"Vista Most Secure OS Ever" This gave me a good laugh...

[bbrosemer]

I think my favorite part about windows is that I was installing a fresh copy off of the original disc with no service packs, it took 2 hrs to put all of the lovely security updates on there and you know what the OS went from 90M on the fresh insall up to 210, gotta love the fact that the more you update the more ram gets gobbeled up to do nothing.

 

[kevin.rivers]

I think my favorite part about windows is that I was installing a fresh copy off of the original disc with no service packs, it took 2 hrs to put all of the lovely security updates on there and you know what the OS went from 90M on the fresh insall up to 210, gotta love the fact that the more you update the more ram gets gobbeled up to do nothing.

Talk about FUD....

 

[bbrosemer]

More like FUBAR

 

[white89gt]

Does anyone else find it funny that Vista isn't even out and they're already talking about Service Pack 1?

 

[Timepass]

Then explain why Linux and Unix, which have just as big, or smaller market share as Mac OS X, still have viruses and exploits that are taken advantage of?

Explain that. I'd like to hear why those are being attacked and not OS X. You can't explain it with the Marketshare Argument. So, then, why is it?

Windows is a program-by-numbers Operating System. A monkey could code for windows. Which also does not allow for much movement. Explain why every application on Windows, has to be in a window? Even Media Player has to be in a window. Sure, the outline disappears, but it's still there, it's still needed.

Face it, Windows is an obsolete OS in terms of advancement. The longer they keep legacy code, the longer the OS will be fully exploited.

Where are you pull that BS out of my post. My post no where in there stated that windows was as secure more secure or even less secure than the others.

What I stated is windows is stress and targeted more than any other OS. So any hole in there will be found much quicker than on the others even at the same diffuctility level. with most of the targets aim at windows things are giong to be found quicker

I stated simple facts. So you question have no baring on my post or effect them in any way.

They are not relevent to my post. Please understand that. If you dont understand that then you have another problem and there no point for me to try because you are to blind to see the truth

Does anyone else find it funny that Vista isn't even out and they're already talking about Service Pack 1?

Not really. There are a lot of things that just are not going to be discovered until masses have it. It not different that OSX releases. the first patch is rushed out and like anything from all X.0 is general crap. it takes then until .1 or .2 to get it where it needs to be. more like .2 for apple. But it just like that. A lot of things are not found until the masses have it. First big patch should always be rushed and though about a head of time.

 

[XNine]

Where are you pull that BS out of my post. My post no where in there stated that windows was as secure more secure or even less secure than the others.

What I stated is windows is stress and targeted more than any other OS. So any hole in there will be found much quicker than on the others even at the same diffuctility level. with most of the targets aim at windows things are giong to be found quicker

I stated simple facts. So you question have no baring on my post or effect them in any way.

They are not relevent to my post. Please understand that. If you dont understand that then you have another problem and there no point for me to try because you are to blind to see the truth

They are extremely relevant questions that I asked. You are stating that the marketshare is a (not the only, but A) reason for exploitation. My point is, other OS's with smaller marketshares have been exploited more than OS X has. You are dodging the questions here. I'm asking completely objective questions and you're flaming me for doing so.

 

[Timepass]

They are extremely relevant questions that I asked. You are stating that the marketshare is a (not the only, but A) reason for exploitation. My point is, other OS's with smaller marketshares have been exploited more than OS X has. You are dodging the questions here. I'm asking completely objective questions and you're flaming me for doing so.

I am not. They only state attacks and exploited that work. That requires finding a hole to do so. We agree on that fact.

So now it comes down to finding those holes and the rate they can be found and that comes down to how much a OS is targeted to find new ones. One that where not used in the past and coming up with new ways to use known exploits. And that relays much heavier on market share.

To answer you question it harder to exploit OSX. It is as simple as that.

What I am saying does not desput that fact. They are not link together. You are asking about exploits not finding them. I was taking about finding them and how quickly one that there can be discovered (that has no baring on the number of there are. That just means there are more to find) And how fast exploit X is found and rate it figure out how to be used is market share.

It doesnt matter is an OS also has exploit A,B,C Y. I only care about find X. And how fast X is discovered is market share. A,B, C and Y may be discovered and figured out how to use a long time before X.

If all the OS has explot X in it. Same diffuculty leval to find and use across the boards the rate an OS is targeted for new explote is the determining factor on explote X beign discovered. That is a directly related to market share.

 

[kevin.rivers]

Timepass, there is no point in arguing with some of these people.

I am have been stating what you have during the entirety of this thread. Heck. I started to attack the OP for posting biased misinformed garbage.

I love my Mac like anybody else, however being blind and saying one OS is better etc etc is nonsensical. Marketshare is not an invalid argument. If you can not understand this simple fact, then something is wrong with your brain.

Onizuka, I would like to see some solid data that other OSs with similar marketshare have been exploited more than OSX.

Thank you Timepass for joining the battle on ignorance and the elitist mindsets some of these Apple folks have.

I will state this one more time. Please read it like you have a brain. Windows XP may be less secure than OS X. However, there are more people trying to find faults in Windows for malicious purposes(like shutting down the entire world).

Microsoft is adding heaps of new security features. Why? Because they have to. Because the same hackers will be attempting to once again shut down computer systems. So. Windows Vista will more then likely be more secure than any current OS that is consumer minded(i.e. Those who use Linux secure their own boxes so they don't count), simply because they forced to.

 

[wxboss]

The longer they keep legacy code, the longer the OS will be fully exploited.

And MS needs to keep the legacy code in order for compatibility to exist with their previous OSs. Think of the uproar it would cause if Vista wasn't compatible with anything prior to it. Then users would be faced either getting Vista and trashing all their old programs, or staying with XP or an earlier OS.

The "market share/vulnerability" argument does have a point, but you can't fault the terrible track record MS has on the masses. Face it, the security measures MS is taking with Vista could have been implemented earlier, yet they weren't. MS has taken a long time to really get serious with security especially when it comes to the consumer market.

You can argue all you want about MS being a bigger target, but they have a crappy record when it comes to actually fixing these problems.......yah, I know, it's the hackers fault for that too.

 

[kevin.rivers]

And MS needs to keep the legacy code in order for compatibility to exist with their previous OSs. Think of the uproar it would cause if Vista wasn't compatible with anything prior to it. Then users would be faced either getting Vista and trashing all their old programs, or staying with XP or an earlier OS.

The "market share/vulnerability" argument does have a point, but you can't fault the terrible track record MS has on the masses. Face it, the security measures MS is taking with Vista could have been implemented earlier, yet they weren't. MS has taken a long time to really get serious with security especially when it comes to the consumer market.

You can argue all you want about MS being a bigger target, but they have a crappy record when it comes to actually fixing these problems.......yah, I know, it's the hackers fault for that too.

You nailed it in that sentence. If hackers didn't mess with it, there would be no need to fix it. And I would like to see this "crappy" record of not fixing problems. Please use some facts to back up a statement like that. People who can't think for themselves may take it to be true.

EDIT: Also, there would be no possible way for MS to realistically add all those security features to the OS without a near complete rewrite. So released earlier? Maybe. Implemented on the current code base? No. Besides, it is only in recent years that it has almost become unbearable to use Windows(if you are an idiot) without some form of protection. In which Microsoft is right on time to address it with Vista.

Windows users will be in an uproar anyhow. Do you know why? No windows user is going to see the value of typing a password just to install something. There will be a dozen posts all over the internet reading like this "How do I get Windows to not ask for my password when installing something?" Someone will figure it out. And bam. Same issues. And everyone crying fowl.

Users: "You said Windows Vista would be more secure and offer better access to the Internet"
MS: "Well when you get rid of the security features what do you expect? Will you be purchasing OneCare today sir?"

 

[benthewraith]

You nailed it in that sentence. If hackers didn't mess with it, there would be no need to fix it. And I would like to see this "crappy" record of not fixing problems. Please use some facts to back up a statement like that. People who can't think for themselves may take it to be true.

Microsoft doesn't have too great a track record for patching....however, patching does occur often enough to keep it somewhat safe. During the Windows metafile vulnerability back in December/January, they didn't get a fix for about one/1.5 weeks. However, a custom built fix was built in a matter of hours.

 

[kevin.rivers]

Microsoft doesn't have too great a track record for patching....however, patching does occur often enough to keep it somewhat safe. During the Windows metafile vulnerability back in December/January, they didn't get a fix for about one/1.5 weeks. However, a custom built fix was built in a matter of hours.

Because I am sure MS has nothing better to do, right? Naturally someone who is focused completely on a problem could tackle it.

Assuming the countless issues with the Intel Macs are software, as everyone seems to think they are. Where is Apple? It is has been how long since the MBP/MB have been out, more than a week. But it is still not fixed. So want to try again?

 

[benthewraith]

Because I am sure MS has nothing better to do, right? Naturally someone who is focused completely on a problem could tackle it.

Assuming the countless issues with the Intel Macs are software, as everyone seems to think they are. Where is Apple? It is has been how long since the MBP/MB have been out, more than a week. But it is still not fixed. So want to try again?

Yes, a critical security issue (displaying an image file with malicious coding) in a computer operating system should, and would, be a critical security issue worthy of immediate patching. And I couldn't answer your second question as I switched back in May.

Also, Microsoft should have linked the unofficial patch immediately instead of trying to develop their own. Is that so difficult?

 

[BornAgainMac]

I can never understand these bird images.

 

[Mord]

I can never understand these bird images.

OH RLY means oh really in a doubtful manner on the backdrop of an insane looking bird for hilarity's sake

YA RLY means yeah really in a sarcastic manner on the backdrop of a silly looking bird again for hilarity's sake.

 

[Timepass]

Microsoft doesn't have too great a track record for patching....however, patching does occur often enough to keep it somewhat safe. During the Windows metafile vulnerability back in December/January, they didn't get a fix for about one/1.5 weeks. However, a custom built fix was built in a matter of hours.

well lit was more they fix it pretty quickly but it was release was delayed until there next monthly patch update. They release there patchs same time every month. Dont rememeber the exact day they release them. I dont pay much attention to when they get downloaded. But I want to say it the 2nd tuesday of each month. I normally install them on the 2 or 3 saturday of each month.

Whcih is why there was a 1.5 week delay in it. that patch was in the next bunch of security patchs which was 1.5 weeks away. They more than likely had it fix with in hours but it was just thown in with the useall bunch of fixes.

 

[wxboss]

Whcih is why there was a 1.5 week delay in it. that patch was in the next bunch of security patchs which was 1.5 weeks away. They more than likely had it fix with in hours but it was just thown in with the useall bunch of fixes.

MS does issue out of cycle patches for critical problems they deem important enough to patch. "They" being the key word here.

Ken, do you really fault the actions of some hackers over the multi million dollar resources of MS and their ability to lock Windows down better if they so desired?

Why do you think hackers are so succesful cracking Windows? It's okay to be honest, I don't think Billy reads these posts.

 

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

Although Windows Vista is one of the most heavily re-architected versions of Windows, it is not written from the ground up. It builds upon Windows Server 2003 code base, with only portions of the kernel rewritten and some of the "applets" rewritten (e.g., Windows Mail, games). Obviously, it has many new features (including famous/infamous User Account Control nag screens), enhanced and refactored API, and spiffier user interface.

It's basically what Apple does with their updates. Say.... 10.2 to 10.3. Take what is there, modify it, add a few things, and BAM! The next version. No major changes just a slightly differant look.

 

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

look, your main argument is that Mac OS has no viruses because of the low marketshare.

then why have/had all OS'es with a similar low market share tons of viruses.
Why had Mac OS 7 tons of viruses when it's marketshare was 3%.

so your argument is not valid.

Hmmm.... I've never heard that argument to the Security vs MarketShare debate. I think you have a very smart and valid point.

 

[Timepass]

Hmmm.... I've never heard that argument to the Security vs MarketShare debate. I think you have a very smart and valid point.

if I rememeber right that "ton" of virus was really pretty small of a number.

Also go read my earily post about how market share does effect viruses and how holes are found and exploited.

 

[theheadguy]

Re: kevin.rivers

Timepass, there is no point in arguing with some of these people.

I started to attack the OP for posting biased misinformed garbage.

Thank you Timepass for joining the battle on ignorance and the elitist mindsets some of these Apple folks have.

I will state this one more time. Please read it like you have a brain.

kevin.rivers,

Please, stop acting like this. If you want to get your point across, remain objective. Going on rants and asking people to maintain use of their brain is childish and not effective. Instead of looking like someone who knows something, you look as if you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about after resorting to a childish writing style and someone who obviously needs some time away from the keyboard to calm down.

You make some good points, although you may be very wrong in the end. We will ALL just have to wait and see.

 

[marchcapital]

Very true.

I personally think it is wrong for a company to sell a flawed product (Windows) and sell another product to fix it (OneCare). But whatever...

Which is why Bill Gates is the richest man on earth. Theres one thing you have to remeber in the corprate world; consumers are stupid.

 

[dextertangocci]

That article isn't true. Everybody knows that windoze sux, and OSX rules

 

[bbrosemer]

Here is a simple thought if there are ONLY 2,000 self replicating viruses for the Windows and lets say that OS X has 1 which it doesn't. Then lets convert that into the market shart so 1=5% and windows has 95%=2,000. Well 2,000 divided by 95% = 21 Viruses per percentage point. Which should mean that even though Mac's only do hold 5% there in theroy should be at least one self replicating virus out there but there just isnt. http://www.sophos.com/sophos/docs/eng/marketing_material/SophosSecurityReport_2005.pdf These are the real numbers there are 114,000 known malware apps for the PC, not one attacks or can attack a Mac, these true numbers break down into 1,200!!! malware apps per percentage point for a windows machine even in the worst case scenario if a mac had (1000)- which it actually has none- then this breaks down in 200 malware apps per percenage clearly giving the advantage to the Mac. Moreover since there are none this bring up well if there should be 1,200 per pecentage point then the mac in theroy should have 6,000 malware apps and since it has none we can figure out the percentage of this possilbly happening which is 0.0083%, and since this is true this shows how the market theroy can not be called true at all.

 

[kevin.rivers]

Here is a simple thought if there are ONLY 2,000 self replicating viruses for the Windows and lets say that OS X has 1 which it doesn't. Then lets convert that into the market shart so 1=5% and windows has 95%=2,000. Well 2,000 divided by 95% = 21 Viruses per percentage point. Which should mean that even though Mac's only do hold 5% there in theroy should be at least one self replicating virus out there but there just isnt. http://www.sophos.com/sophos/docs/eng/marketing_material/SophosSecurityReport_2005.pdf These are the real numbers there are 114,000 known malware apps for the PC, not one attacks or can attack a Mac, these true numbers break down into 1,200!!! malware apps per percentage point for a windows machine even in the worst case scenario if a mac had (1000)- which it actually has none- then this breaks down in 200 malware apps per percenage clearly giving the advantage to the Mac. Moreover since there are none this bring up well if there should be 1,200 per pecentage point then the mac in theroy should have 6,000 malware apps and since it has none we can figure out the percentage of this possilbly happening which is 0.0083%, and since this is true this shows how the market theroy can not be called true at all.

Ok. Your point does not however invalidate the market theory. It does not change the fact that people aren't making malware apps for the Mac. Again, if you want to bring down the world with a virus, you are going to write it for Windows. Simple as that.