[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by SoapbarII

JerryLove...I didnt see any viruses on that page...just bugs in programs and articles about programs.

Would specific names help? Switchback and Oompa Loompa would be two (a trojan and a virus respectively) that infect OSX.

[ApparentlyNothing]

I see you must have ignored this link in our last discussion.

http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/s...s_x_virus.html

Some highlights...

"Simply put, at the time of writing this article [July 13, 2006], there are no file-infecting viruses that can infect Mac OS X."

"Long before the digital ink dried on those simplistic and sensational headlines our Security Response team had determined that OSX.Leap.A was a worm, and not a file-infecting virus."

However, the article does go on to talk about worms, trojans, etc. But they differ from viruses. And I don't believe those worms and trojans are a threat anymore with the latest security updates (though I could be wrong). There's certainly the potential for more to come up though. Like I said before, OS X isn't invulnerable, but with all the latest updates at factory settings, it's better than a PC at factory settings.

[JerryLove]

However, the article does go on to talk about worms, trojans, etc. But they differ from viruses.

Yes. Trojans are deliberatly placed in specific files, virui hide in files and copy themselves to other accessed files, worms actively infect other machines.

The most damaging and dangerous are worms.

From their site:

"Basically, viruses are designed to infect files within a single computer, while worms are designed to spread from one computer to another."

Like I said before, OS X isn't invulnerable, but with all the latest updates at factory settings, it's better than a PC at factory settings.

Another assertion. Support.

I have seen little to nothing that would indicate to me any reason why I should believe that OSX is any more secure than XP. What I do know is that there are fewer people interested in writing malware for OSX because it represents a mere fraction of the computing world.

Mac is safe from malware the same way Native Americans were safe from smallpox. For hundreds of years, the Eurasians were dealing with outbreak after outbreak of smallpox, while the native Americans had none.

As a mac-fanatic would say: native Americans are harder to infect.

Of course, the Eurasians eventually came to the Americas and brought smallpox with them. Generation after generation of not ahving to fight smallpox had left them with essentially no defence and they were nearly wiped out.

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Yes. Trojans are deliberatly placed in specific files, virui hide in files and copy themselves to other accessed files, worms actively infect other machines.

The most damaging and dangerous are worms.

From their site:

"Basically, viruses are designed to infect files within a single computer, while worms are designed to spread from one computer to another."

I tried going to that link you posted earlier, but it just lead me to some search for macintosh that didn't reveal any results.

I think people completely overreacted when it came to Leap.A (aka Oompa Loompa). I mean, it infected maybe 30 machines, was poorly written to where it didn't even do what it was supposed to, and it was quickly fixed with a security update by Apple. You're misleading by listing malware that isn't even an issue anymore as if anyone using a Mac is at risk from these. While it may prove your point that OS X isn't invulnerable (something I have never claimed to begin with), it doesn't prove the current state of risk in using OS X. I might as well list the thousands and thousands of malware for PC's whether Windows fixed them with security updates or not.

If there are worms and trojans that are currently a risk to OS X without an anti-virus and can actually do serious damage to the system, then I think we'd all be open to hearing about them.

Another assertion. Support.

I have seen little to nothing that would indicate to me any reason why I should believe that OSX is any more secure than XP. What I do know is that there are fewer people interested in writing malware for OSX because it represents a mere fraction of the computing world.

Mac is safe from malware the same way Native Americans were safe from smallpox. For hundreds of years, the Eurasians were dealing with outbreak after outbreak of smallpox, while the native Americans had none.

As a mac-fanatic would say: native Americans are harder to infect.

Of course, the Eurasians eventually came to the Americas and brought smallpox with them. Generation after generation of not ahving to fight smallpox had left them with essentially no defence and they were nearly wiped out.

Did I say that a factory setting install of OS X is harder to infect? No. If it's true or not, I'm no expert. But as I said in the previous post, you would be more likely to get malware with a default install of XP (IOW, no anti-virus or anything else besides what Windows provides on their install disc) than compared to OS X. I never stated the reason. If that reason solely is because there's simply less malware out there for OS X, it still makes my statement true.

[Jarmin]

Originally Posted by nbfan

Right, because Macs are perfect in every aspect. Just because it's never happened to you doesn't mean it never happens period. As Patrick said, a properly maintained PC can be just as secure as a Mac.

Note the use of the phrase "properly maintained."

For one thing, it assumes the average person knows how to properly maintain their PC. For another, it's indicative of one problem with PCs - you gotta maintain 'em!

I've had my iBook G4 for almost three years now. It has literally never crashed on me. Safari and the occasional other application have crashed on me a few times, but these are always isolated application crashes that don't crash the computer or affect any other open applications.

As far as maintenance, I periodically take the offered system/application updates, but I have literally NEVER done ANY maintenance on my computer beyond that (ok, so that's not entirely true - I did replace the hard drive, but it broke due to exterior misuse, not actual hardware problems). I NEVER run Norton or any crap like that. I've never had spyware, a virus, you name it. My computer simply runs and runs well and there's not a darn thing I gotta do to keep it that way.

Also, Art, you said you've run Windows for years without experiencing any crashes. That may be the case, but note that you're experienced with computers and run Windows on computers you built yourself. Like most people, I'm clueless when it comes to the innerworkings of computers. I want a computer that I don't have to baby, maintain, or build myself in order to get reliable operation. I can get that computer by using Mac.

Yes, Macs CAN get viruses and spyware. But normally it happens because someone doesn't know what they're doing and actively downloads something from a spam email. Or it happens because that same sort of person installs a piece of junk freeware or something. But as a general rule, if you just use a little common sense there's absolutely no way you can involuntarily get an infected machine.

ApparentlyNothing said it well: "I think it would be safe to say that with a fresh install of each OS (IOW, each with the default security and security apps and no third party software), that one would be much more likely to get viruses, adware, spyware, etc. on XP than OS X."

BTW, Apple makes it INCREDIBLY easy to get fresh versions of everything. When there's a fresh version of something ready, be it an update of iTunes or an update of OSX, a little "software update" window pops open and all you've got to do is click a couple buttons to get your new software installed.

[JerryLove]

For one thing, it assumes the average person knows how to properly maintain their PC. For another, it's indicative of one problem with PCs - you gotta maintain 'em!

As opposed to Macs which have never put out a patch since 10.0 came out?

Oh wait! You aren't running 10.0 because it was patched. (as I recall, it was incapable of even playing DVDs)

I've had my iBook G4 for almost three years now. It has literally never crashed on me. Safari and the occasional other application have crashed on me a few times, but these are always isolated application crashes that don't crash the computer or affect any other open applications.

I don't have system crashes either. I've only had two XP computers that were crash prone. One had a hardware problem and the other was back in the Beta days (there was a problem with the beta video driver).

As far as maintenance, I periodically take the offered system/application updates, but I have literally NEVER done ANY maintenance on my computer beyond that

And what do you think we are discussing with PC maintence? It involves letting the automatic updates update the OS.

ok, so that's not entirely true - I did replace the hard drive, but it broke due to exterior misuse, not actual hardware problems).

The HW in a Mac and PC are essentially the same. They are PC add-in cards, PC hard drives, PC CPUs and BOIS (since the switch to intel). The monitors are made by one of the only couple companies that make LCDs, and they make them for PCs as well.

I NEVER run Norton or any crap like that. I've never had spyware, a virus, you name it.

Actually, you don't know that. You may have a piece of spyware on your machine right now.

In the past 6 years, my machine has had one piece of adware successfully get on it. It was simple enough to remove with spybot at the time. In the past 15 years, I have had one successful intrusion on my PC security (when I first started using broadband in the mid 90s and didn't realize that my domain was routing over it).

Also, Art, you said you've run Windows for years without experiencing any crashes. That may be the case, but note that you're experienced with computers and run Windows on computers you built yourself. Like most people, I'm clueless when it comes to the innerworkings of computers. I want a computer that I don't have to baby, maintain, or build myself in order to get reliable operation. I can get that computer by using Mac.

I'm missing your point. Do you think we "computer people" wave a magic wand and keep our systems from crashing?

Systems crash when there are hardware problems. They crash when device drivers are poorly written, they crash when they are infected, and yes, they crash when the OS is buggy.

Dell may much with its OK. Dell may use a BIOS with a poorly written driver, and dell may crash. If this is the case it's a reason to not buy Dell. It doesn't say anything about XP or the PC platform.

BTW, for the XP-bashers, I would remind you that macs run XP too now.

Yes, Macs CAN get viruses and spyware. But normally it happens because someone doesn't know what they're doing and actively downloads something from a spam email. Or it happens because that same sort of person installs a piece of junk freeware or something.

That's good for people who build their own machines, but what happens when clueless people want to run machines?

I do believe you were trying to make a case for the clueless. They go to all sorts of websites and install most anything they come across. If only someone made a piece of software that ukept updated lists of mallicious code and stopped it from running on these clueless people's machines.

BTW, Apple makes it INCREDIBLY easy to get fresh versions of everything. When there's a fresh version of something ready, be it an update of iTunes or an update of OSX, a little "software update" window pops open and all you've got to do is click a couple buttons to get your new software installed.

BTW, XP does the exact same thing.

[Art]

You might also notice that I have laptops from two different manufactures that do not crash. It is not only my home built systems.

I should also mention that the only thing I have done to ensure that my computer runs well is install AVG Anti-Virus on each computer. I abuse these laptops, and they still run fine.

[BWyatt]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The HW in a Mac and PC are essentially the same. They are PC add-in cards, PC hard drives, PC CPUs and BOIS (since the switch to intel).

Assuming you meant BIOS, it's worth noting that the Intel Macs use EFI, not BIOS. They actually have to have a BIOS emulator (Boot Camp) at the firmware level to run Windows natively.

As somebody with extensive experience on both platforms, the difference for me really comes down to software. Yes, I'm frustrated by the amount of malware that attacks Windows systems, but I also run my OS X install just as closed as my Windows install. In the end, though, it just so happens that the most of applications I want to run are only available for OS X (iLife, iWork, SubEthaEdit). I only maintain a Windows installation for Visual Studio, which I need for a class I'm taking this fall. After that class is over, I'll remove Windows.

Overall, I also like the way OS X works more than the way Windows does. It works the way I think, and it supplies me with the tools I need without loading a bunch of unnecessary bulk on my system.

[tht00]

(I wrote this post up several days ago, and my ISP went down as I went to post... I saved it in Linux and soon reinstalled XP (takes over the bootloader), so I've finally reinstalled GRUB and have access to this file again.)

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So then, society is not suceptable to a human-transferrable bird flu because none currently exists... nor is the tree in my front yard succeptable to a hurricane because there are none right this moment.

Kinda. For now, viruses and general malware are virtually non-existant to OSes outside of Windows. I have yet to see anyone claim to get Ubuntu infected -- I patrol the forums quite often and haven't seen anything of the sort... not to mention, it'd be a pretty hot topic. I wouldn't want to see the kind of discussions that would go on in a Windows forum of that size.

So, for now, *nix systems do not need to worry about viruses. Am I wrong in saying that?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Well, the makers describe it differently. According to them FEDORA has the following differences from Redhat:

Fedora is not "Stable, reliable, and broadly supported."
Fedora has no ISV or hardware certifications.
Fedora runs on fewer architectures

Plus a somewhat different view of updates. But hey, why believe them: They only write the software.

First, they didn't say say that Fedora isn't 'Stable, reliable, etc.'. They described Red Hat as "Stable, reliable, and broadly supported..." and Fedora as "Bleeding-edge technology released early and often". This doesn't make Fedora instantly unstable. Granted, there is a lot of 'beta' software out there, and those instances of software can/will crash, though, it is very rare for a program crash to be able to take down the whole system. For the average user that wants stability, Fedora would still be fine; just use mature software and stay away from the 'bleeding-edge'... or just find a distro that uses more 'mature' software (Debian comes to mind as a good starting point).

From wiki:
Fedora was derived from the original Red Hat Linux distribution. The project envisages that conventional Linux home users will use Fedora Core, and intends that it replace the consumer distributions of Red Hat Linux. Support for Fedora comes from the greater community (although Red Hat staff work on it, Red Hat does not provide official support for Fedora).

So... how is this much different than what I said? You've got a (paid) business version, Red Hat, and you've got the (free) personal use version, Fedora. For the average user, Fedora is fine of the two.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

SUSE desktop: $50 per year (http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/howtobuy.html)

openSUSE: free.
http://en.opensuse.org

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I do believe you were trying to make a case for the clueless. They go to all sorts of websites and install most anything they come across. If only someone made a piece of software that ukept updated lists of mallicious code and stopped it from running on these clueless people's machines.

I'll agree with you here. You can't keep people from screwing up their OS, and no matter what you're running, you'll get people who can (and will) do just that.

[JerryLove]

As somebody with extensive experience on both platforms, the difference for me really comes down to software. Yes, I'm frustrated by the amount of malware that attacks Windows systems, but I also run my OS X install just as closed as my Windows install. In the end, though, it just so happens that the most of applications I want to run are only available for OS X (iLife, iWork, SubEthaEdit). I only maintain a Windows installation for Visual Studio, which I need for a class I'm taking this fall. After that class is over, I'll remove Windows.

I think that's a very good reason to run OSX. Because you like the interface on it, and because the applications you want are there.

[JerryLove]

So, for now, *nix systems do not need to worry about viruses. Am I wrong in saying that?

I would have to say "yes, you are".

UNIX has had its history of worms and malware as well. Scalper, XC, CodeRed, etc.

First, they didn't say say that Fedora isn't 'Stable, reliable, etc.'. They described Red Hat as "Stable, reliable, and broadly supported..." and Fedora as "Bleeding-edge technology released early and often". This doesn't make Fedora instantly unstable.

So you think that they are deliberatelyt misleading their customers?

openSUSE: free.
http://en.opensuse.org

But SuSE isn't. Do you think there might be a reason that Novell has managed to stay in business selling for-pay versions when there's a free version out there?

[gtrdave]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think that's a very good reason to run OSX. Because you like the interface on it, and because the applications you want are there.

That's really the bottom line for anyone running any hardware/os combo; because it's what they want to run.

I use Windows every weekday from 9-to-5. Still, I choose to run Mac at home and should be running it at my new job in a matter of weeks.
Why? Because I prefer to.

[nbfan]

Originally Posted by gtrdave

That's really the bottom line for anyone running any hardware/os combo; because it's what they want to run.

I use Windows every weekday from 9-to-5. Still, I choose to run Mac at home and should be running it at my new job in a matter of weeks.
Why? Because I prefer to.

I think that's what it all comes down to.