases "security updates" right.... lol there was never a swicthback virus right.... security experts never took total control over OSX through Quicktime in less than 5 minutes.... right! LOL

 

 

You mac fanboys are funny man..... please, keep going. I'm getting a kick out of your words of wisdom.

 

OSx IS NOT a security powerhouse. If more people used it there would be many security issues. But the fact remains..... THE WORLD USES WINDOWS AND UNTIL THAN GO CRY IN A CORNER SOMEWHERE WITH YOUR OVERPRICED MAC AND ALL OF THE LINUX LOVERS IN THE WORLD.... I'm done with this because you fanboys just dont quit.

 

 

OUT!

 

 

Your market share argument is shot wrong for the 100th time. OS X is not more safer becuase of the market share...its safer becuase its built on a UNIX/BSD core foundation. This is what fundamentally makes it more safer from the start. OS 9, which had a marketshare which was only a fraction of what OS X has today...still had a few known viruses. Apache has known viruses, and its market share for usage is also a very small fraction...yet it had DoS attacks in the past. Look up the "Witty Virus", which whose operating system population base was only 12,000 people and only on the server side...not on the consumer side.

 

The world uses Windows boxes becuase the vast majority do not have the sufficient knowledge to realize that there are other operating systems out there, and ofcourse the fear of switching still exists. Hypothetically speaking, if the entire world was somehow put into a huge room and were shown Windows, along side OS X...I would say that the OS X market share would skyrocket in a flash. Use this very forum..InsanelyMac, as an example of how individuals switch when they come to know about OS X.

 

Now that being said...OS X is not bulletproof...I have said this on numerous accounts. Anyone who thinks that is just kidding themselves to fallacy. However, it is by far THE MOST secure and stable personal operating system out there.

 

Apple sees to security measures in the proactive route...not in the reactive route. Apple stops the vulnerability from becoming an exploit, and I think thats the best way to go about security. Its better to say "here is the vulnerability patch, apply it before anything happens"....as opposed to saying "{censored}, your affected too? Here, this patch might fix it".

 

The "switchback virus" that you say is not actually a virus. It does not reach the root of the OS, and therfore does not get the root status, which would be the real danger in the classification of a "virus" as it allows the "program" to target system files and permentantly (until the OS is reinstalled) damage them. Moreover, this so called threat become obsolete and patched long before even OS X 10.3 Panther came along which was 4 years ago, let alone Tiger now...and in a few months, Leopard. Thirdly, you would need to do SEVERAL things and MEET several critical objectives in order to even reach this threat. For one, you would need to be running a specific version of OS X in order ot be affected...which was OS X 10.2.5 or 10.2.6 ONLY, and secondly, out of those two revisions..you would need to be running Safari 1.0, and lastly, you would need to visit its malicious site in order to activate the apple script which BTW can be deleted and the threat would stop. Lastly, this was not an "in the wild" threat...it was a prototype design that was tested and had numerous faults.

 

Compare the above long and grueling process to obtain that threat (threat because its obsolete by modern standard)...to a typical Windows XP virus..which prior to Windows XP service pack 2...all you would need to do is turn on your Windows XP machine (with internet connection), and wait 20 mins. Your computer will then be part of a botnet somewhere.

 

 

Comparing a few non lethal threats which could not do ANY system level damages on OS X; to ELK Cloner, SCA, Brain And Morris, Michaelangelo, Melissa, Explorer.zip, Iloveyou, Anna Kournikova, Sircam, Code Red, Klez, Benjamin, Sober, Magistr, Nimda, Slammer, Sobig and Blaster, Mydoom, Sasser, Zotob, Wullik-B, Kama Sutra, and Cryzip viruses which were the famous 23 out of the 140,000 wild viruses on the Windows platform which did multi-billion dollar damages and wrecked countless number of home PC's.....is not a comparison at all. But you knew that, didn't you?