Why is a Mac any better than Vista?

[ToA]

Because mac is spelled Mac.

 

lol.

[apowerr]

Well, the reason for that is these dorks have paid all this money on a PC Windblows system, and they don't even realize that Apple computers have always been superior to every other platform

Uhh, what? If modern Apple computers are using the same hardware as non Apple PCs, how are Apple PCs superior? And not all PC's run Windows! If you buy a PC it doesn't have to run Windows! Macs are personal computers to! Modern Macs use the same hardware as their non mac counterparts: they're no different! (I realize that you know of all this, but for some reason you don't realize you do...)

Well, Macs just simply never break.

{censored}. Macs break all the time. Any PC has the potential to fail, and Macs are no different. Plus, OS X 'breaks' all the time. Leopard is a buggy {censored}. There are tons of people on legit Macs, using legit Apple software on a legit Apple OS and things aren't working! The system is performing extremely sluggish, mail is broken, laptop fans are running when they shouldn't be etc! Any software Apple releases is software, and software can have bugs.

There's simply no comparison, and for all those people who talk about OSx86 or whatever versus the actual Apple computer running an Apple OS? Well, they have to be completely insane (insanely mac?) to think that OS X running on a PC runs equally as well as on an Apple machine.

Nope, with PCEFI and the Vanilla Kernel non Macs really do run OS X just as good as Macs.

 

Also, here are a few things you should consider:

Macs are overpriced, in fact way overpriced. This is getting better, (the new Mac Pro is a pretty fair deal) but if you look at the current Macbook Pro's and compare them to identical (in terms of the hardware) non Mac competitors, the MBPs cost up to (and over) $1,000 more. Apple's upgrade prices for Macs are also ridiculous. Go to the Apple store and add extra RAM and HD space or speed to their computers, they're overcharging for upgrades.

 

Anyone who is a hardware enthusiast and enjoys building their own computers cannot build their own Mac. You have to get a Mac through Apple, and are (very) limited by whatever hardware and components Apple is currently offering. With a Mac, when a new video card or processor that fits your socket is out, you're SOL. Theres nothing you can do. You bought a Mac, and you cannot upgrade it.

It doesn't. Defrag? Why you got to defrag? I never defrag on my Mac. Why do you do it? It's useless! Totally useless!

Again, {censored}. I challenge you to do this: Make a complete backup of your system with Time Machine, and restore. You'll notice a huge speed difference, what you just did had the effect of a defrag in a way. Defragging does make a difference, especially in NTFS.

and also run games just like PCs

Yeah, you can boot into Windows and run games just like any other computer can. Except with a Mac, you'll get poor framerates (with high graphics settings on a high resolution) and you won't be able to upgrade your video card!

 

And finally, thank you for exhuming this dinosaur of a thread to show us how much of a fanboy you are: I appreciate it.

[jglavin]

My favorite argument among this whole thread is still Angelina Jolie vs. Judge Judy. :censored2:

[Purple Puppy]

I think that Macs are capable of shutting down faster than Vista. Another advantage of Macs is that OSX doesn't have a serial number (pardon me if I'm wrong). And Macs are capable of more things with a many-button mouse, such as the Exposé button, Spaces button, Dashboard button, etc. Mac's dashboard doesn't take up any space when you're not using it, unlike sidebar, whose gadgets either clutter up the desktop or take up 1/8th of your screen width. Additionally, Macs have more First-Party software, since Apple also produces many softwares for designers. Moreover, Macs have systemwide spellcheck and, with Leopard, grammarcheck. And Macs can type weird characters by pressing the option button and then pressing a key. On Windows, you can only do that by holding control and then entering a long string of numbers.

 

Most notably, Macs are far superior at installing and uninstalling (small) applications. All you've got to do is to drag the icon into the trash to uninstall it, and into the Applications folder to install it. In Windows, what with all the Windows Registry and etc, dragging the program folder out of /Program Files into Recycle Bin will NOT work, even with small programs.

 

That said, there are also many aspects in which Windows outshines Mac. For example, Windows Explorer has an address bar, which will also let you easily go to a higher folder level. Explorer also can have a details pane, showing metadata etc, whereas viewing stuff in icon view (and at the same time have a folder tree on the left). And Windows Explorer can also display hidden system files. Furthermore, Windows Explorer can choose to cut or copy a file when you right click on it. On a Mac, the only way to cut a file is to drag it, and when dragging files between volumes, it still copies.

 

Windows also has vastly more games, and vastly more game support than Macs. (although video games are generally considered by scientists to be bad for you).

 

The taskbar on Windows is much slimmer than the dock in OSX, and has quite a bit of functionality as well (except that it can't set which programs to start up when you log in).

 

One feature that I miss from Windows is the maximise function of windows. In a Mac, if you click the small green "+" button, it doesn't always maximise because it is supposed to be Smart and all that. Sometimes I want a window to maximise and able to be dragged around. But oh well.

 

I still prefer Mac OS X Leopard over Windows Vista, although I do miss some features from Vista. I also miss some programs which are Windows-only such as Autodesk 3DS Max.

[vbetts]

I like both Vista, and Mac, and very happy with Vista right now. But I know the money I put into Mac, I know I spent it well. Vista is nice and all, but the problem Vista and other Windows OS's is there is so much hardware to customize. Which this is both good and bad, but with a Mac, I really don't have to worry about upgrading to many things since things like the hd 2600 that comes standard in the Macpro will hold for awhile, as well as a single quad core cpu at 2.8 ghz. Now, if I were to get an Imac, I'd want a higher based one to get me through atleast 4 or 5 years. Mac Mini, I guess I'd just use for internet, and media.

[Maxintosh]

Apple computers are using the same hardware as non Apple PCs

It's NOT about the hardware, it's about the engineering. Big difference

 

You'll notice a huge speed difference, what you just did had the effect of a defrag in a way.

There is no real proof of this, and I don't care what someone on this forum has "tried" so that's not proof that it's the same thing. I have been in conversation with a couple of Apple techs and asking them why TM had this effect. They are looking into it but initially said the files were NOT defragged. Getting back to the topic of defragging, this is PER APPLE:

 

You probably won't need to optimize at all if you use Mac OS X. Here's why:

• Hard disk capacity is generally much greater now than a few years ago. With more free space available, the file system doesn't need to fill up every "nook and cranny." Mac OS Extended formatting (HFS Plus) avoids reusing space from deleted files as much as possible, to avoid prematurely filling small areas of recently-freed space.
   
  
• Mac OS X 10.2 and later includes delayed allocation for Mac OS X Extended-formatted volumes. This allows a number of small allocations to be combined into a single large allocation in one area of the disk.
   
  
• Fragmentation was often caused by continually appending data to existing files, especially with resource forks. With faster hard drives and better caching, as well as the new application packaging format, many applications simply rewrite the entire file each time. Mac OS X 10.3 Panther can also automatically defragment such slow-growing files. This process is sometimes known as "Hot-File-Adaptive-Clustering."
   
  
• Aggressive read-ahead and write-behind caching means that minor fragmentation has less effect on perceived system performance.
  

For these reasons, there is little benefit to defragmenting. link

 

The most important part about running OS X is to make sure that there is at least 30% free space on your hard drive. Defragging simply isn't necessary with OS X, as Apple has pointed out. Infact, also as Apple has pointed out, defragging might actually decrease OS X performance. Again, per Apple:

 

Mac OS X systems use hundreds of thousands of small files, many of which are rarely accessed. Optimizing them can be a major effort for very little practical gain. There is also a chance that one of the files placed in the "hot band" for rapid reads during system startup might be moved during defragmentation, which would decrease performance.

 

It is important to note that there is a big distinction between defragmentation and optimization. According to Apple tech note TN 1150 the catalog B-tree may contain up to 16 extents per file. Mac OS X adds some automatic file optimization and file relocation features, but they are quite limited, and the optimization affects only files smaller than 20 MB. The most detailed description I've seen of this feature is the one written by David Badinovac:

 

When a file is opened, if it is highly fragmented (ie. 8+ fragments) and the file is under 20MB in size, it will be automatically defragmented. This is accomplished by the file system just moving the file to a new location. This process only happens on Journaled HFS+ volumes.

 

The second optimization is called "Adaptive Hot File Clustering". In general, it works like this: over a period of 60 hours, the file system keeps track of files that are read frequently (for a file to be considered as a hot-file, it must be less than 10MB and never written to). At the end of this period, the "hottest" files (ie. the files that have been read the most times) are moved to the "hotband" of the disk (which is that part of the disk which is particularly fast given the physical characteristics of the disk).

 

The size of the "hotband" will depend on the size of the disk (ie. 5MB of hotband space for each GB of disk). "Cold" files that were in the hotband will be moved out of the hotband to make room for the hot files. As a side effect of being moved into the hotband, the hot files are defragmented. Currently, Adaptive Hot File Clustering only works on the boot volume, and only for Journaled HFS+ volumes that are more than 10G

 

To quote Apple again, there is little, if any, benefit to defragmenting OS X, and it might even decrease performance. For those who enjoy defragging, buy vista

[rajindia]

Apple do not have any magic hardware which windows can't have.it is apple's monopolistic business contracts which makes apple hardware unique.Besides windows makes computing affordable comparing to mac.Windows is more buggy OS than Mac.In mac you have correct combination of Beauty + Brains + Commonsense In loveble Mixup.Remember it is not yet perfect OS Constantly evolving.Like us.i use windows for Bussiness and Mac for Personal use.

[mister_doodi]

...Apple, so they merged neXT with Apple, and brought back SJ as the CEO. Because Apple was in such despair at that time because of these boons, there has to be something done that would boost Apple's revenue. As a result, Microsoft was brought in and were given major stock options. No one liked this incident, but it had to be done, and Apple was not in a position for calling shots...every single move was critical, and IMO I think SJ executed a perfect recovery, which reflects Apple's growth today.

 

That's a simplifed version of it, not entirely accruate. Apple was shopping around for a new base for OSX and when BeOS highballed Apple's offer they just went to Steve Jobs and Apple bought NeXT for $400+ million.

[QuietOC]

Lets say you have an old HD with an installed program....you can launch the program from the old MOUNTED HD and it will launch.

Just a minute. I have about hundred Macintosh applications on my iMac that when I click on them say:

 

"You cannot open the application "Blah blah blah" because it is not supported on this system."

 

And most of the OSX applications I use everyday will not run if not installed using their slow installers (Adobe CS3/CS2, Quark, etc.) Some don't even work when they have been installed. You have to trash their Preference files, and hope they won't ask you to type some 50 digit arcane code before they run again.

 

I have also found plenty of apps in Vista that run just fine by just clicking on an executable.The whole NeXTStep idea of a single application/folder/package was neat, but it seems like its been practically abandoned in OSX.

 

To quote Apple again, there is little, if any, benefit to defragmenting OS X, and it might even decrease performance. For those who enjoy defragging, buy vista

 

Sorry, not at all true. My year old 250GB iMac drive was badly fragmented. Cloaned, erased, and restored, it works better, but it still a crappy, slow Seagate Barracuda with an Apple logo on it.

[InorganicMatter]

Mac OS is a true UNIX operating system (one of only a few UNIX systems actually, sorry Linux guys, POSIX doesn't recognize you ). A lot of power users (like myself), and a lot of the old UNIX guys from last century, who want a true UNIX system, are moving to Mac OS X because of what it offers. I like UNIX systems, I think they work better. I still use NT systems on a normal basis for professional application, but I prefer UNIX systems.

 

What does it offer better? Nothing really. It's different, and liking one over the other is something completely up to you. In addition to the UNIX system, there's also several other things I like:

Time Machine is a great backup utility that, while note as powerful as Windows Backup Center, is much faster and less annoying

Mail + iCal + Address Book integrate much more tightly into the OS than Outlook does to Windows, and I like that.

iTunes on Mac > iTunes on Windows (enough said here; sorry Apple, your Windows port of iTunes sucks ).

 

There are also several things I'm missing:

A good email client that integrates as tightly as Mail does. I dislike Mail, and Thunderbird won't use my Address Book.

A raster-based image manipulator. Sometimes you just need something as simple as MS Paint.

The myraid of video conversion and playback tools Windows has. There's just nothing on Mac that offers the raw power and flexibility AVISynth does.

[Dermatea]

In the big scheme of things, anything you can do on a Mac, you can do under Windows.

Anything you do under Windows you can do under both Mac and Linux.

 

The first part is true. The second part, not so much. There's a whole thread which lists the reasons why:

http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=23047

 

You can be sure that if a Windows version of the "What app are you missing?" thread was ever created, the list would probably be no more than five. I mean, name a couple things you can do in OS X that you absolutely cannot do the same or better in XP. Not much huh?

 

Why is a Mac any better than Vista? First off, a "Mac" (Macintosh), is a PC (personal computer), created by Apple, which runs Apple's OS X (pronounced, "oh-es-ten" for "operating system ten"). Windows Vista is an operating system (OS) created by Microsoft. "Mac" = machine + OS, whereas "Vista" only means OS. So the question, "Why is a Mac any better than Vista?", hardly makes any sense in its direct comparison. So to even the field, let's compare personal computing hardware usable by Windows Vista operating systems, and the hardware used by Apple in their Macs. On a strictly hardware-level comparison, the only real difference lies in the motherboard, and CPU, (excluding, of course, Intel processors now used by Apple). Apple apparently uses their own motherboards, instead of the standard ATX/micro ATX motherboards used by most computers running Vista. Feature-wise and performance-wise, the high-end ATX mobos are generally equal or superior to Apple's mobos used in high-end offerings like their Mac Pro line. As for CPUs, Apple switched to Intel processors because they realized that their own processors were being far outpaced by processors available for non-Apple motherboards provided by AMD and Intel. So that's that. As for everything else, hardware-wise, Mac hardware and the hardware of Vista capable machines are pretty much identical except in the aforementioned areas. And usually, there are some differences when comparing price>value ratios.

 

Now, comparing on a software-level, the newest from each side, OS X Leopard rev. 10.5.2 and Windows Vista w/SP1 (available now for the lucky few). As for who has more quality options, I've already stated at the beginning of this post so that's that. As for OS feature-per-OS feature, I'm not gonna go there, since everyone else seems to be doing that just fine, but in the end, the winner depends on each person's preference really.

[Headrush69]

I mean, name a couple things you can do in OS X that you absolutely cannot do the same or better in XP. Not much huh?

Whether you are using Windows, Linux, OS X, whatever, its never really been an issue of what you can do, but how you do it.

 

Of course we all know this is completely subjective depending on the preference of each user.

[Maxintosh]

My year old 250GB iMac drive was badly fragmented. Cloaned, erased, and restored, it works better

Sorry, cloning, erasing and restoring does not = defragmenting If you think it does then why not patent your invention and share it with Apple. I'm pretty sure they know a little bit more about their own operating system

 

In the big scheme of things, anything you can do on a Mac, you can do under Windows

.

Like not getting viruses, malware, rootkits or spyware? How about runing a windows program and a Mac program side-by-side? Oh you mean except for things like that eh

[Dermatea]

Like not getting viruses, malware, rootkits or spyware? How about runing a windows program and a Mac program side-by-side? Oh you mean except for things like that eh

 

The fact that you can't run OSX apps side-by-side with Windows apps in Windows i.e. via virtualization, is APPLE's fault, NOT Windows'. If you can run Windows apps side-by-side with OSX apps in OSX, that means that Microsoft CAN play nice, unlike a certain fruit company. "It's MY operating system. MIIINE!!" Sound familiar? Oh yes, it goes BOTH ways. And in case you were living under a large rock, (or maybe in a large condo on some remote island, whichever floats your boat) for the past decade or so, you would be aware that OSX DOES have viruses, malware etc, as well as numerous exploitable flaws involving SlowTime, just not as much as Windows. After all, the baddies want to hunt where the BIG quails roam if you know what I mean. But that can change, if them quails o'er yonder start eatin' them "apples" and start gettin' fatter y'know wat I'm sayin'?

[Maxintosh]

The fact that you can't run OSX apps side-by-side with Windows apps in Windows i.e. via virtualization, is APPLE's fault, NOT Windows'

That's just a fancy way of saying that Apple is smarter than microsoft Your words, not mine.

 

you would be aware that OSX DOES have viruses

Don't embarrass yourself, you're already half deluded. Saying "OS X" means nothing, because 10.0 and something like 10.4 are light years different. I really couldn't care less what OS X was doing way back in 2001 because no one here today uses it (or OS 9). I think you'll find that most people only care about what can happen to their computer today, and in regards to that, OS X users aren't worried

 

After all, the baddies want to hunt where the BIG quails roam if you know what I mean.

You obviously get all of your information off of the internet

[Gabotron]

For the record, you CAN avoid getting viruses on PCs. In fact, my father wich is by no mean an expert followed the few tips I gave him and his Vista installation has been running virus free for a year now. It's all a matter of not being retarded. The vast majority of malwares that end up installed on a computer are so because of whats in front of the computer, dumbasses clicking yes or cancel when ever they see a button.

 

Also, there ARE viruses on MacOs 10.x . You need to realize that or it will bite your ass in the long run. While it is true that the system itself is much less vulnerable than XP or maybe even Vista, it is NOT perfect. Also, you need to take into consideration that the apple platform has less viruses because {censored}, they have 5% market share. Any script kiddie that wants to {censored} people off would rather go for windows. The more people start using Macs, the more viruses will appear and that is why you need to start NOW using safe computing habits.

 

Oh, and heres a fun one =):

 

http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20060513

[Maxintosh]

For the record, you CAN avoid getting viruses on PCs.

Yeah, by not turning them on...

 

What you're claiming is that by simply being "careful" that you can actually change the framework of the underlying windows agriculture? According to CNN, windows viruses have grown over 400%, and that was as of a couple of years ago so it's much worse now, and you're speculating that your father is virus free simply because he's been careful? What in your mind tells you that makes any sense? I've got two words for you; Occam's razor. It's much more likely that your father actually has viruses and simply hasn't detected them yet, or that he's simply been lucky so far. Being that he's on a windows platform he eventually WILL get viruses, you can count on that

 

The vast majority of malwares that end up installed on a computer are so because of whats in front of the computer, dumbasses clicking yes or cancel when ever they see a button.

This is the only correct thing that you've said, and it also goes for Mac users. In fact russian organized crime called the russian business network has been working on such a 'virus' for Macs over the last 5 years, but they can't find the right combination just yet. You can read about them here. They know better than anyone how impossibly difficult it is to create a Mac virus and I guarantee you that if they could actually make one, they would have done it by now, as it would be extremely profitable for them to do so. Their best chance to do this is by 'tricking' someone, which is explained in detail in the study linked above.

 

there ARE viruses on MacOs 10.x .

Again, no one is worried about that because no one uses the older versions of OS X as their main operating system anymore, just the same as no one drives a model T anymore. It's comical how you windows disciples never actually say Tiger or Leopard. Is it impossible for OS X to get a virus, maybe not but then again who knows, as it hasn't happened yet. Is it highly improbable? Hell yeah! More people have died playing the guitar than have received a Mac virus, but that doesn't make me afraid of playing the guitar. The chances are so slim of getting a Mac virus that it would be silly to ever worry about. Self-proclaimed security experts such as yourself have been predicting a Mac virus for years and years now, and guess what? It hasn't happened. Weird huh? Open minded Mac users have waited day after day... week after week... month after month... year after year... but for all the rhetoric that you windows stepford users have been soothsaying about, this supposedly "unavoidable doom" just doesn't seem to be materializing in the real world. You'd literally be better off prophesying about being struck by lightning, at least those odds of happening are one in 650,000. Theorize and speculate your "Mac virus doom" all you want, but the simple fact remains that it's never actually happened, and all your FUD in the world isn't going to change that Tiger and Leopard are secure, and that's all that matters.

 

you need to take into consideration that the apple platform has less viruses because {censored}, they have 5% market share.

And you need to stop repeating urban legend, and start thinking for yourself by doing at least a little bit of research on this topic The 'Mac market share' theory has been disproved for many years now. It's simply not true! It's literally a fallacy and nothing more. I'll tell you what Einstein, since you're such an expert on market share viruses explain this; why is it that Macs had 1/10th the market share with OS9 than they do with Leopard, and yet Macs got virueses when OS9 was being used. According to your 'market share theory' millions and millions of Mac users should be getting viruses now, instead of back then, and yet the opposite is true Oops... guess your 'market share therory' isn't as air tight as you thought it was huh? The fact is that there are plenty of good examples that DISPROVE your market share theory. I won't list them all here as you could just as well google for them, but I will list another well known one for the record. There was a thriving virus scene for DOS back in the 1980s, even though there was only a microscopically small fraction as many people using DOS as people using windows today. According to your market share theory this should never have happened, but history shows us that it did. The fact of the matter is that writing viruses today is BIG business, and they will write a virus ANYWHERE that they can find a vulnerability. They are not making Mac viruses simply because they can't find any vulnerability to exploit. That alone should tell you something about how bullet proof Tiger and Leopard are. Market share has NOTHING to do with it! Windows security issues today can be traced back directly to very dumb decisions by Microsoft in the beginning that still haunt them to this very day. He's another way to look at this topic, let’s say that you wanted to impress your virus writing playmates and/or the world with your virus-writing skill. Which one would you do... write the 300,000th Windows virus and join the long list of script kiddies, or do you write the worlds first OS X virus and obtain international fame? How weird is it that no one to date has been able to write that OS X virus, and yet I'm sure they've been trying very hard to make one. Maybe instead of just repeating urban legends like a parrot, next time you might actually do some real research on the topic of OS platform agriculture and learn the facts of the matter. People who repeat the 'Mac market share' theory only shot themselves in the foot by showing their ignorance on the topic. Market share, while it may be a convenient theory, is STILL a fallacy. It's a red herring and it has nothing to do with the real facts of why viruses are in the wild in this day and age.

[Gabotron]

Yeah, by not turning them on...

 

What you're claiming is that by simply being "careful" that you can actually change the framework of the underlying windows agriculture? According to CNN, windows viruses have grown over 400%, and that was as of a couple of years ago so it's much worse now, and you're speculating that your father is virus free simply because he's been careful? What in your mind tells you that makes any sense? I've got two words for you; Occam's razor. It's much more likely that your father actually has viruses and simply hasn't detected them yet, or that he's simply been lucky so far. Being that he's on a windows platform he eventually WILL get viruses, you can count on that

 

The vast majority of malwares that end up installed on a computer are so because of whats in front of the computer, dumbasses clicking yes or cancel when ever they see a button.

This is the only correct thing that you've said, and it also goes for Mac users. In fact russian organized crime called the russian business network has been working on such a 'virus' for Macs over the last 5 years, but they can't find the right combination just yet. You can read about them here. They know better than anyone how impossibly difficult it is to create a Mac virus and I guarantee you that if they could actually make one, they would have done it by now, as it would be extremely profitable for them to do so. Their best chance to do this is by 'tricking' someone, which is explained in detail in the study linked above.

 

Either you contradicted your self or thats yet an other hateboy double standard. So if my father managed to avoid viruses, its because he is lucky windows did'nt {censored} a brick in his hands, but when we talk about Pcs AND Macs, its ALL user fault. I can't honestly imagine you are believing all the {censored} you are spewing. The days of windows ME/98, hell, XP pre sp2 are OVER. Unless you are a dumbass or have down syndrome, it is much, much more difficult to crash either Vista or SP2, hell, get it infected with viruses to the point where it becomes unusuable. I hope you realize that most people that do complain a lot about that simply dont know what the hell they are doing or just have not used either as their main computer and are just lying about it. The only thing it is really vulnerable to, nowadays, is pretty much all human related and that will mess up either PCs or Macs. Wich is where the market share argument kicks in: if you take an OS based on UNIX (wich is a solid base but NOT impenetrable) used on 5% sold computers in the world give or take, the risk of the "Mac virus doom" is, of course, unprobable at MOST.

 

If you really believe, and that means being honest as much as you can with your knowledge, that any piece of code is totally virus, bug, crash or whatever-proof, you are just not educated enough about it and need to open your eyes. You need to turn all that marketing {censored} that is turning your OS into a social movement off. Most of the things you posted, especially in the last part, would make any computer enthusiasts that have a clue shameful. But I guess you hope that if you throw enough {censored} on the wall, some of it will stick. Wich for you translates in denial of what is the current state of modern OSes.

[scj312]

I have never gotten a virus or any spyware/adware on my PC, and I don't run any Anti-whatever software. I just use common sense.

 

Hackers have said before that it is easier to get into Mac OS X than Vista.

[Headrush69]

I have never gotten a virus or any spyware/adware on my PC, and I don't run any Anti-whatever software. I just use common sense.

Damn lucky too. (At least not gotten one that you know about. )

 

I'm not about to argue the Leopard vs. Vista security issues, as it's generally a waste of time and just plain old misconceptions spread by people that don't have a clue, but all users whether OS X/Linux/Windows should have certain security measures. Common sense alone isn't enough for most people and things as benign looking as email attachments are hard to guarantee virus/spyware free unless both parties are working together to implement security features. Sure you can not accept attachments but that really isn't an applicable or productive solution for most people. What people forget is that although a virus may only affect a Windows based PC doesn't mean that a OS X based machine can't pass it on.

 

Sure in the Windows dominated world it nice as the minority group to be proud and able to say we've never had a virus or spyware, that doesn't mean that a virus or spyware wasn't ON our machines. With it's market share and the effect it can have on the internet, Windows viruses ultimately can affect all OS users.

 

Meowy, you surely are right thought that the biggest security hole when it comes to spyware is the user.

[iFred]

My old high school ran OSX 10.4, and now they have 10.5, and the last I heard from an old friend was that they were still able to break into the machines. Its not that Apple's OS isnt horribe, its just not on par with inventions like the wheel, or the light bulb. Im pretty sure you get mad with Windows fanboys who tell you that Vista is super-fantastic-amazing, but keep in mind that your blatant closed mindedness is just as retarded. Leopard has flaws, and so does Vista. They're both great OS's.

[Headrush69]

Leopard has flaws, and so does Vista. They're both great OS's.

Some people just can't accept that for whatever reason.

 

(PS: I'd swap Vista with XP + SP2 and then agree with your statement. )

[apowerr]

Leopard has flaws, and so does Vista. They're both great OS's.

Exactly! I prefer Leopard (which I give 11/10) over Vista (which I give 8/10), but I still use Vista daily for games and such. Windows doesn't suck, and it's hardware and application support is actually quite remarkable. It just lacks the polish and fit and finish of OS X (and NT overall is just archaic).

[Maxintosh]

Either you contradicted your self or thats yet an other hateboy double standard.

...or your comprehension skills are low. Please read what is actually written, and not just what you want to read.

 

 

So if my father managed to avoid viruses, its because he is lucky windows did'nt {censored} a brick in his hands, but when we talk about Pcs AND Macs, its ALL user fault.

Yes, he is in fact lucky that (so far) he has not received a vista virus. It has very little to do with the user, and everything to do with the platforms underlying framework. You claimed that just because someone is 'careful' that they can effectively re-write the fundamental framework of how windows operates, and that id just plain BS and highly illogical.

 

it is much, much more difficult to crash either Vista or SP2, hell, get it infected with viruses to the point where it becomes unusuable.

Not true. You are in denial and due for a rude awakening one day soon. Vista was getting viruses even before it was commercially available. In fact it took only eight days for the first one to come out. Not only that but they found a batch of laptops (pre-installed with vista) that were found to have been infected with a 13-year-old boot sector virus. So much for your so-called vista high tech security The only difference between xp and vista is that vista has User Account Control and PatchGuard. Let's look at these individually; User Account Control cannot be taken seriously for the very same reason that you yourself have mentioned. This feature can be easily bypassed. Either the user will simply click on “allow” or s/he will simply enter the administrator password without a second thought. So much for that feature. Here is what security analysts are saying about the next feature - Patchguard:

 

The PatchGuard function monitors modifications to the service table, and the kernel descriptor table. At first glance, this would seem to solve the issue of Trojans which mask their presence in the system. However, PatchGuard can hardly be viewed as providing serious protection against rootkits. It is, by its very nature, vulnerable, as is demonstrated by the existence of documented methods for disabling protection. The major vulnerability within PatchGuard is architectural: the code which ensures protection is executed at the same level as code which it is both designed to protect, and to protect against. This protection has the same rights as a potential attacker, and can be evaded or disabled. Ways in which PatchGuard can be exploited or disabled are already known. link

 

The bottom line is that it is estimated that vista will only be around 5% better at guarding against viruses from the web, and even that is only for the 64 bit version. So let's do a little math shall we? Let's pretend for the sake of your argument that everyone in the world is using the 64 bit of vista, as of 11/07 there were over 200,000 viruses for the windows platform. Less 5% would mean that you could still be infected by over 190,000 viruses, and we know that in the real world that only a small fraction of people use the 64 bit version. A big reason for this is that some of the security functions in vista are aimed at the 64 bit version, and there simply aren't many people using that version. By the time the 64 bit version is in wide use, that 5% will have evaporated and nulled out. So much for this great vista security you're claiming Yes, technically vista is slightly better at security but let's face it, that's not saying much. The majority of users will find the way in which vista tries to accomplish this feature totally unacceptable.

 

if you take an OS based on UNIX used on 5% sold computers in the world give or take, the risk of the "Mac virus doom" is, of course, unprobable at MOST.

Actually it is just the opposite, that is if you use reason instead of theory. OS X is a much more attractive target for virus writers. As we mentioned before, let’s say that you wanted to impress your virus writing playmates and/or the world with your virus-writing skill. Which one would you do... write the 300,000th Windows virus and join the long list of script kiddies, or do you write the worlds first OS X virus and obtain international fame? The fact that there has never been a Mac virus makes it all the more tempting for someone to try to make the first one! The fastest way to show off a virus writers capabilities would be for them to write the first OS X virus, and yet, you never see one in the real world. Weird.

 

If you really believe, and that means being honest as much as you can with your knowledge, that any piece of code is totally virus, bug, crash or whatever-proof

Well actually that goes both ways. First, I never said that it was impossible, but I did say that it IS HIGHLY improbable! It's not an 'all or nothing' kind of thing. Also, you cannot use your 'never say never' theory without acknowledging that a piece of code just might be next to impossible to penetrate. It works both ways. So let's say that the chances of getting a Mac virus are 1 in a hundred million, sure that says that it's still technically slightly possible, but when choosing an operating system I'll pick the one that's more secure every time, thank you very much! OS X is not just a little bit more secure than windows, it is light years more secure. Maybe you don't care about security but for a LOT of people having the odds of not getting a virus means a LOT to them! We'll note here for everyone that while you are good with windows rhetoric, you still have not explained why Macs used to get viruses (with a much smaller market share than they have today) but that it presently doesn't happen for Tiger or Leopard users with a much larger market share. Parrots know how to say and repeat things too, but that doesn't mean that they understand what they're saying. Instead of just repeating urban myths that you've heard on the net, maybe just once try to use some real reasoning with some real facts. You cannot back up the 'Mac market share myth' because in truth it is a fallacy.

 

 

Damn lucky too. (At least not gotten one that you know about.)

Exactly. It is known that some vista anti-virus programs simply do not detect all viruses. Ironically the worst is the one from windows. In tests it appears that various threat types including keyloggers and trojans were able to reside within the vista test environments undetected.

 

Fact: AV programs only detect KNOWN viruses That's something to keep in mind.

 

Im pretty sure you get mad with Windows fanboys who tell you that Vista is super-fantastic-amazing

Why should I get mad about that? It's their business what OS they choose to use, and they will suffer accordingly. The only thing that upsets me is when self proclaimed security experts mindlessly repeat urban legends as if they were fact. Regurgitating disproved myths doesn't help anyone.

 

but keep in mind that your blatant closed mindedness is just as retarded.

Wrong again. I am not closed minded in this matter, in fact far from it, but I do refuse to accept idle opinions as fact. If they cannot prove their point with facts then that in itself should tell you something about what they are claiming. I could easily have given 4 or 5 other examples of why the market share myth is not true. I didn't belabor the point because giving one example already disproves it, and we gave two good examples! Common sense dictates that an operating system can only be as secure as its framework allows it to be. There is no dispute that OS X has a much better and more secure framework. Even windows fanboys will admit to that. What operating system a person chooses to use is their business and I'll be the first one to defend them that right, but fear mongering based on disproved theories is just plain irresponsible.

[Gabotron]

Regurgitating disproved myths doesn't help anyone.

 

How ironic. I guess I'll leave it at that and let you enjoy yourself. It is to me (and even a few others as far as I can read) obvious that the clue train has missed your stop. You seem to perpetually live in 2002. You remind me of that friend of mine that kept quoting slashdot at every opportunity for the same unknown reasons (bashing windows and whatnot), repeating myths, quoting either biased or simply incorrect sources everytime he could, basicly talking out of his ass and I sure enjoyed debunking everything as it came.

 

You are beyond salvation. I will enjoy my Vista computer as is, and I will let my buddies that use mac do so as well, each and everyone of us in a virus free environnement for that we know what the hell we are doing. Your argument simply boils down to "my father is stronger than yours' with pretty bad wit in bonus.