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

[dpaanlka]

You have to remember that Windows is targeted for malicious attacks. Such as spyware and viruses. OS X is not immune to a virus, but nobody writes them.

Sigh... this is the most ridiculously overplayed, factless old-wive's tale told by people who certainly must not pay much attention to the Mac OS virus threads.

 

[kevin.rivers]

Sigh... this is the most ridiculously overplayed, factless old-wive's tale told by people who certainly must not pay much attention to the Mac OS virus threads.

Thank you for choosing my post, when I am not the one who has been saying viruses for Mac don't exist.

 

[dpaanlka]

Thank you for choosing my post, when I am not the one who has been saying viruses for Mac don't exist.

Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant by that statement. The double-negative throws me off.

 

[Timepass]

Sigh... this is the most ridiculously overplayed, factless old-wive's tale told by people who certainly must not pay much attention to the Mac OS virus threads.

it not a wive tell.

It is a fact that fewer people are bothering to attack or attempt to attack OSX.

That much is a fact.

That translated into few much few attemptes to crack it when translated into much few that succeced. It that simple. Because no one really targeting OSX that means there are noughting really is happening to it.

That not saying that it not more secure that XP. It just saying a huge part of the fact that there is noughting out there is the fact that there is a much smaller number of people working to crack it.

 

[BWhaler]

And where is your data to support there is not?

This year root access was gained on a Mac in under 30 minutes. What can be done with root access?
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/securi..._than_30_minutes/0,2000061744,39241748,00.htm

Windows Vista may in fact be the most secure OS, but again it is because it has to be.

Also, Apache is free. People don't attack free software, you should know that. How many people are out trying to bust Linux... not many.

This was bullsh**, and everyone knows it.

People were given accounts on the computer to begin with.

Please read beyond the headlines before you come here and try to start a debate. Thanks.

 

[BWhaler]

Especially since they wrote it from the ground up.

Wrong.

There are holes in OS X I am sure. Nobody is safe. Someone who has the will, will in fact exploit a hole even in OS X.

True.

Moving on, considering Microsoft wrote this OS from the ground up it will take (hopefully) much longer to see the rash of viruses and spyware that exists on XP.

Wrong. Virus writers have had access to the betas also.

With that said, people will still target it because it WILL be the majority of what the public is using. Which means Microsoft has layers of protection in place to combat against this.

No idea what this means, but these mythical layers you speak of is very imaginative.

Windows XP was not an OS built for the days of high speed internet access.

Wrong.

Vista, seemingly understands and is built around the knowledge of how dangerous the internet can be for Windows computers and MS has taken the steps necessary to make sure that when the malicous code comes their computers will be protected from the start and the common user will not have to acquire new skills and knowledge on their own to combat such attacks.

Wrong.

The reason why, since you clearly know nothing about the history here, is XP was built as part of the .net strategy, so XP left most ports open to act like a virtual client to .net's servers (ID Check which became passport, etc.) This was a design decision.

So yes, Windows may in fact be more secure than OS X. Because it has to be.

It's "had to be" for six years now. Nothing really has changed other than the egregious holes are closed.

Open systems are inherently more secure than closed. And yes, all systems have holes. 10's of millions of lines of code result in holes.

But you need more knowledge of the history of Windows & Microsoft. Coming here are parroting Microsoft's propaganda is sad.

But thanks for playing.

 

[bbrosemer]

Wow ok well "fanboysarelame" is the most pathetic and simple minded person ever, he im'd me and said "are you f****** retarted get a clue about what your talking about and shut up" well apparantly he has some sort of problem I never said that I hated XP or Vista for that matter it is the simple truth that no M$ OS can be the most secure with so much code built on top of code already containing holes. I do dislike and think it is absurd that M$ is charging people to protect from the holes that exist in their OS, it is that simple.

 

[BWhaler]

How is that relevant? I never stated that there was an exorbent amount of malware for OS X. All you have done is validated that in no one is fact creating large amounts of malicious software for the Mac. Simply because nobody cares enough.

Just because people don't care however, does not mean that the potential is not there. Which you, and no one else has shown me.

I am not bashing OS X, nor Windows. However people spreading biased information because they use a Mac is uneccessary. If Apple had the market share that Windows has, surely the situation would be flipped.

As I have stated, and will state again. Windows Vista will indeed probably be the most secure OS, because it has to be.

There is no pressure from Apple to fix holes, prevent viruses, or prevent spyware. Do you know why? Because these things are being exploited, don't exist in large numbers, and don't exist in large numbers respectively.

Again, wrong.

Look at webservers. Apache has 85% of the marketshare. It is clearly the target. Yet it has very few holes vs IIIS which has thousands and has brought down 10s of thousands of servers (remember iluvu, etc.)

What you fail to understand is it is not OSX vs. Windows. It's open vs. proprietary.

Open is more secure because infinite number of people can study the code and patch holes. Proprietary systems never have this access.

The base code of OS X has been open for over 20 years. Think about that. Tens of thousands of engineers for 2 decades have been studying the code looking for holes.

Proprietary systems like Windows can never replicate this scale. Ever.

 

[BWhaler]

This thread seems to be missing the real problem:

Microsoft doesn't view its secret communication with Redmond and reporting of usage information as a security hole. Microsoft doesn't even report these secret reporting back to HQ in their terms of service or privacy statements.

And I am not drawing years back to the "old Microsoft"

Microsoft got busted--again--for doing these sketchy things LAST WEEK.

Oh, and let's not forget Claria which was flagged and blocked in an early beta of OneCare since it is spyware. Until MS bought the company, and then the spyware was allowed in a subsequent release.

You can't make this stuff up. Once an unethical company, always an unethical company.

And even if Vista locks out every single 3rd party viruses and spyware, it will never lock-out Microsoft and their dirty tricks.

This is the one point no Microsoft apologist has an answer for.

 

[decksnap]

it not a wive tell.

It is a fact that fewer people are bothering to attack or attempt to attack OSX.

That much is a fact.

That translated into few much few attemptes to crack it when translated into much few that succeced. It that simple. Because no one really targeting OSX that means there are noughting really is happening to it.

That not saying that it not more secure that XP. It just saying a huge part of the fact that there is noughting out there is the fact that there is a much smaller number of people working to crack it.

I'll say it again. Saying something is a 'fact' doesn't make it a fact. WTF do you know about these percentages? I agree there are more people targeting Windows, but this is all vaguery and opinion as to how much more or how little OS X has been targetted. You have no idea. For all we know, the top hackers in the world could have trying to crack it for years. Can't say that's a fact though, can I?

 

[benthewraith]

I'll say it again. Saying something is a 'fact' doesn't make it a fact. WTF do you know about these percentages? I agree there are more people targeting Windows, but this is all vaguery and opinion as to how much more or how little OS X has been targetted. You have no idea. For all we know, the top hackers in the world could have trying to crack it for years. Can't say that's a fact though, can I?

Are the top hackers in the world really willing to go out and spend hundreds, maybe a thousand dollars to get a copy of an operating system to learn how to attack it's holes? No. The claim that Macs don't get viruses and can never suffer from viruses? You know this how? Blind faith. Just because something hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done.

The main vulnerability in Windows is lack of a user account protection. Something Windows was never designed to do. Although it'd solve a lot of the problems, it wouldn't solve all of the problems. The main problem going for Windows is how Windows is structured and the platform it is based on. If it was revamped (which could have been done while developing Windows Longhorn) it'd give Windows time to recoop and promise a stronger operating system.

And I'm willing to bet those government peoples have ways of getting around stuff on Macs.

 

[Mord]

the kudos of developing the first real OS X virus is substantial and their are linux viruses out their, thus basic logic dictates Mac OS X is way more secure than non BSD OS's, and it's not because of market share.

 

[decksnap]

Are the top hackers in the world really willing to go out and spend hundreds, maybe a thousand dollars to get a copy of an operating system to learn how to attack it's holes? No. The claim that Macs don't get viruses and can never suffer from viruses? You know this how? Blind faith. Just because something hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done.

Wait, what OS costs $1000?

As I said, I'm not making any claims, other than the security through obscurity myth is completely unproven.

 

[Mord]

mac os X server.

not sure what his figure is referring to

 

[theheadguy]

Are the top hackers in the world really willing to go out and spend hundreds, maybe a thousand dollars to get a copy of an operating system to learn how to attack it's holes? No.

We have a genius on this thread (okay, a few). Let me take this amazing statement a step further. Hackers (especially the top hackers in the world lol) don't pay for software. Even a moron can find a beta version of Vista for free on the net. Can you say pirate bay?

The claim that Macs don't get viruses and can never suffer from viruses? You know this how? Blind faith.

Huh? I don't think a single person on this entire thread has made that statement. Who are you arguing with? Your computer monitor?

Just because something hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done.

No sh**.

The main vulnerability in Windows is lack of a user account protection. Something Windows was never designed to do. Although it'd solve a lot of the problems, it wouldn't solve all of the problems. The main problem going for Windows is how Windows is structured and the platform it is based on. If it was revamped (which could have been done while developing Windows Longhorn) it'd give Windows time to recoop and promise a stronger operating system.

LOL. Read over your post before you submit it. I'll safely assume this is a moderatley intelligent middle school child who's parents don't know he is posting on the net. Ask kevin.rivers to help you "pick this apart."

And I'm willing to bet those government peoples have ways of getting around stuff on Macs.

Those government peoples? Wow. Just, wow.

 

[Mord]

most macs confiscated in america are sent off to canada where a specialist team recovered data to be used as evidence by stripping data direct off the drive and decrypting file vaulted users, by law when you create encryption software you have to give the keys over the the gov, you may not like it but it's teh law.

 

[theheadguy]

most macs confiscated in america are sent off to canada where a specialist team recovered data to be used as evidence by stripping data direct off the drive and decrypting file vaulted users, by law when you create encryption software you have to give the keys over the the gov, you may not like it but it's teh law.

Wow. Which law is this exactly? Or better yet....... any reliable reference to confirm this BS? This thread is officially funny.

 

[Timepass]

Wait, what OS costs $1000?

As I said, I'm not making any claims, other than the security through obscurity myth is completely unproven.

Not really there is a lot of ways that we can infer that it is a huge part of the case.

lets just look at software where we have proven infomation. Lets see Games.... how many big hit games are never released for OSX... oh yeah a lot because it is a small market share and not worth the time nor are the number of people working on it. Or just look at the lag time for software being ported over.

On windows you can pretty much do anything. Not the best but you can find software to do just about anything. There really isnt any software out there than is on OSX that I could not easily find something almost if not as good on the PC.

Plus most of the spielized software is made Windows side only. You cannt not agrue those facts.

From that it is a safe bet that this also apply even more so to the spyware and virus world attentino wise. So yeah not having the market share reduce the probulity of people wanting to spend their time learning and writing for it.

Some people here need to put down there apple koolaid for a little while. It starting to infect your brains.

 

[Mord]

Wow. Which law is this exactly? Or better yet....... any reliable reference to confirm this BS? This thread is officially funny.

http://www.megalaw.com/top/encryption.php

 

[decksnap]

Not really there is a lot of ways that we can infer that it is a huge part of the case.

lets just look at software where we have proven infomation. Lets see Games.... how many big hit games are never released for OSX... oh yeah a lot because it is a small market share and not worth the time nor are the number of people working on it. Or just look at the lag time for software being ported over.

On windows you can pretty much do anything. Not the best but you can find software to do just about anything. There really isnt any software out there than is on OSX that I could not easily find something almost if not as good on the PC.

Plus most of the spielized software is made Windows side only. You cannt not agrue those facts.

From that it is a safe bet that this also apply even more so to the spyware and virus world attentino wise. So yeah not having the market share reduce the probulity of people wanting to spend their time learning and writing for it.

Some people here need to put down there apple koolaid for a little while. It starting to infect your brains.

Probability is not fact.

 

[bbrosemer]

Just incase anyone was wondering, Adobe on My Mac even under Rosetta runs compartive to Adobe on the XP side of Boot Camp. Its pretty sad when people can not be open minded and they choose to ignore facts. Some people in this Thread have continually ignored valid points that others have brought up. They are arguing not because they know something but because they are not happy until everyone around them gives up. I think this is very close to arguing with one of those hahaha we have 26 WS Yankee fans who knows nothing about baseball. That is the same case here these people know some about XP but in the grand scheme their computer knowledge consists only on XP, it is that simple.

 

[Chrispy]

Just incase anyone was wondering, Adobe on My Mac even under Rosetta runs compartive to Adobe on the XP side of Boot Camp.

This is true. I saw a review where someone actually benchmarked Adobe on Windows and on Rosetta with 2GB ram. The performance was almost the exact same on both.

 

[bbrosemer]

This is true. I saw a review where someone actually benchmarked Adobe on Windows and on Rosetta with 2GB ram. The performance was almost the exact same on both.

Well and I do have 2gb of ram...

 

[savar]

I think you're letting your hate for microsoft cloud your judgement. Do you know first hand that Vista will NOT be a secure operating system? What exactly are you basing it on?

I think its safe to say that Microsoft's security initiatives to date have been more PR hype than proven results. Last year, security was supposed to be the #1 concern across all product groups at MS...and yet there were still many patches which themselves had security holes in them.

 

[bbrosemer]

Gotta love the 2hrs worth of updates as well with XP...