backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by tmouse.. on Oct 5 at 8:20 AM

Memory protections in Snow Leopard are still too weak, though it shows other improvements

Apple has been bragging about the security of its new operating system, OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard".  Leaping from Leopard to Snow Leopard, Apple gives its users limited antivirus/anti-malware protection (the feature currently only detects two signatures out of a handful of known OS X malware signatures).

Still, security experts aren't so hot on Snow Leopard, criticizing the operating system's default firewall setting of "off", its lack of fully automatic updates, and weak anti-phishing efforts for Safari.  They also weren't impressed that Apple shipped with a vulnerable version of Flash, which downgrade users from the safer current version.

Now one prominent Mac hacker has pointed out a significant difference that makes Snow Leopard less secure than the upcoming Microsoft OS, Windows 7. 

Charlie Miller, of Baltimore-based Independent Security Evaluators, the co-author of The Mac Hacker's Handbook, and winner of two consecutive "Pwn2own" hacker contests is about as experienced as OS X hackers come.  He recently criticized Snow Leopard, stating, "Apple didn't change anything.  It's the exact same ASLR as in Leopard, which means it's not very good."

ASLR is address space layout randomization, a security technology that randomly assigns data to memory to make it tougher for attackers to determine the location of critical operating system functions.  According to Mr. Miller, unlike Windows 7, which features robust ASLR, Snow Leopard's ASLR is half-baked. It does not properly randomize the heap, the stack and the dynamic linker, the part of Snow Leopard that links multiple shared libraries for an executable.  This means that it's much easier for hackers to attack Snow Leopard via memory injection than Windows 7.

Still Mr. Miller offered some praise for Apple.  They rewrote QuickTime X, their video player, largely from scratch fixing many holes and insecurities in the process -- including an exploit Mr. Miller had been saving.  He states, "Apple rewrote a bunch of QuickTime, which was really smart, since it's been the source of lots of bugs in the past.  They've shaken out hundreds of bugs in QuickTime over the years, but it was still really smart of them to rewrite it.  [Still] I'd reduce the number of file formats from 200 or so to 50, and reduce the attack surface. I don't think anyone would miss them."

He also praises Apple's relatively effective implementation of DEP (data execution prevention), another memory protection scheme that Windows 7 also has.  DEP is also present in Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) and Windows Vista.  Still without ASLR, DEP is only so good he says.  He states, "Snow Leopard's more secure than Leopard, but it's not as secure as Vista or Windows 7.  When Apple has both [in place], that's when I'll stop complaining about Apple's security."

So why aren't Macs being exploited left and right and why can Apple still air commercials claiming superior security?  Mr. Miller states, "It's harder to write exploits for Windows than the Mac, but all you see are Windows exploits. That's because if [the hacker] can hit 90% of the machines out there, that's all he's gonna do. It's not worth him nearly doubling his work just to get that last 10%."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Quoted for truth
By Motoman on 9/17/2009 12:14:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
That's because if [the hacker] can hit 90% of the machines out there, that's all he's gonna do. It's not worth him nearly doubling his work just to get that last 10%.


Apple: security by obscurity.

They should be actively dissuading people from buying more Macs, because if their marketshare increases, they'll just attract hackers to their shiny, pastel-colored fields.

...although one would tend to believe that ridiculously high prices and ridiculously limited software options would be all the dissuasion people would need.

Of course, there is some group of people who, apparently, can't manage to figure out how to use 2 buttons on a mouse...thankfully, holding the Apple key plus the Ctrl key on the keyboard while clicking the one-and-only button the mouse is a lot easier than clicking the "other" button on your mouse by itself.




RE: Quoted for truth
By PhoenixKnight on 9/17/2009 12:41:01 PM , Rating: 3
In all fairness, Macs have included 2-button mice for a while now, since they started using Intel processors. Also, it's just Ctrl+Mouse button, not Apple+Ctrl+Mouse button. I have to use a single-button mouse at work, and it's a complete PITA.

Granted, I have still run into a few Mac users who can't quite grasp the concept of how to use the right button and scroll wheel.


RE: Quoted for truth
By headbox on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Quoted for truth
By omnicronx on 9/17/2009 2:50:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The UI isn't designed for two buttons, but they added some right-click functionality just for the complainers.
The UI IS designed for two buttons, thats why people were whining. Mac's have had context menus for years, long before OSX, that has always been the primary use of the right click on any OS.

And if you are a power user, you should have to press more than one button? The entire point of keyboard shortcuts is so you have to do less, not more.


RE: Quoted for truth
By DCstewieG on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Quoted for truth
By omnicronx on 9/17/2009 1:21:30 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry but its still a pain in the ass on laptops. Using two fingers to do something that should take one click is counter intuitive, no 'seriously, the mouse argument' statement is going to change that. Gestures are also nice, but its no replacement for something as simple as a right click. Now I would understand if the functionality was different, but its not, context menus are exactly the same as unix and windows, so why not have a right click?
quote:
To get back on topic, no OS is perfect. But whether OS X doesn't get real world viruses because people don't try or because it's more secure, the outcome is the same: it doesn't get them.
Well why do osx malware keep poping up then? A few years ago there were no OSX malware/viruses out in the wild, and while the recent ones my be childesh compared to their Windows counterparts, they are still security threats. Furthermore many security analysts predict that malware creators actually pump out more malware as a result of the success of many security defenses. Now that Apple will bring security software by 2010 (which one again makes your claim even less credible, as why on earth would they do such a thing if 'they don't get viruses') it could easily act as a catalyst, in the usual cat and mouse game that happens on a day to day basis with PC's. Anyway you put it, your claim is dead wrong, OSX does have security flaws and can and has had viruses.


RE: Quoted for truth
By DCstewieG on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Quoted for truth
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 5:36:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
With a second physical button, you need to tuck your thumb over there.


Seriously? Did you just argue that point? Putting a 2nd finger on the touchpad is as much work as moving your thumb over to push a 2nd button.

quote:
The biggest real world malware on the Mac that I can think of has been the trojan in the warez copy of iWork, and there can never be perfect protection against those.


There's always a perfect protection, just not logical. Can't catch malware if your sledgehammer your computer.


RE: Quoted for truth
By PrinceGaz on 9/18/2009 12:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
Since when have people being using their thumb to press either of the two main mouse buttons?


RE: Quoted for truth
By afkrotch on 9/21/2009 5:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
We're talking about the touchpad on a laptop, where you can use a single button to hit either left or right click.

I don't use my thumb though. I just move my index finger down, after I finish mousing. My touchpad has scroll sliders along the botton and sides, so I don't need to hold down my left/right click.


RE: Quoted for truth
By adiposity on 9/21/2009 5:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously? Did you just argue that point? Putting a 2nd finger on the touchpad is as much work as moving your thumb over to push a 2nd button.


Right click dragging sucks with the Macbook method, IMO. You shouldn't ever have to put two fingers on the pad in order to do a button click, because then you may move the mouse when you don't intend to. Just not a great solution, even if it is workable.

Obviously, this is not a huge issue for Mac users because the interface is very useable even without the context menus / right-click interface. Running windows on a Macbook, though, is annoying unless you plug in a real mouse.

Obviously, the real reason for not having a second mouse button is simplicity. Macs just look streamlined and straightforward. I know Mac users who actually prefer NOT to have a second button. When I point out all the wasted fingers on that hand, they just shrug, and point out that it's never been an issue for them.

Apple was in a unique position to force people into having both mouse buttons, but they deliberately didn't do it, most likely because the single button is part of their image. Users are used to it and the interface doesn't really require two buttons.

It's pretty difficult to argue that lack of a second button is really an improvement, but you could make the case that the second button doesn't do much for Mac users.

-Dan


RE: Quoted for truth
By dark matter on 9/17/2009 1:56:32 PM , Rating: 4
For the most exploits = virus.

Its like claiming Apple employees never get ill because they are immune to viruses.

Maybe, but they can still get ill from fungal (trojans) infections or bacteria (3rd party exploits)

Whilst you may not a virus from clicking "Kenya West gets beat up" you can certainly get compromised.

Personally I think Apple are being totally irresponsible by continuing the misconception that Macs are immune from being exploited. It breeds complacency. And that is the last thing you need when it comes to the issue of security.


RE: Quoted for truth
By carrion on 9/17/2009 12:51:24 PM , Rating: 1
2-button USB mouse supported since 1998 (other formats supported prior to that), 2-button mouse shipped with all Macs since 2005. Update your rant - there're better reasons to gripe about Macs.


RE: Quoted for truth
By Icelight on 9/17/2009 9:13:49 PM , Rating: 5
So it can right click...

...but can it play Crysis?

;)


RE: Quoted for truth
By glennc on 9/18/2009 1:06:07 AM , Rating: 3
it doesn't want to


RE: Quoted for truth
By Boze on 9/18/2009 1:18:49 PM , Rating: 2
You mean it doesn't have time to, because its too busy trying to get rid of the trojan it got from iWork, to do some iWork in the first place.

I've always maintained that Macs are used by three classes of people:

1. Those who don't know any better and were indoctrinated through schools (shame on the schools, since Windows machines would be cheaper to buy, administer, and purchase peripherals for).

2. Those who want to look 'cool' by looking like other people (Note for the stupid and shallow, 'cool' people are 'cool' because they're nothing like you or anyone else. James Dean was 'cool' because no one like him had come before him).

3. Those who actually think they 'need' their Mac to do whatever it is they do. Hint people, whatever your Mac can do, there's a Windows program that will do it either: easier, with more precision, with greater degree of control and flexibility, or faster. And usually some combination of those attributes.

The irony of all this is that I'm posting this from an iMac in the Computer Commmons of the Mitchell Memorial Library on campus at Mississippi State University. Why you ask? Because there are over 100 Windows XP machines here and they're always taken. The iMacs, however, are always available...


RE: Quoted for truth
By ersts on 9/18/2009 2:34:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
1. Those who don't know any better and were indoctrinated through schools (shame on the schools, since Windows machines would be cheaper to buy, administer, and purchase peripherals for).


I don't know about that. Back when I was in school, there was Win9x and DOS, and in case you forgot, configuring IRQs, putting in entries in autoexec.bat to allocate ram for "expanded" and "extended" memory, and seeing that most apps couldn't use "expanded" and other fun stuff wasn't easy to do or administer.

The Macs in my high school's yearbook publishing room could auto-find and configure the Apple laser printers, had easy to use GUIs far more advanced than Win 3.1, and were already set for networking. We even had the original Mac from like 85 or so, and that had a 3.5inch floppy while the PC world still had 5.25 drives. What took Intel with ATX to bring soft power on computers, already was on the Mac computers from 1985.

Yep, they were expensive though. But for running PageMaker, it was necessary.


RE: Quoted for truth
By Lerianis on 9/18/2009 2:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
Then why does every Mac I see in Best Buy (which are not 4 years old) still have a freaking one button mouse? Explain that, bubu!

The fact is that Mac's are STILL being shipped with only ONE BUTTON MOUSES, bottom line, no lies, no fabrications.


RE: Quoted for truth
By Baladen on 9/18/2009 3:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
You're seeing the mighty mouse, which has 4 buttons. Left, right, mouse ball, and squeeze the sides. It's just about the most unintuitive design I've ever seen on a computer peripheral, since all the buttons are 'hidden' with no indications on the mouse that they even exist.


RE: Quoted for truth
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 5:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
No, it's more than 1 button. It's just a total piece of crap mouse. The right-click on the mighty mouse doesn't work correctly, until you train your hand to use it.

Apple wants to keep the look of a 1 button mouse, while having more buttons. That's fine an all, but every single Mac user I know, goes out and buys a good mouse.


RE: Quoted for truth
By ersts on 9/18/2009 2:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, the people on Amazon rate their mouse 2.5 out of 5. Their keyboards though, get 4.5 out of 5, that they do a good job with.


RE: Quoted for truth
By afkrotch on 9/21/2009 5:19:03 AM , Rating: 2
The older keyboard I liked, cept they were for Macs. Now the new chicklet ones, I don't like. Sony has those chicklet style ones on their laptops too.


RE: Quoted for truth
By tmouse on 9/17/2009 12:49:48 PM , Rating: 1
I agree to a certain degree. But it is not purely security by obscurity, to some degree it is the perceived persona of the company. For example even if Linux exceeded Apple in market share it would remain less of a target, since there is no corporate persona associated with it. Microsoft is double hit with a huge amount of market share and the persona of being the corporate goliath. Now if Apple keeps getting more and more negative press and their real draconian corporate persona overshadows the carefully crafted public image then even without an increase in market they will experience increased attack exposure.


RE: Quoted for truth
By anotherdude on 9/17/2009 1:07:51 PM , Rating: 3
I have wondered if MS hate might be the source of some malicious software but lately it seems that most of these attacks are trying to make money somehow, buy getting you to buy fake security software or by stealing credit card info, for example. I assure you these criminals do not give 2 cents for Apple's bogus halo!

I suspect that virus/spyware writers are just doing what they know with methods developed over time specifically to attack Windows because it has about 93% of the market. Macs don't even have 10%, it's 5% or even less, worldwide, (according to net applications revised formula and according to sales figures). So why bother?


RE: Quoted for truth
By omnicronx on 9/17/2009 1:28:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
For example even if Linux exceeded Apple in market share it would remain less of a target, since there is no corporate persona associated with it. Microsoft is double hit with a huge amount of market share and the persona of being the corporate goliath.
Not a very good example, Linux/Unix has a huge presence in the server market, and they are targeted far more because of such.

It is security through obscurity, but there are many other factors. You are right, not being in a corporate environment does help Apple, but I think one of the big ones is you are far more likely to be networking with other PC's than you are on a to network from Apple to Apple. This is one of the main transportation methods for worms (especially) and many pieces of malware. Of course this also ties into security through obscurity, but as Macs become more prevalent in the home environment, this is likely to change.


RE: Quoted for truth
By RjBass on 9/18/2009 9:33:36 AM , Rating: 2
I was about to point out the same thing. In the server market Linux has a huge market share. Heck even in the little private school I teach at, we have 4 servers. Only one of them is a Windows server and the other three are running Ubuntu and Fedora.


RE: Quoted for truth
By tmouse on 10/5/2009 8:20:21 AM , Rating: 3
You missed my point completely. It has NOTHING to do with the systems being in a corporation environment per se. I'm talking about people's perception of Apple vs Microsoft. Microsoft is perceived as the big bad corporation, while Apple is perceived as being warm and fuzzy, hence it will remain less of a target. Real intrusion methods are not released on the net, they are for making money and the less that know about them the longer they last. The VAST majority of Microsoft's attacks are purely to throw a stone at Goliath and not necessarily to gain access. Now I agree most worms are used to create botnets for net attacks and here windows preeminence makes it a target. My point was Linux has no "evil" corporate identity, Apple has some but Microsoft has a huge one. Even if Apple and Linux gains more market share they will remain less of a target.


RE: Quoted for truth
By gstrickler on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Quoted for truth
By sprockkets on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Quoted for truth
By zsejk on 9/18/2009 5:37:09 AM , Rating: 1
I wanted to vote you up but I'm apparently an idiot 'cause I can't. But good comment, I liked it.


RE: Quoted for truth
By sprockkets on 9/18/2009 3:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
People have been proclaiming doom and gloom for OSX since 2003. It hasn't happened, and I doubt OSX will be the new XP.

Other people who proclaim doom for OSX are usually hard core Windows pundits like Dvorak or Enderle, and people who make the most noise about OSX viruses are anti-virus makers wanting to make a buck off of Macs.

Here's another little tib-bit: Most of my customers who get infected never see a dialog box or anything installing, but say it just happened. OSX doesn't have Windows silent background installation, so malware can't easily install without a user noticing.


RE: Quoted for truth
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 6:04:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Don't bother trying to explain it. Somehow these people think that since Microsoft left open unnecessary services in the background, ran those with system/root level permissions, auto executed attachments upon opening emails, left ActiveX unchecked, forced users to run as admins because running as users in XP didn't work, that Apple was stupid too and did the same mistakes.


I'm not sure what any of that has to do with where we are at today. As of right now, OSX is less secure than Vista/Win 7.

I don't see anyone saying that Apple was stupid in their security implementations, just that they should ramp up their security to match or exceed their competitors.


RE: Quoted for truth
By gstrickler on 9/18/2009 12:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with where we are at today. As of right now, OSX is less secure than Vista/Win 7.
No, it's not. The biggest security threat is the user, and Windows users are no more "secure" than Mac users. In fact, the default user security settings in Vista (haven't seen Win7 yet) are still not as secure as the default settings in Mac OS X. Win 7 might finally have sane and reasonably secure user defaults. I certainly hope it does.

The specific feature addressed in this article, ASLR, has nothing to do with being secure, it only affects the difficulty of developing a security hole into a working exploit. First you have to find a security hole, then you have to figure out a way to exploit it. Until you find a security hole, ASLR is a non issue.

The fact is that Mac OS X has ASLR, just not the best implementation of that feature. Hopefully, Apple will fix that with a service pack.


RE: Quoted for truth
By afkrotch on 9/21/2009 5:31:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think I'm going to believe the guy who hacks and is part of a Security Evaluator's company.

Apple's ASLR is weaker than Win7's ASLR. Bam, less secure. You don't need to find a security hole to be less secure.

One bank's vault has 5 ft thick steel walls, while another bank's vault has 3 ft thick steel walls. There's no security hole, but one is less secure than the other.

Also Apple doesn't do nice free service packs, like Windows. They do OS releases that cost you money and equate to little more than a service pack. Just like the minor move from Leopard to Snow Leopard.


RE: Quoted for truth
By gstrickler on 9/21/2009 9:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple's ASLR is weaker than Win7's ASLR. Bam, less secure. You don't need to find a security hole to be less secure.

One bank's vault has 5 ft thick steel walls, while another bank's vault has 3 ft thick steel walls. There's no security hole, but one is less secure than the other.
It's more like, two banks, two similar vaults, both have safe deposit boxes in the vaults. One has safe deposit boxes with double key locks, the other has safe deposit boxes with single key locks. Either way, you have to get into the vault first, then you still have to get past at least one key lock.

quote:
Also Apple doesn't do nice free service packs, like Windows.
Yes, they do. There have 11 service packs for Mac OS X 10.4.x, and 8 service packs for 10.5.x
quote:
They do OS releases that cost you money and equate to little more than a service pack. Just like the minor move from Leopard to Snow Leopard.
Snow Leopard is a "service pack" in exactly the same way that Win7 is "a service pack for Vista". They both consist of significant rewrites and streamlining of the infrastructure, include significant new developer focused features in the infrastructure, are notably smaller and faster than their predecessors, and include very few changes in the the user interface or user features. You should learn something about Mac OS X before you misrepresent it.

Call it a "service pack" if you want, but compare the prices of these two "service packs" (neither one is a service pack):

Mac OS 10.6 = $29-$169. $49-$229 (MSRP) for a 5 computer Family pack. The $169 and $229 prices include new versions of all the iLife and iWork applications.

Win 7 = $99-$229. upgrade. $149 for a 3-computer Family Pack of Win 7 Home. Must buy a 32-bit or 64-bit version.


RE: Quoted for truth
By sprockkets on 9/18/2009 2:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well, like I posted, does Vista get infected like XP? No, because they fixed their glaring security problems.

OSX never had such wide open attack vectors. That's why both Vista and OSX will not have a blaster worm or conflicker. Just turning on the firewall blocked the blaster worm, something that OSX should have on be default.

Here is something else to consider: What happens after you remove the virus. I've seen Windows fail to load drivers, execute programs (when you open any program, it brings up the dialog box of "What program do you want to use to open it" since the virus put in the registry itself to shell execute when any program was opened), lose the internet, etc.

That takes a long time to fix. Reinstalling windows and all your programs is equally time consuming.

OSX is different. Even if OSX got infected, you can do an archive and install and OSX will be cleaned out with all your programs and settings still intact.

Not having a registry makes it easy to keep your programs without reinstalling.


RE: Quoted for truth
By afkrotch on 9/21/2009 5:31:55 AM , Rating: 2
System Restore. Bam, fixed.


RE: Quoted for truth
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 6:00:03 AM , Rating: 1
OSX runs the Mach kernel, which is not BSD. It's a replacement for the BSD kernel.

quote:
Consider this: If Mac users are tens of millions of richer, clueless, users running an insecure OS, connected to to the Internet, where are all the exploits that should invite? It sounds like a scammers dream come true. Tens of millions of "easy targets", yet the attacks and exploits are extremely rare. Why?


There's what? Like 50 million or less OSX/OS9/OS8 users in the world. There's over a billion PC users in the world.

Hmmm...hit the billion, then put the same amount of work to hit the other 50 million. Doesn't seem to make much sense.

Have to put more work in to hit the iPhone/iPod user crowd too. Again, doesn't make sense.

quote:
All security systems have vulnerabilities . If there is a human involved in it's operation, that's a big vulnerability. The questions are and always has been:

1. Is there enough security to discourage or defeat the vast majority of attacks, or to cause the attackers to look elsewhere?

2. How can we mitigate the loss/damage caused by an attack?

And those questions always have to be considered in the context of the value of what the security system is protecting. If you're protecting Ft Knox, a large bank, military secrets, or a celebrity, you need a different level of security than a typical business or average person.


Over a billion users, under 50 million users. Which do you think should have a higher level of security?


RE: Quoted for truth
By gstrickler on 9/18/2009 12:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OSX runs the Mach kernel, which is not BSD.
You should try checking your facts before posting. NextStep was originally based upon Mach, but they dropped the Mach microkernel many years ago due to performance problems.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_kernel
quote:
Today further experimental research on Mach appears ended, ... Neither Mac OS X nor FreeBSD maintain the microkernel structure pioneered in Mach

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
quote:
Certain parts from FreeBSD's and NetBSD's implementation of Unix were incorporated in Nextstep, the core of Mac OS X

Mac OS X is built on a hybrid BSD derived kernel. Parts of Mach were incorporated into BSD, and Mac OS X does retain some additional features from Mach, but it's inaccurate to portray it as based upon Mach since the primary feature of Mach was the microkernel, which has mostly ceased development and been replaced with a hybrid BSD kernel. Mac OS X is more BSD than Mach.

Interesting side note from the Mach_kernel link above (emphasis added):
quote:
The lead developer on the Mach project, Richard Rashid, has been working at Microsoft since 1991 in various top-level positions revolving around the Microsoft Research division. Another of the original Mach developers, Avie Tevanian, was formerly head of software at NeXT, then Chief Software Technology Officer at Apple Computer until March 2006.


RE: Quoted for truth
By afkrotch on 9/21/2009 5:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU

quote:
XNU was a hybrid kernel combining version 2.5 of the Mach kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University with components from 4.3BSD


Sorry, still Mach, with some BSD.


RE: Quoted for truth
By glennc on 9/18/2009 1:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
why do you care what other people spend THEIR money on? really none of your business or are you 12 years old and feel the need to jump on every mac article and say the same idiotic thing?

i bought a mac because i felt like a change from windows, nothing more nothing less. and guess what, i like it more. i hate the styling and the stigma that goes with it but not enough to sway my decision as i don't buy into any of the marketing BS.


As a Windows user,
By DarkElfa on 9/17/2009 11:58:40 AM , Rating: 5
I can honestly say that it doesn't matter if Windows 7 is more secure, it will still be at more risk. Its not how much protection you have, its how much someone wants to break in that matters. I would say that whole a bank has cameras and guards and vaults, its still more at risk for break in than my house simply because more people want to break into the bank. Windows 7 could be 100 times more secure than OSX but people are 1000 times more interested in breaking in because there is actually a benefit to doing so.

That's why people use Macs, its a status symbol that allow them to have the computer experience without actually having to expose themselves to either the dangers or benefits of owning an actual computer.




RE: As a Windows user,
By invidious on 9/17/2009 12:46:32 PM , Rating: 4
Spending 30% more money to add training wheels to a computer? I'd rather install windows 3.1 for free, I'm sure it doesn't have many viruses targetted towards it either.


RE: As a Windows user,
By Suntan on 9/17/2009 1:02:09 PM , Rating: 3
Bigger target or not, I would rather have an OS with robust provisions built in, and a little common sense not to click on every file that randomly gets emailed to me, than to have an OS that is less secure and an attitdue that nothing can harm me.

-Suntan


RE: As a Windows user,
By gstrickler on 9/17/2009 6:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would rather have an OS with robust provisions built in... than to have an OS that is less secure ....
Then you should switch to a Unix/Linux based OS.


RE: As a Windows user,
By afkrotch on 9/21/2009 5:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
Or simply get Win7.


RE: As a Windows user,
By CrazyBernie on 9/17/2009 3:15:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That's why people use Macs, its a status symbol that allow them to have the computer experience without actually having to expose themselves to either the dangers or benefits of owning an actual computer.


Oh you're exposed, much like Borat exposes himself in public... it's just that no one really wants to look.


RE: As a Windows user,
By gstrickler on 9/17/2009 5:52:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's why people use Macs, its a status symbol that allow them to have the computer experience without actually having to expose themselves to either the dangers or benefits of owning an actual computer.
I primarily support Windows PC's. I know PCs and Windows very well, I've built my own machines, done some light component level repair, written firmware, networking stacks, communications software, database (from scratch), relational database design, and multi-user systems that require real time responses 24/7. None of the hundreds of machines I've setup using Windows NT and it's descendants have ever been compromised other than by user error (and that only on machines where one of the programs required running as administrator). Of course, I always install a separate firewall/router so the Windows machine isn't directly connected to the internet.

While I supported Windows 3.x and 9x, I never used them for my machines. I went straight from DOS to Win NT 4 when it first came out. I still have Windows machines, and use them several times per week. So much for my background.

Mac users own Macs so they can get work done, without having to learn much about computers. It's comparable to driving a car, most people don't want to have to be a mechanic to drive a car. There are a lot of enthusiasts who do learn how to work on and repair their cars, and that's fine, but it's not for everyone.

Apple does make very nice hardware and software, until the Dell Adamo and the new HP Envy 13/15, there were no laptops that were as nice an overall package as the MacBook Pro. With PCs, you could get faster machines, cheaper machines, lighter machines, but you couldn't get the combination of performance, battery run-time, size, and weight at any price.

Personally, I own and use a Mac because:

1. I prefer Mac OS X to Windows

2. It's reliable. I don't have to spend much time "futzing" with it to keep it working at top speed. I get paid to support computers, I don't want to spend my time fixing, tweaking, reinstalling, or troubleshooting my own machine any more than necessary. While my Windows machine are stable and secure, they do require more time (per machine) maintaining them than my Mac does.

3. It's flexible. I run Mac OS X 80%-90% of the time, but I can also run Windows for the 10%-20% of the time when I need it (usually only for compatibility testing). At my office, I have Windows machines, but when I'm out of the office, it's a lot easier to carry one Mac and be able to run Windows under Vmware Fusion than carrying a Mac plus one or more Windows laptops.

4. Battery run-time. Mac OS X gets 50%-100% more run-time on battery than the same machine running Windows XP/Vista (Win7 will get about 30% more, putting it closer to Mac OS X, but still trailing).

5. Weight. May be a non issue now with the Adamo and Envy machines, but when I bought my MBP, you couldn't get a PC comparable to the MBP. I get 4+ hours battery run-time on a 15" LED backlit, 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo with a 7200 RPM HD @ < 5.5 pounds. May be able to match that today, but not 2 years ago. Of course, the new 15" MBP gets 6-7 hours battery run-time, with a faster CPU and the same weight, so there is still no PC notebook that is comparable to the current MBP, but they have caught up to my 2 year old MBP.

6. I detest glossy screens (yes, including the ones that are standard on new Macs). Most Windows notebook machines switched to glossy screens years ago, so finding a PC notebook I didn't hate was difficult. I have a MBP with an anti-glare/matte screen, not one of the "GlossBooks". I'm glad to see Apple and more PC vendors offering anti-glare screens again.


RE: As a Windows user,
By maven81 on 9/18/2009 11:59:02 AM , Rating: 2
Why you may have supported windows machines, it's clear that you never supported several hundred macs in a large production environment (a big advertising agency in my case).

Macs are NOT more reliable. First of all you have QA issues. A percentage of machines arrives with some defect from the factory. It could be as simple as the CD rom door not opening properly, to as serious as a dead power supply. This wouldn't be apparent to a home user, but when you go through dozens of machines in a work environment I'd say at least one in ten had issues. Lest you think the situation has changed in the last several years since I've stopped doing that job, my own brand new june 09 mac laptop had to be sent in to apple for a motherboard replacement. (bad memory slots).

Second, you have inherent design flaws. The older Imac I'm typing this on right now is showing 51c for the hard drive temp. This is at least 8 degrees higher then it should be and will no doubt shorten the life of the drive. In fact rev a and rev b versions would cook themselves on a regular basis.

Third you have the "most advanced operating system in the world" which has abysmal memory management, and routinely freezes for many seconds at a time (the spinning beachball of death), or just crashes outright. It often hangs up on simple tasks like writing files to a server, changing filenames, etc. It runs into permissions issues (unix has downsides too you know), when it crashes it gives you extremely cryptic error messages that don't tell you much at all about what happened. In fact the most common is just that you should restart your computer. Troubleshooting it is therefore a serious pain.

It's good for what it is, a fisher price "my first os" kind of product for consumers who like you said don't want to know anything about anything. That doesn't mean it's actually a good platform however.


RE: As a Windows user,
By gstrickler on 9/18/2009 1:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why you may have supported windows machines, it's clear that you never supported several hundred macs in a large production environment (a big advertising agency in my case).
In fact, I've supported several large advertising agencies using Macs. At one time, I supported at least half the ad agencies in town, all running exclusively Macs. So, yes, I have supported several hundred Macs in a production environment.

The rest of you post (at least the parts that aren't complete nonsense) applies to every computer system ever made.


RE: As a Windows user,
By maven81 on 9/18/2009 1:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
"The rest of you post (at least the parts that aren't complete nonsense) applies to every computer system ever made."

Prove what's complete nonsense. And that is one hell of a cop-out you just pulled! Well of course it applies to every computer, because newsflash! Intel macs ARE Pcs! They just run a shinier operating system and come in shinier packaging. So how are they more reliable again? Does OSX never crash? Does OSX never freeze? Does it not have security issues (Seems there are patches all the time!), does mac hardware somehow magically not suffer hardware faults? There's absolutely nothing superior about this platform. Different yes, but not superior.


RE: As a Windows user,
By gstrickler on 9/18/2009 2:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prove what's complete nonsense.
quote:
It's good for what it is, a fisher price "my first os" kind of product
Nonsense. Your opinion, not a fact. It's contradicted by hundreds of thousands or more expert computer users like myself.
quote:
but when you go through dozens of machines in a work environment I'd say at least one in ten had issues.
Actually, 10% is close. What's nonsense is the implication that that's bad or that that anyone else does better. Apple is consistently at the top of the reliability surveys (see below).
quote:
you have inherent design flaws. The older Imac I'm typing this on right now is showing 51c for the hard drive temp. This is at least 8 degrees higher then it should be and will no doubt shorten the life of the drive.
51c is not excessive for a HD. Seagate and Hitachi drives are spec'd for up to 60c operating temp, I didn't check the other manufacturers, but I'm sure they're about the same.
quote:
you have the "most advanced operating system in the world" which has abysmal memory management
Nonsense.
quote:
routinely freezes for many seconds at a time (the spinning beachball of death), or just crashes outright.
Nonsense, I rarely have any of those problems. If you're having those frequently, you have a problem with your system.
quote:
for consumers who like you said don't want to know anything about anything.
That's not what I said, so again, nonsense.
quote:
So how are they more reliable again?
I didn't say they were more reliable, I said I spend less time per machine maintaing them. But don't take my word for it, here are some links to non-Mac sites showing the same results (emphasis added):

http://itic-corp.com/blog/2009/07/itic-2009-global...
"The Windows Server 2003 and 2008 operating systems running on Intel-based platforms saw a 35% reduction in the amount of unplanned per server, per annum downtime from 3.77 hours in 2008 to 2.42 hours in 2009. ... and the time spent applying patches similarly decline by 35% from last year to 32 minutes in 2009.

"This year’s survey for the first time, also incorporated reliability results for the Apple Mac and OS X 10.x OS platform. The survey respondents indicated that Apple products are extremely competitive in an enterprise setting. IT managers spend approximately 15 minutes per server to apply patches and Apple Macs recorded just under 40 minutes of per server, per annum downtime."

However, since you brought up reliability:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326602,00.as...
Click on the "See the survey results" link. Summary, Apple #1 in reliability/repairs in Desktops, for all categories.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326607,00.as...
Summary, Apple #1 in reliability, #1 or #2 in percent needing repair in all categories.

Those are the 2008 results, look at prior years and see the same pattern.

quote:
Does OSX never crash? Does OSX never freeze?
It crashes and freezes. But it's rare and no more often than my Windows machines. As for being unresponsive, applications on my Windows machines become unresponsive about 5x as often.
quote:
Seems there are patches all the time!
Monthly schedule, just like Windows, although there aren't necessarily security patches every month.
quote:
There's absolutely nothing superior about this platform.
Thanks for your opinion. I didn't claim Mac OS X was superior, I said I prefer it and that users choose it because they don't have to learn much about computers to get their work done. By some measures, that would be "superior", but I never made that claim.


RE: As a Windows user,
By maven81 on 9/18/2009 4:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense. Your opinion, not a fact. It's contradicted by hundreds of thousands or more expert computer users like myself.

I challenge you to find a large group of people using it in mission critical applications. Banks and ATMs, vending machines, science labs, the military, factories and production facilities, inventory systems all use windows. (and linux as well as someone will no doubt point out). The list is vast. Are these people stupid?
Meanwhile the majority of mac systems are in the hands of consumers, or in places like design studios, ad agencies, music production studios (and even that has changed over the years).
You'd think if the product was half as amazing as apple says it is it would take over vast areas of the market. But don't take my word for it... Apple markets it to consumers. Business and work is boring to them. They think it's a good OS for "creative" types.

"Actually, 10% is close. What's nonsense is the implication that that's bad or that that anyone else does better. Apple is consistently at the top of the reliability surveys (see below)."

The reason I brought it up is your implication that they are better. This is what you said: "2. It's reliable. I don't have to spend much time "futzing" with it to keep it working at top speed. I get paid to support computers, I don't want to spend my time fixing, tweaking, reinstalling, or troubleshooting my own machine any more than necessary. While my Windows machine are stable and secure, they do require more time (per machine) maintaining them than my Mac does."
I know you're trying to play semantics here, because yes, you did not say "more" reliable, just reliable. But you listed it as a reason why you prefer macs to PCs. That does in fact imply that PCs are not as reliable. I'm just saying that in my experience that's not true at all.
And as for surveys apple is notorious for covering up problems, deleting posts on their support forums, or telling users that they just have to live with the issue.

"51c is not excessive for a HD. Seagate and Hitachi drives are spec'd for up to 60c operating temp, I didn't check the other manufacturers, but I'm sure they're about the same."
You accuse me of using my opinions and substitute your own? What makes your opinion better then? Temps in the 50s will definitely shorten the life of your drive, you can count on it. And on the rev a and rev b imacs this was a severe issue that effected a lot of machines. (along with capacitors failing).

"Nonsense, I rarely have any of those problems. If you're having those frequently, you have a problem with your system."

That's a good one! It's a perfect example of an apple fanboy. If I haven't heard about it, it's nonsense! You can't be serious. Even windows users will admit that it's not that there aren't problems, it's that they aren't as widespread as some sources try to make us believe.
The memory management is crap by design. It never seems to unload processes from memory. You quit an application but don't reclaim as much space as you should. Run it hard for a while and it gets to a point that you have to reboot.

"That's not what I said, so again, nonsense."

You said that people don't have to know how to be a mechanic to drive. As if Windows forces you to be a power user, but I digress. So yes, for people who don't want to know anything about computers the OS is perfect. But these people by extension don't understand security, maintenance, upgrades etc.

"here are some links to non-Mac sites showing the same results (emphasis added):"

Your definition of less maintenance is time to apply patches?! Do you do any actual work?


RE: As a Windows user,
By gstrickler on 9/18/2009 5:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I challenge you to find a large group of people using it in mission critical applications.
Go ask the company who did the survey, because they had enough reports from "Enterprise IT" departments that Mac OS X Server showed up in their report.
quote:
Banks and ATMs, vending machines, science labs, the military, factories and production facilities, inventory systems all use windows. (and linux as well as someone will no doubt point out). The list is vast. Are these people stupid?
No, and please stop trying put words in my mouth. Windows or Linux may be the better option for them. Undoubtedly, some of it is because it's what they already know. Some may because Mac OS is definitely user focused, and for a server, you don't need the all the user focused stuff (it's nice, but unnecessary). However, since Mac OS X is based upon BSD, and almost anything that will run on BSD can be ported to OS X pretty easily (not counting a Mac-like UI), anywhere that Linux or BSD is appropriate, a Mac OS machine can usually work as well. Whether or not a Mac is beneficial or "better" depends upon the environment, software, and needs.
quote:
Temps in the 50s will definitely shorten the life of your drive, you can count on it.
Your evidence? If you have a link to any studies, please give them.

I agree that cooler is preferable, but I have yet to see any evidence that temperatures below 60c have any affect on the reliability or durability of HDs. The manufacturers warranty the drive for 3-5 years as long as you keep it in the specified operating range (0c-60c), which they couldn't afford to do if operating at the edges of that range significantly shortened it's life. And 51c is not at the edge of the range anyway.

On the other hand, I do have anecdotal evidence that drives can operate at very high temps for extended periods without causing problems. One of my clients had a whole bunch of servers with arrays of drives operating 24/7 at temps too hot to handle for 10 years with under 10% drive failure during that 10 years. The drives were too old to have built-in thermal sensors, so I don't have an exact temp, but 60c is 140f. 130f takes about 30 secs to actually burn and 160f will burn in 1 sec, so too hot to hold for 1-2 sec without getting burned is between 130f and 160f, and it's likely in the 145f-155f range.
quote:
That's a good one! It's a perfect example of an apple fanboy. If I haven't heard about it, it's nonsense!
Again, not what I said. I can't tell if you have trouble with comprehension or you are deliberately misinterpreting what I write.

I didn't state that I haven't heard of problems, I certainly have. But to date, every time I've encountered a problematic machine, I was able to identify a piece of defective hardware or was able to demonstrate that the problem does not exist with a clean install of the OS. 80% of the time, it's caused by a third party extension (and most of those are corrected by installing an updated version), 10% by hardware problems, 10% by a corrupted installation. Which brings me right back to what I DID say, if you're frequently having those types of problems, it's a problem with your system.
quote:
Your definition of less maintenance is time to apply patches?! Do you do any actual work?
Time to apply patches is part of the time to maintain systems. Backups, disk checks, software updates, anti-malware scans, installing/removing software, tracking down compatibility issues, etc. are also part of that time. On average, I spend about half as much time doing those thing in a Mac as on a Windows machine.

I do lots of work, that's why I choose a Mac. I'm not telling you that you should use a Mac, nor that anyone else I haven't discussed specific details with that they should use a Mac. In fact, I tell most of my clients they need Windows, not because Windows is "better", but because they need to run Windows specific applications most of the time. However, for clients who don't have Windows only applications (or for those that only need to use Windows on occasion) I often recommend a Mac. Sometimes they go Mac, sometimes they don't.

What I do recommend is that anyone make a list of the software they need to use and how often they need to use that software. Find out if there are Mac equivalent programs available for those. Then, if you will spend more than about 30% of your time using software that is Windows only, get a Windows machine. If you'll spend less than 30% using Windows only software, consider a Mac for your primary tasks and use Windows under VMware Fusion for any Windows only software you need.

I can tell you this for certain. I make about 2x more money (per machine) supporting Windows computers than I do Macs. I charge by the hour, and since a Windows machine typically takes about 2x as much time to maintain, it costs the client 2x as much to maintain. It doesn't bother me one bit when my clients need or choose Windows, it means more money in my pocket.

It's mostly irrelevant on this site, most of the readers prefer to build their own machines and/or are hardcore gamers, and for most of those people, a Mac is not a good option.

What I am trying to do is to educate people and get them to quit telling everyone else that "Macs suck", "are unreliable", or any of the other "myths", "misunderstandings", or "lies". If a Mac doesn't meet your needs, use Windows, or Linux, or AIX, or Solaris, or a Commodore 64 for all I care. I use Mac OS X, Windows XP (looking forward to Win7), and Linux, and I've worked on Solaris, Xenix, SCO Unix, and a variety of mini-computer and mainframe system, I don't hold anyone's choice of OS against them. However, you won't know what a Mac can do until you try it, preferably with the guidance of someone who knows both Macs and Windows because not everything you know from Windows will help you on a Mac.

Ok, I do hold it against you if you willingly choose Win3x/Win9x/ME. :)


RE: As a Windows user,
By sprockkets on 9/18/2009 7:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Back in 1999, The US Army used Mac OS9 and WEBSTAR to get rid of NT, since it was so hacked.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/WebSTAR+Server+Suite...

And the saddest part about this is, Mac OS9 didn't even have root/admin sandboxing like NT did, and it STILL was more secure.

Dell also used NeXT for its web site. They ditched it once Apple bought NeXT :)

You have to remember, Microsoft was the LAST person to the game. Unix already did everything NT server did, and better. Novell had its own Active Directory 10 years before Microsoft made theirs.

Digital running VMS or Unix on the Alpha processor tore the crap out of Itanium. F*ck you Carly Fiorina for destroying the best platform this world has ever known!


RE: As a Windows user,
By monkeyman1140 on 9/21/2009 4:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
I got tons of stories like that. One time we bought 130 Compaqs with maxtor bigfoot drives. Every drive failed, and compaq was so exasperating with the bigfoots they started mailing us seagate replacements...

And there's the infamous Dell 270 puffy capacitor problem, and the Dell GX power supplies committing hara-kiri on a regular basis, and so on...


RE: As a Windows user,
By afkrotch on 9/18/2009 6:44:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can honestly say that it doesn't matter if Windows 7 is more secure, it will still be at more risk. Its not how much protection you have, its how much someone wants to break in that matters. I would say that whole a bank has cameras and guards and vaults, its still more at risk for break in than my house simply because more people want to break into the bank. Windows 7 could be 100 times more secure than OSX but people are 1000 times more interested in breaking in because there is actually a benefit to doing so.


That doesn't even make sense. A house has a higher chance of a burglary, than a bank, due to less security. There are more home invasion/burglaries in the world, than there are bank robberies.


RE: As a Windows user,
By gstrickler on 9/18/2009 6:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A house has a higher chance of a burglary, than a bank, due to less security. There are more home invasion/burglaries in the world, than there are bank robberies.
No, and yes. There are more home burglaries per year, but there are also many times as many homes. The chance of a home being robbed/burgled is significantly lower than the chance of a bank being robbed.

In the US, the number of home burglaries is 7.099 per 1000 people.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-c...

In the US, there are an average of 2.59 people per household.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

That means
7.099 * 2.59 / 1000 = 18.36 robberies per household per year.

The number of bank robberies in the US was over 10,000 in 2000 and is currently 6000-7000 per year.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-07-28...

I haven't been able to find a reliable count of the number of bank branches. I found the "number of banks" to be around 9500 here:
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/working/wp2003...
But I'm pretty sure that's not counting each branch. Given that Bank branches seem to be about as common as pharmacies, and I know that there are about 70,000 retail pharmacies in the US, I'm going to say the number of bank branches is between 50k-100k.

Using the higher numbers, that gives:
7000/100k = 70 bank robberies per 1000 bank branches per year. 4x the rate of home burglaries, even higher if I've overestimated the number of bank branches.

All things considered, I'll take my chances at home over a bank, even though the bank has more security than I can afford.

Now, I'm gonna go hide and wait for the US Secret Service to knock on my door after having repeatedly googled for variations of "bank robberies" "bank branches" and "home burglaries" to find these stats.


RE: As a Windows user,
By afkrotch on 9/21/2009 6:21:59 AM , Rating: 2
As for banks, too many to go over. National banks, state banks, non-FDIC, FDIC insured state non-member banks, Federal Credit Unions, State Credit Unions, and a lot more to go.

I also don't understand your bank calculation.

Shouldn't that be

100,000 banks / 7000 robberies = 14 bank robberies per bank per year.

Course I think there's more than 100,000 banks.


RE: As a Windows user,
By gstrickler on 9/21/2009 3:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
100,000 banks / 7000 robberies = 14 bank robberies per bank per year.
No, you have it upside down.

quote:
Course I think there's more than 100,000 banks.
I would be surprised if there are. If you can find a number, post the link.


Apple are irresponsible.
By dark matter on 9/17/2009 1:51:45 PM , Rating: 5
All the operating systems have vulnerabilities. The only safe computer is one switched off and the plug removed.

Its about time people were educated in how to secure your system and following "best" practices.

The reason Apple sticks in my throat it their puerile "macs don't get a virus" adverts. Which breeds complacency. And I think is totally irresponsible from a leading computer company.




RE: Apple are irresponsible.
By Lerianis on 9/18/2009 2:15:00 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that many of those 'best practices' keep people from trying out new things on their computers, are too obtrusive to users, etc.


RE: Apple are irresponsible.
By dark matter on 9/18/2009 2:40:02 AM , Rating: 2
I totally disagree. Since when is clicking on an attachment from an unknown email source "trying out new things"


RE: Apple are irresponsible.
By afkrotch on 9/21/2009 6:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
My little sister gets malware on a computer like Paris Hilton gets an STD.

She's stupid enough to click the adverts that show some stupid smilie that winks or some crap, and has it installed so it can be used in MSN Messenger. Or the "click this button to see if you won $10,000" ads.

Majority of users are stupid and the OS companies really need to beef it up to protect the retards.


Bullet Point Feature
By Awax on 9/17/2009 11:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
Don't make a confusion between "bullet point security feature" and "actual existing exploit".

I know that ASLR is a great added feature to make life harder to hackers/pirates to write new exploits and that its current implementation in Leo/SnowLeo is weak.

But in its current form, MacOSX is already pretty strong and there is no know worm spread on this platform.




RE: Bullet Point Feature
By dark matter on 9/17/2009 1:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
Never tempt fate.


RE: Bullet Point Feature
By Screwballl on 9/17/2009 3:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
excuse me?

Try a simple google search and you will see that worms have been spreading on the Mac for some years now, and as more hackers find that it is actually easier to exploit a Mac, they are doing so.

http://www.google.com/search?q=osx+virus+worm&ie=u...


RE: Bullet Point Feature
By sprockkets on 9/17/2009 11:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
Those are like the same TWO worms that people said infected Macs. One required a web server running with PHP to exploit (which infected also Linux and Windows running Apache/PHP as well), the other required you installing pirated software.

No amount of DEP, ASLR or whatever buzz word you want to come up with will stop it running on Win7 or OSX.

All the worms, malware right now is out having a free time on XP. It doesn't affect Vista or OSX because one closed the holes, and one never had them to begin with.

What's worse, is all the users downgrading back to XP on netbooks and business machines.


They have?
By cabjf on 9/17/2009 11:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
"Apple has been bragging about the security of its new operating system, OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard"."

I haven't heard Apple say anything publicly about security in Snow Leopard vs Leopard. It's just been the same old line about not having the thousands of viruses that Windows does. And as you point out, the same person complaining about the lack of one feature (well, a partial implementation of it actually), goes on to point out some other areas where Apple has made improvements to security.




RE: They have?
By FITCamaro on 9/17/2009 12:11:13 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah their ads just continue to push the same old crap. They suck, we don't. Nevermind that their ads are lies. Microsoft's latest ads have hit home where it counts though. Getting a computer to do what you need at the price you want. Not the price they want you to pay.


Ruh roh raggy......
By Apone on 9/17/2009 11:48:56 AM , Rating: 5
Uh, no I don't believe you. Macs are perfect because they "just work"!

/covers ears and shouts "la la la la la la la la la!"




GRAMMAR ALERT
By Spivonious on 9/17/2009 11:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the respectively safer current version.


Wha? I have no idea what you meant here, Jason. Perhaps "relatively"?




Can't say I'm surprised...
By CrazyBernie on 9/17/2009 11:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
... considering how much actual experience OSX creators probably have with security.




no viruses on os x
By veggiedude on 9/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: no viruses on os x
By afkrotch on 9/21/2009 6:38:19 AM , Rating: 2
Newton Virus anyone? A virus doesn't have to be destructive to be a virus. Nor doesn't it need constantly replicate and spam itself out.


Just curious...
By Brazos on 9/17/2009 11:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
What happens to all these stats if all business pc's are removed and it's just personal pc's vs personal macs. Has that been done?




UrbanBard is Pirks 2.0
By Pirks on 9/17/2009 6:59:31 PM , Rating: 1
Whew, now I can retire




meh
By hosmakka on 9/17/09, Rating: -1
By dark matter on 9/17/2009 2:01:48 PM , Rating: 3
I have never heard as much guff as this line.

"Wintel customers see no advantage in buying two operating systems from Microsoft and its 64 bit OS isn't very useful or well supported yet"

You really do not have a clue judging by this comment. And I don't need to explain why because I imagine 99% of the DT readers know your statement to be false. (Including the ardent die hard Mac heads if they are honest - or actually know anything about PC's)


By walk2k on 9/17/2009 2:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple has been growing at 30% a year. It will only take six years of doing that to equal 50% of the market.
You're high if you really believe that.

"Then in 10 more years Apple will have 200% of the market! That's right, every person on the planet will own -1 PCs!"


By Luticus on 9/17/2009 4:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Oh my god you are so stupid it’s unbelievable. I’m actually having trouble figuring out how to best yell at you!

I guest first and foremost I’d like to make clear that Windows PC is not equal to poor person. Yes more poor people can use Windows PCs than Mac PCs because Windows PCs tend to be more affordable; however, just because a machine runs Windows doesn’t mean it’s cheap (mine was 2k+ counting keyboard and monitor) or even if it is cheap it doesn’t mean that the user is poor, just not stupid.

quote:
Microsoft will be taking at least five years to transition to a 64 bit kernel.

I’ve been using 64bit since Windows Vista came out. What do you mean it’s not useful or well supported? Please do some homework…

quote:
Apple is using the next year to transition to 64 bit applications, so it doesn't boot automatically into the 64 bit kernel.

On windows we have this nifty thing called sysWOW64 which allows us to run 32bit code on our 64bit OS. It’s a pity you guys have to wait.

quote:
Apple has been growing at 30% a year. It will only take six years of doing that to equal 50% of the market. I'm betting that even if Apple got that high a market share, the Wintel advocates would still be using the Security by Obscurity argument.

Yea, good luck with that. If Mac ever takes over I’m going to Linux permanently. Better security, more customizable (with Mac’s whole choose two colors interface… HAH), and it’s got more software!

quote:
Apple's US market is about 10%. We Mac users have money to spend for more expensive computers, so we should be under attack because we are richer that you Wintel users. But, the hackers leave us alone to attack you.

Are you trying to see how much of a condescending douche bag you can be in the shortest amount of time? If so you’re doing a pretty good job here man. You keep telling yourself that, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Most financial institutions and businesses alike run what? Say it with me now… don’t hold back… WINDOWS!

Ok… I’m done… I can’t even think clearly enough to argue with you anymore… you’ve given me a migraine in my EYE!


By walk2k on 9/17/2009 4:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry Neckbeard but OS-X has 4.86% of the marketshare according to
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-m...

Yes it's up 33% from last year... not hard to do when you're only at 3.5%, that's a whopping 1.3%

If it gains 1.3% per year for the next 6 years (very unlikely) it will be up to a whopping... 5.25%

50% lol quit huffing glue.


By Alexstarfire on 9/17/2009 9:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
From the person who told him to stop huffing glue I'm surprised you can't do basic math. Increasing at a rate of 1.3% for 6 years would mean Apple would have a 12.66% market share.


By afkrotch on 9/21/2009 6:51:18 AM , Rating: 2
1.3 * 6 = 7.8
7.8 + 3.5 = 11.3

You calculated for 7 years, not 6.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki