Slashdot Mirror
Want Security? Make The Switch
Lord_Slepnir writes "Security firm Sophos Security has released a report claiming that Macs will be more secure than Windows for some time to come. The report listed the 10 most common kinds of malware, and noted that they can only infect Windows systems."
Anyone who is in "the industry" knows this. They just like to say the things people like to hear though...
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
As more users make the switch, so will the malware coders.
That said, it will be years before OSX overtakes Windows, if it ever does. Still, with OSX's mature tried-and-true UNIX core, I don't see as many problems as with MS's OS.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I love my mac, but articles like this are somewhat misleading. Surely the reason the top 10 pieces of malware are Windows only isn't something as mundane as the 90% / 10% market saturation of windows vs. Mac devices. Even if the same malware app was on ever single mac connected to the net, it still wouldn't show up in this top 10.
Wow, they managed to predict the present.
diegoT
..people want to attack bigger targets more than smaller ones.
I'm just going to keep all my important stuff on a TI-99/4a from now on. Let's see the botnets get hold of that!
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Why would I write a piece of malware that would only target a small segment of the market? If one wanted to further one's nefarious plans wouldn't it be smart to go after the biggest slice of the pie?
Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
The first and foremost thing MS should do to make Windows more secure is to disable the call home when installing WinXP. From the moment it logs in, it is prone to attack and the user is left defenseless upto the moment installation is completed and a zillion trojans have had ample time to install. Atleast make it so the call home is performed AFTER I had the chance to install a virusscanner and firewall.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Well sure... follow the money... There is no point in compromising a Mac but if you hack Windows you have a marketable product. After the pigs sprout wings and Macs take over the 95% market share lets see how many proffesonal hackers turn there attention away from Microsoft's products. Saying OSX is more robust than Windows XP is irelivant... where there is a will there is a way.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Maybe the OS-dependent malware is on Windows but not MacOSX, but there are still some serious computer-delivered attacks that don't depend on the operating system. Social exploits like phishing and pay-forward scams still attack the gullible on any platform. Cross-site scripting exploits can still put web services such as PayPal and Amazon at risk. This has little to do with the platform, and I think many MacOSX fans are falsely smug over the whole thing.
[
If you really want to follow the security through lack of marketshare model then you should install os/2 or dos.
Linux, right? Seriously, though, this is going to start the usual flamewar, with both sides refusing to budge on the views about their systems. Nothing new. I run Windows (for games...and Linux for most everything else...and I do like Macs, but haven't been able to get one recently), and haven't had a virus or malware problem in years. I run a good firewall/anti-virus combo along with using Ad-aware and the rest. I don't click on banner adds and I don't install strange pop-up programs. Pretty simple really.
these things happen to other people
This is just another of those articles that claims Apple is safer, because it's less of a target.
It reads the new updated statistics about the problems of ms windows, and clichés it's way to declaring apple fairly safe.
this article does admit apple has security flaws, but does not extend it beyond that.
In short, the article doesn't do much to bring perspective, or depth to an already longwinded debate.
In my opinion, changing to apple because it's less of a target is comparable security through obscurity.
Real security comes through proper training of administrators and users. Real security does not come with the operating system
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
The user is the most infectious part of any system.
If a user has permissions to run any program he wants then malware will remain.
In a corporate environment, the users' rights should be such that unknown applications cannot run.
Home users don't have the same protections and must rely on virus checkers and spyware scanning to tell them that "this screensaver your mum sent you is infact a trojan which will send itself out to all your friends".
Windows, Linux, Mac, BSD are all susceptible to users' bad decisions.
(and the critical mass of malicious folks exist in Windows, but that could change quite quickly)
liqbase
When firefox came out, there werent any problems with it at all. Pops wouldnt happen as often. No 'ZOMG ACTIVEX WILL EAT YOUR FACE' or anything like that. But mostly because 95% of all people were using IE and firefox was about 2%. Now that firefox is more popular, people have found ways around it. Firefox is still great and they do a great job at patching it up (much better than IE). But the Macs are in the same boat. Its a small market right now, but as they get more popular, there will be viruses and exploits for it just like windows. The only argument is will they fix it faster than microsoft does?
RTFA! If you were using a MAC you woulda got 1st post, but since your WinBox was infected with malware it slowed your internet connection down.
The script kiddie tools are available on Windows only.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The article doesn't say that Macs are more secure than Windows. It only says that they are less targeted by malware. Two different things. Bad, Slashdot, Bad!
*Troll*
-Matt
True.
I think we'll never see mass-migration influenced by arguments like those on the article.
People has been saying that security is THE good argument for switching forever, be it Linux, Solaris, BSD or Mac folks, but this has never been a sufficient argument to fuel the switch.
Maybe what we need is not a system with better security and similar software suit. People will only change when we have a system with better security and SAME software suit (or at least one that has similar interface).
Most users are lazy, and they don't want to learn how to use new interfaces.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Saying that the most common malware only effects Windows, therefore Macs are more secure is simply bad reasoning.
What matters is rate of contact and rate of infection after contact.
A well configured Windows machine, with a good up-to-date virus/spyware scanner and firewall which prevents unauthorized registry changes is pretty hard to actually infect.
I'm sure that "out of the box" Macs are better. But it's not "out of the box" that I care about. My concern is level of security during actual operation.
I have no problem believing that Macs are more resistant to malware, but this measure doesn't show that to necessarily be the case.
Windows is more used than OS X (90% marketshare) and Microsoft is more hated than Apple -- of course Windows is going to be "more vulnerable"... because more people are going to target it! (Analogies: start your engines!) That's like saying "You're more likely to get shot in Chicago than SmalltownUSA" Well duh, because there are more people and more guns in Chicago than SmalltownUSA (Apple is SmalltownUSA if you couldn't figure that out). Apple's operating system has its flaws, Windows has its flaw, Linux has flaws -- security flaws will probably always exist (until the robots write our code for us... IN OUR OWN BLOOD) and as long as they are around, people will always try to exploit them. It's not wonder the top 10 malware pieces are for Windows considering Windows' HUGE marketshare (Analogy remix: wouldn't it be smart to pick out a particular bank to rob if it has 90% of the world's money?).
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
They said the same thing about Firefox but that's starting to change. Mozilla is fixing holes all the time and I'm starting to see ads that get through Adblock (stupid Mediaplex). This is just an article about security through obscurity - the best kind of security according to too many Apple fans I've talked to.
Faith in obscurity means you'll be totally unprepared when disaster strikes.
"laminated medium"
Gold-pressed latinum! w00t! Oh, you said "laminated"? nevermind....
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
However, the BBC article linked to says:
Kinds of malware means categories - eg trojans, viruses, etc. That's absolutely not what the BBC article says.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You are correct sir. However there is one other way it would happen. A major security disaster that really eats nearly everyone's data on the Windows platform in such a way that it can never be recovered and backups won't work because the fundamental OS itself is completely at the mercy of the cracker(s) who staged the attack. At that point, people won't want to use Windows and would be forced to move. Of course, something like that could never happen now, could it? ;)
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
What does it all mean? Sort this out for me, Slashdot.
I wonder what goes through the mind of the average person, when thinking about buying there next computer. Do they buy PCs because that is what they always have had, and it is what everyone they know has? Or is it a certain love for applications that aren't on macs. (surely not) Is it the salesmen in the stores, pushing pcs?
They're also easy to perceive as being "user friendly", stylish (if aesthetics matter to you), very versatile, and over-all are just more "welcoming" to those people who don't know a lot about computing in general and easily anthropomorph their PC's into something that "hates them" every time a program suffers from buggy construction.
My parents and an Aunt just bought themselves new computers - Dad got a 20" iMac, Mum got a 17" MacBook Pro (not a single problem with heat or "moo" yet), and Aunt picked a 13" MacBook (she hasn't said anything about problems yet either) - based on my recommendations and their experiences with Windows installs degrading overtime - seriously, barely touched PCs and Windows had to be re-installed at least once every six months, even with anti-spyware/virus and firewall software and hardware.
They bought them with a three-user licence of Windows XP as well - for those few programs that they use that aren't on Mac OS X - and are now quite happy doing a lot more on their computers, and watching a lot less television, than they were before.
Most of the time they're booted up into Mac OS X. Sometimes my Aunt uses Windows for when she's working on Family Tree's, and once Mum installed Mac:Office she stopped using MSN on Windows so it's already been left alone after two days. Dad doesn't know why he's got Windows, it just seemed like a good idea to him, and I'm getting him off of it slowly because seriously, he doesn't use his computer for anything that he can't do in Mac OS X; when he does need Windows though, it'll be there on another partition waiting to be used.
Macs are the best computer for the general consumer to buy today, whether it be a Mini, an iMac, or a MacBook (Pro or "Regular"), simply because the core OS that comes on them provides a good place for a "noob" to learn about the web, email, writing letters, making movies, playing with photography, simple programming, etc... and because of Mac OS X's overall design and default configuration (very important because no "noob" is going to first secure their PC when they unpack it) it is a secure place to play.
With the change to Intel CPU's they become even more useful across the broad spectrum of people using computers because suddenly that program that you had to use for work and couldn't change for something else cheaper or OSS can now be run on Windows... natively on a Mac; allowing you to "cool off" from Windows once in a while by rebooting and firing up iPhoto or iMovie, potter around with that masterpiece you're gonna release one day to rival The Big Lebowski, and then reboot and get back to work.
There was virtualisation software before but now Parallels and the Intel CPU switch has made Windows in Mac OS X even more practical, and now Windows can be run while enjoying some of that OS X security. You're firewalling Windows XP with Mac OS X! You, the noob, has his own UNIX firewall! Now how cool is that?
If you've got the cash and a looking for a good all-round computer, get a Mac. If you don't have the cash, save up and then buy a Mac. If you're a gamer... get whatever the hell you want because you're likely to have already set you're mind on something and anything else is just "bogus", and if you're a Linux/BSD geek like me, well... one day you may want a Mac and run Gentoo or something else on it, but I'm personally enjoying this use I have of my Dad's older iMac G5 and am seriously considering turning my Gentoo Desktop PC into a server and buying a MacBook Pro like Mum's for my main machine. :)
Te Quiero, Puta!
In other news, a team of scientists has collected a list of the 10 most common human illnesses, and has concluded that it's much safer to be an ant since they're invulnerable to them.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
The same was said millions of times about Firefox. Now, millions of people switched to Firefox, and Mozilla Dev Team release critical security updates more often than Microsoft for IE. Not because the MS is lazy to patch their browser, but because FF is even more buggy and door-open. We just "didn't know" it before, because only one dozen of people around the world used it back in 2004. Oh, and there is no ActiveX support. Call it a Microsoft peace of shiat, which you never want to use, BUT think if this is really a way. Removing features to be "secure" ? That is something like "Do not drive fast, and there will be no car disasters". Yes, we buy all those Benzes to drive 20MPH. Same goes for any Mac. People just don't know about it yet.
Social exploits like phishing and pay-forward scams still attack the gullible on any platform. Cross-site scripting exploits can still put web services such as PayPal and Amazon at risk. This has little to do with the platform, and I think many MacOSX fans are falsely smug over the whole thing.
...social exploits and cross site exploits don't depend on a your desktop OS being badly designed but I bet there still is a fair number of Windows users who envy the Mac zealots for not having to waste their time pruning Norton/Panda/Macaffee/etc... anti-malware suites with monotonous regularity never mind the endless nag screens these anti-malware suites throw at you. The very fact that Macs will remain an OS/Hardware package deal with a limited userbase for the forseeable future will limit the OS.X malware problem. Even so I'd still bet on a OS.X or Linux desktop OS'es as having fewer problems (not to be misread as 'no problems') with malware even if the same effort went into producing malware for those two OS'es as goes into the manufacture of Windows malware. This may of course change with Windows Vista but that remains to be seen.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
No need to fill up the form to download the whitepaper. Just download it from the following URI: http://www.sophos.com/sophos/docs/eng/marketing_ma terial/SophosSecurityReport_2005.pdf
Just a trivial case of Google Hacking.
A nice "enter your root password to do this" prompt will not prevent stupid people from running malware on a Mac, especially if the malware says "enter your system password to install in secure mode" or something similar. Just because a system is inherently more secure does not mean stupid people can't screw it up.
With all the press about "Macs don't get viruses", your average user is likely to get a false sense of security when running things and might be more likely to try and run everything they run across, since it can't possibly do anything bad since they have a Mac.
And again you're making that assumption that computers are used primarly for business. Anyone who uses a computer for business has missed the point entirely. See my profile and you'll understand why.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I'd imagine it's the first option, in the main. Computers are expensive purchases and no-one will take a risk with something totally unknown, unless they know what they're doing. For the average person, I'd imagine that Macs & Linux don't even register. They might think they're different versions of Windows. They won't know what an OS is.
Therefore, articles like this will only encourage switching in that section of users who understand the differences (and even then it might not succeed). Which, in my experience, is a tiny fraction of the general computer-using population.
We use Sophos at our workplace. I also use other antivirus and antispyware - often to clean up the crap that Sophos doesn't find. Speaking as someone who's familiar with Sophos, I think it's curious that Sophos is telling home users to consider buying Macs. Go to Sophos' website (www.sophos.com) and try to find a home user product... They don't seem to promote any.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would think this is a warning shot aimed at Microsoft because of MS' sudden focus on security, to the detriment of companies such as Sophos; send Microsoft's small clientle to the enemy - it's no skin off of Sophos' corporate nose. As a PR exercise, Sophos otherwise just released a piece of fluff. They're talking to an audience that they don't serve or interact with.
It has never been about what is easier or better, or even cheaper really... Remember, the reason Windows won was that everyone already had service contracts with IBM, so DOS won (in large businesses with IBM mainframes). Then they already had contracts with Microsoft, so they won. There really is not much more too it.
Existing software, compatibility with work environment, what your friends have, existing periphals and what you know. Until the Mac can overcome all of that it's a tough row to hoe.
When buying a new computer most consumer want to re-use some of their software (games, financial programs (e.g., Quicken, MS Money, and maybe productivity software). Even if the Mac has an equivalent program, the added expense of re-buying stuff that you already own pushes up the mac cost. Also, many large companies have licenses that allow for home use of MS Office suite... on the Mac this will add another $100 to the cost.
Consumers may also want to recycle their existing printer, scanner, camera and may be concerned (rightly or wrongly) that it willn't work with the Mac.
Finally, there is a learning curve with the Mac...things work differently... maybe better, but different.
I've come to the conclusion that the biggest reason for why the Mac is a more secure platform isn't because of technology, but because the Mac userbase tends to be a lot more savvy than the Windows userbase.
I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of Windows malware comes not from the inherent insecurity of the Windows platform but from users doing dumb things. Someone who installs some stupid little weather applet and gets infected with spyware got infected not because of a flaw in the system, but because they didn't bother to determine whether or not the source of their software was credible or not. Even if they got a prompt like Vista and OS X present they'll still authorize the program. There's no patch that can be applied to a system to prevent stupid users from mucking it up.
John Gruber wrote a really astute article on why Macs don't have the level of malware that one would think they would. If Apple has roughlt 5% marketshare, why isn't 5% of the total malware population targeting Macs? I think he's right when he notes:
Macs are more secure because Mac users have a much tougher stance towards crapware. Mac users tend to be much more technically proficient than the average. If that "zero-tolerance" policy changes, I'm not so sure we'll see an increase in the amount of malware targeting Macs.
OS X does a great job of providing technical barriers against malware, but nothing can prevent malware that uses social engineering to do its work. Mac users are safer because they choose to be - but if you get a group of users who have no awareness of security and will blindly execute anything they come across, even if the system specifically tells them not to, that could change very quickly.
I wonder what goes through the mind of the average person, when thinking about buying there next computer. Do they buy PCs because that is what they always have had, and it is what everyone they know has? Or is it a certain love for applications that aren't on macs. (surely not) Is it the salesmen in the stores, pushing pcs?
What do you mean "surely not"? Can I run City of Heroes/Villains or DDO natively on an Apple machine IN OS/X (NOT in Windows dual-booted, and NOT in VirtualPC/VMWare/Other Emulation Software)?
Yes, these are games however there are MANY other people out there with OTHER requirements for which there simply isn't another option as far as the OS goes.
If things have continued in the computer retail space (from the time I was involved in it), the salesmen push whatever they have the most 'training' on. When I worked for Best Buy in the late '90's, that training was limited, and I don't recall it ever involving anything Apple related. Those machines sat on the shelf and sold only when a customer came in that already knew they wanted said hardware. I have a feeling that was one of the reasons the space was eventually re-purposed.
bork bork bork!
I wonder what goes through the mind of the average person, when thinking about buying there next computer. Do they buy PCs because that is what they always have had, and it is what everyone they know has? Or is it a certain love for applications that aren't on macs. (surely not) Is it the salesmen in the stores, pushing pcs?
Had you considered the possibility that we might actually prefer Windows, or even think it's better?
I'm perfectly serious here. I'm not clueless or an idiot; I probably know more about computers than most people here. I've used Macs and various Linices extensively, and I consider myself skilled with both. But I still use Windows for my primary computer, because I just happen to find it a pleasanter environment. I can get stuff done faster in Windows. It does what I want, the way I want to do it. That's why.
Why not use Linux? Because Linux GUIs have always struck me as clunky and fragile, and there's no useful Linux software that I can't run either in Cygwin or remotely over an ssh tunnel to a Debian system. Meanwhile, much of the software I do need -- notably professional graphics applications -- is not available for Linux at all. (GIMP and Inkscape are fine for web design, but they don't even try to do print.)
Why not use a Mac? Primarily because I don't see any point in paying extra for a proprietary and incompatible system that doesn't offer me anything significant over a PC. Also, the Mac interface is an abomination. A hodgepodge of totally different (but equally hideous) skins, blurry fonts, and whizz-bang effects that do nothing but slow down any attempt at serious work. And the dock? Seriously, what were they smoking? I've seen hardened Apple fanatics break down in tears because they can't figure out how the dock is supposed to work. Apple stopped doing intuitive when they retired OS 9. I'm surprised more people haven't noticed yet.
And what about security? I'm not worried. A hardware firewall, coupled with basic precautions like not using IE, not opening random email attachments, and not browsing Russian porn/warez sites, keeps me perfectly secure. I haven't been hit by a single virus, worm, or piece of spyware in my entire life, and I see no reason to suppose that's about to change.
So that's why my next computer will be another Windows PC. Sorry if my failure to subscribe to Slashdot groupthink offends you.
I'm echoing a couple of other folks here, but I wanted to chime in myself with a little story to illustrate. If you really care about safety, get an education. A good A/V program and firewall are a good start - but to believe for one second that any amount of software can protect you is just being naive. The best A/V and anti-spyware cannot DO everything and as a bonus, they are only as good as the person that updates them (or the person responsible for the update). What's worse, is thanks to the media, most of these tools incorrectly identify "thousands of infections" (fear only works through numbers - if a product finds ONE legitimate malware, it CAN'T be as good as one that finds THOUSANDS, RIGHT????) by identifying cookies for Pete's sake. The fact remains that a little education, and a bit of lifestyle change goes a LONG way. Drop IE (I'm an Opera user - yes, I know I know - let the Firefox arrows fly). Drop the Outlook evilness (again, I'll buck the trend - I use The Bat! and I love it). If you don't want the hole in the roof to get bigger, don't leave the little hole in disrepair, right? Fact of the matter is, I've managed to be malware and virus free for going on 10 years now by simple education. I don't even use a firewall or realtime A/V OR spyware tools. I do a 'system level' A/V test on boot up, keep my A/V defs up to date - and I let Windows Firewall run. A couple of times a year, I'll get the "flavor of the month" anti-malware package, spyware package and run it just to ensure I'm clean. Then I promptly uninstall it. I've educated my wife and children about internet security. On their boxes, the A/V runs resident. My wife uses Internet Explorer because of some very poorly written sites she must visit. I got my kid on Opera. Zero infections. In fact, education works so well - I have a story to tell about it. A family friend and her kid came over to visit - all their stuff was in storage (getting ready to move) and they needed some computer time on the 'net to do some homework, check email, etc. No problem - terminals all over the house - pick one and go. The kid got on my wife's computer. Within FIVE MINUTES, the computer was infected. To this day, I don't know what she did - but it was LOADED with crap. The other terminals were off aside from mine - and I saw the infection try to hit my box, disabled sharing to my wife's computer, and ran in to stop what was going on. Five minutes, folks. That's all it took a squeaky clean system to become unbelievably infected. I can only imagine what their own computers look like. Took me HOURS to get it cleaned off (as I said - software can only do so much - if you don't get EVERYTHING before the next reboot, it all comes back - enjoy!). I'm sure everyone has a story like this. "I had a family member that was infected DAILY with tons of crap, changed them to Opera|Firefox|whatever and The Bat|Thunderbird|whatever and I've never had another call from them". You just can't argue with success stories like that. Sure, if you changed them to OSX or Redhat, you might have the same success story. But in this case, they didn't lose anything they used everyday (except that crappy browser and horrible email client), they learned a valuable lesson - and in many cases, come back to tell you how much BETTER the browser/client is than the horrible crap they were using (Opera's screen zooming alone makes it completely indispensible for people at super high resolutions - I'm at 180% as I write this). Until people understand the nature of evil, they cannot hope to combat it. You can install multiple A/V tools, spyware killers, the whole lot (and incorrectly feel safe about it - making you even MORE susceptible to attack) or you can get a little education, make a couple of small changes and really protect yourself. As Smokey the Bear says|said: "Only YOU ..."
Most users are lazy, and they don't want to learn how to use new interfaces.
Well... We'd better not tell them about the Windows/Office Vista menu changes then.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
But personally, I have to say I find Linux more convenient, because you get a complete, ready-to-go desktop with all your applications and settings nicely pre-configured, right out of the box
We were actually trying to figure this out at work. We get our choice of machines and OS's. The estimate right now is it takes the average Linux install and config about 4 business days to get everything they need installed and configured and working with all our resources. It takes the average Windows user 3 days (but these are mostly managerial types). It takes the average OS X user about 3 days as well, so it is winning for engineers, but not by much. For upgrades, however, it wins hands down. There is nothing quite as easy in the Linux world (that I've seen) as the install as an upgrade option. You boot the old machine while holding down a key, plug a firewire cable to the new machine, and click a button. It maxes out the hard drive write speed and you don't even have to tell it what files/configurations/etc. to copy. As a Linux distro maintainer I implore you, steal this feature.
But if I'm not mistaken, by your own argument that's too many choices
Touche. I don't really count Windows as a choice, as it is more of a default. My only thought is that we all have to help others make the right choice (yeah pigs flying applies here too). You make a good point.
I don't think you've not subscribed to the Slashdot "group think" since there is no such thing to subscribe (or not) to. From the sound of it you are in a niche market (professional graphics work) and probably more technically able than most graphic designers (hence your choice of Windows). But you are apparently not really into technology for what it can do overall. You're only into what it can do for your specific task. Considering that most graphic designers don't know much about networking, scripting or coding, they tend to prefer the Mac. Again, it doesn't sound like you're quite down at that level (not to disparage graphic designers, but the best of the lot rarely have any technical ability at all. They simply have great eyes and know how to use their apps).
.Net devel suite on your box and have downloaded the Windows source code via P2P to get things tuned right...). These failings don't really make either OS "bad" per se. But there are some simple facts to take into account:
For me... it's all about "free" in both senses of the word. I exclusively use Linux at home for everything. There are tons of applications that do everything I need. Since I don't need to go to print with my graphic work, GIMP works fine for me. As does GIMPrint for printing out family photos and the like. When it comes to the professional audio and video work I do, GIMP is leaps and bounds ahead of what the Windows platform provides and way cheaper than most decent Mac solutions. The amount of time spent getting mys systems configured (from source typically as I despise pre-packaged software) is not any greater than the amount of time I spent tweaking my Windows systems when I used that OS in the past. This is because for many of us, we like to get every ounce of performance out of our hardware and no matter what OS or platform we're on, we're going to investigate EVERY option all the way down to the code itself. Linux is not hard and the GUIs are much more polished and feature filled than anything that the Windows platform offers. But yes, you do have to spend some time learning the new approaches. I did and it was worth every second.
It still an argument that's stupid and pointless though. It's not about "Good OS" vs. "Bad OS". It's about a "Good for Me OS" vs. a Bad for Me OS". For me, Windows is too limiting and far too expensive when you factor in how much you have to spend on extra apps to actually make it useful. For you the GUI options on Linux didn't suit you, likely due to the learning curve and possibly due to the time you tried it (Development is moving fast and both GNOME and KDE are far better than the Explorer interface in my opinion). Linux also failed you in that you probably aren't the kind of person who likes to work all the way down to the metal to get the most out of your machine (again, not an insult just a basic fact based on what you posted. I don't know, so I can't say 100% that this is true. You might have the
1. I used Windows all the way from DOS/Win3.1 to XP and I only got hit with one exploit through a stupid move (putting my XP laptop directly on a DSL link in an emergency with no firewall at all Pre-SP2). I found that putting my Windows boxes behind a decent firewall (typically linux based) stopped a whole host of problems. Even without EVER using any antivirus software (I simply avoided Internet Explorer and any version of Outlook).
2. Nearly every Linux distro I've used has come with everything I've needed at a basic level and the only extras I ever install are typically because of my interests in the rarer fields of computing. Linux is certainly more complete when compared to Mac or Windows, but that's only if you're willing to put the time into learning it.
So there you have it. I hope you can see the wisdom in this piece and take no offense as none was meant.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Then you have people with little kids who like to play games, you can't exactly pop in the disc and it automatically installs the game like on a windows machine (if it will even install at all), for most people a computer is a computer, only the names are different, so they don't know anything about system requirments, With macs not being cheap by any means it wouldn't suprise me to hear a number of them are returned for simply not working being the majority of the complaints.
Sure they can go on and on and on about how it's more secure, but a story will come along not to long saying some website's encryption was cracked and lots of user data was stolen. It doesn't really seem to matter what OS you are using, aslong as assholes who think it's cool to create malware, spyware, viruses and so on exsist it will always be there and whatever the most dominant OS is that will be the main target. Sure Macs are safe for now because how big is their market share? 5%? 10%? Linux has even lower while Microsoft controlls the remaining %, so naturally people are going to target it cause it has the most impact.
Just like when someone robs a place, Macs and others are like Banks, they have tighter securty but there is a bigger payoff (by being able to say you were the one that broke it) but Windows is like the little shop on the coner, there's a whole lot more of them and they have cash right there in front of you and are lacking in security. So naturally you are going to take the easier place to rob...especially when you act like a 12 year old who thinks you are "1337" because you ran a script.
Computers are expensive purchases and no-one will take a risk with something totally unknown, unless they know what they're doing.
$499 isn't that exspensive compared to other products (car stereo, console gaming, tvs and so on) and chances are the average Joe just buys a computer based off what his kids, family members, or the store clerk tells him to.
From my experience, people who buy macs as their first computer did it because of family members that already had macs or they use macs at their college or work. But I've seen plenty of switchers of people who were fed up with spyware and other issues.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
http://news.com.com/2100-1002_3-6046197.html Pretty sure macs have their fair share of security holes, they just havent been widely exploited yet.
If you lock down your system, don't install software from untrusted sources and don't browse the web with admin rights, windows is a good compromise between security and usability. On the other hand, if you always run as admin, install every free (or non-free) crapware and use the same machine for logging in your bank account, I don't see how a change in a technicality (the OS) is going to help you from being exploited.
A) availability: Most retailers don't carry Macs. Especially now that Apple has its own retail stores. Apple is now a competitor. And Apple has very strict limits on what prices 3rd party vendors can sell their computers for. That's why you never see a (new) Mac sold anywhere for more $5 less than Apple's own price.
B) price: You pay more for the Apple name. Yes, you also pay more because the cost of the PC is partially subsidized by promotional software, some of which may or may not be useful. In any event, for $500, which would you want? A Mac mini that doesn't even come with a DVD burner, keyboard, mouse, or monitor? Or would you rather have an Athlon64-based system with a DVD burner, keyboard, mouse, and everything you need and probably even a 15"-17" LCD monitor thrown in?
C) compatibility: You can't even buy a printer that doesn't work with Windows. It's not hard to find one that doesn't work with Mac. It's nice to know that whatever you buy will just work. Printers are a big problem here in that some printer drivers only work with certain point releases of Mac OS X. Others work, but are 10 times slower than on Windows (I offer up my Brother MFC-3820CN as proof of this). And multifunctions/all-in-ones may not have all functionality available on Mac.
D) upgradeability: Unless you're talking about a PowerMac G5, Macs have no internal expandability. What are you supposed to do if your computing needs change? Pay Apple to do the upgrade for you? You can't even install memory in a Mac mini without special expertise! Forget about upgrading an optical drive or a hard drive. How about upgrading the onboard video to something more current? Not even a remote possibility in a Mac because there are no expansion slots!
E) people like freedom: With a PC, you have your choice of manufacturer, a greater choice of options (both BTO and aftermarket), and the knowledge that you probably know someone who is good with PCs. And if you don't, any computer place (other than the Apple Store, naturally) can service it for you.
Consumers aren't dumb. Don't let your anti-Microsoft bias get in the way of seeing that PCs have very real practical advantages over Macs. I gather a lot of people will have the experience (as my wife and I did) of buying into the Mac hype only to go back to PCs and never look back. Unless you specifically need a Mac, I'd say in almost all cases, you're better off with a PC. Think about all the copycat iMacs that were around a few years ago.. the eOne, the Gateway Profile... People don't spend $500+ lightly. They want the piece of mind of knowing that their purchase is going to be upgradeable (in other words, not obsolete in two years) and that they are not going to be limited in buying peripherals in the future (Joe User doesn't want to have to read box labels to see which versions of Mac OS X his new all-in-one printer is compatible with).
With every single PC vendor invested in the idea of destroying Apple, I don't see Apple being able to win a war of minds/marketing.
The only person really invested in Apple succeeding is Apple. Dell, HP, Best Buy, Gateway, AMD and many many more have a huge investment in being able to sell computers and computer components. Unless you're on Apple's "in" list of mandated components, you don't want to see a closed architecture win. To some degree Intel moving to the apple platform will at least bring on giant to their defense, but it's a small step in the long run.
Uh, unless you happen to be billions of consumers all rolled into one person posting AC, then the only person that you can vouch for how they pick a computer is YOURSELF. And I did say why there is a platform that is more dominant than others.
And as for the second part, Rosy and her daughters are calling you...
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
Now every frickin time I want to run some executable I have to click "Yeah, ok, fine, do it".
Providing a dialogue that is a confirmation, not a choice is a usability and security flaw. OS X does not do this. What is does is when you run a program for the first time, it tells you it is a program and then asks if you want to run that program or not run that program. You are not given the option of clicking "ok" like on Windows, which with a ridiculous number of said, useless dialogues trains everyone to reflexively click "ok."
Do you think I read the stupid dialogs?
You have no choice in this case. You have read the button names to know what you're picking or click randomly. Since the button names are actions, reading them gives you enough info to make a choice.
Confirmation prompts are not security.
Security is telling the user what is happening and letting them do what they want, but not what they don't want. In this case, the user is informed something is a program and not data. They are then asked if they want to run the program or not. This stops the program masquerading as data (nudepics.jpg.exe) problem. It works too.
They don't buy Macs because 75% of the world still chuckles at the thought of a computer running anything BUT windows. When a person is already uncomfortable making a purchase they don't fully understand, they aren't going to buy the product that the salesperson laughed at them for even asking about... ...which is why the Apple stores are a very good idea for Apple.
Someone making $12,000 a year isn't going to be worried about buying ANY computer. Food and a place to live would be bigger issues.
You're not the only one by a long shot, but I have to point out the inherent logical absurdity of "Macs are going to be 'Just As Bad' when X percent of the people adopt them!". This entire worldview assumes that all system design decisions are security/malware neutral; this seems obviously absurd to me, no matter what system you apply it to. I mean, someone can certainly attempt to make a case explaining how the security model of OSX is inferior to Windows', or the other way 'round (which I think more likely), but to jump on the whole JAB bandwagon is abandoning reason in favor of politics.
I agree with the first part of your final line - "Real security comes through proper training of administrators and users." But the operating system is an integral part of that. Ever used any trusted platform? (a real one, like trusted solaris or hpux) There's some os-down security enforcement!
All security decisions are a compromise between usability and security. All of them. I can make my windows boxen 99.999% secure by unplugging them from the network and controlling all physical access. But in the real world, a useful system is attached to a network, and the OS is a vital part of that security arrangement.
Anyone who truly believes that *nix isn't attacked constantly, or for that matter, by very high-level attackers, is too limited in experience and not in a position to have reality impinge upon his or her preconceptions. Watch the firewalls protecting any *nix network - say at a bank - and then tell me that there just aren't that many attacks on *nix. Or - try this... run up your linux box, rename your root user to something else, and create an unprivileged user named root. Then log in to any IRC server that will let you, join #linux, and watch your firewall go stupid as script kiddies and various other bored hackers try and 'pwn' your system. The reason there aren't many worms for *nix at all is mostly because the security model makes it extremely difficult to build a useful worm/virus, and it's likely to stay that way.
Thinking outside my Head
Perhaps you've been in a coma or something, but most Mac hardware IS x86 hardware now.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
$499 will buy you a Mac Mini. That's a computer minus those unnecessary peripherals: display, mouse, keyboard...
Most hackers don't need a huge number of installs to stroke their ego. The opportunity to prove that OS X is just as vulnerable as Windows should be more than enough to motivate someone to release an OS X virus into the wild. Yet no one has done it.
There must be more at work here than OS X's small market share. OS X must be inherently more secure than Windows to not have a virus in the wild six years after its release. Certainly there are enough hackers out there who would love to show their prowess by writing an OS X virus, even for the relatively small number of OS X installs that exist; but nobody has been able to do it yet.
Had you considered the possibility that we might actually prefer Windows, or even think it's better?
Than what, a sharp stick in the eye?
BTW, kudos for a great troll. Not worried about security, because you avoid opening mail attachements or viewing some web sites? Priceless!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
linux isn't safer merely because it's a "smaller" target. the development model and worldwide peer review make the code qualitatively better than windows' proprietary code.
free software, open standards, open file formats, no software patents.
And FWIW, that computers are being used primarily for business isn't an assumption, it's a fact. Second behind that is viewing porn (the distribution of porn largely falling under the business side of things) :P. I wish they were used primarily for spreading world peace and ending hunger, but that just isn't so.
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
What do you mean "surely not"? Can I run City of Heroes/Villains or DDO natively on an Apple machine IN OS/X (NOT in Windows dual-booted, and NOT in VirtualPC/VMWare/Other Emulation Software)?
Oh I don't know, but I'm with most of the millions of others who would rather play World of Warcraft and Starcraft... (the most popular games in history) lo and behold they work just fine on my Mac, even with the same discs from the PC version! Imagine that!
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
Like that one time when someone put in an exploit and all those peers couldn't find it? Great security model.....
-]Phreak Out[-
Considering that most graphic designers don't know much about networking, scripting or coding, they tend to prefer the Mac.
Does this statement make any sense? OS X has built in scripting interpreters for numerous languages, a functional command line, GUI piping/tranforms/scripts via Automator, free dev tools including gcc. On Windows the user has to install cygwin, which does not even interact with cygwin in any meaningful way. On OS X you can pipe things to and from Photoshop. OS X wins hands down if for no other reason than I can run perl scripts without a huge hassle.
Aside from that, you make some good points. Different OS's are better for different tasks and different people. I use Linux, OS X, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and Windows XP regularly. The only thing about the previous poster that gives me pause is that based upon their comments, I don't think they've used OS X to try to do their tasks, or if they did they tried to replicate them exactly and do things just how they used to on Windows. It is hard to argue that for basic command line usage or for commercial graphics work is not king of the hill. The level of integration between gui apps and the cli, the ability to see previews of photoshop files and globally search text within them, scripting, system services, and both free and commercial application availability from both open source and commercial sources just makes those workflows so much easier.
Now Windows certainly has its uses in a lot of areas and is hands down the best for niche application availability in most fields, but I'm suspicious of anyone arguing it for the above uses over OS X.
I'll tell you the three reasons this "lazy" user has stuck to a Windows/AMD box (you acknowledge the first one):
Just one geek's opinion.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
No. In all fairness, neither had I considered the possibility that you might be afflicted with rabies or fetal alcohol syndrome.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
>>What do you mean "surely not"? Can I run City of Heroes/Villains or DDO natively on an Apple machine IN OS/X (NOT in Windows dual-booted, and NOT in VirtualPC/VMWare/Other Emulation Software)?
I suspect you're just creating a hypothetical situation in the hopes of finding a combination where you can say "See... the Mac can't do everything I need." But to answer your question, you can run most WinXP software full-speed alongside Mac OS X by using a virtualizer such as Parallels Desktop ($50 - www.parallels.com) However, Parallels Desktop doesn't (yet?) offer 3D acceleration, so BootCamp (which is free) is a better solution for 3D video games. No, with Bootcamp you can't run Final Cut Pro at the same time you play City Of Heroes, but then again, who does? And that's the premise of your original question and the reason I suspect it's a strawman -- who plays videogames while SIMULTANEOUSLY doing their taxes, writing code in Visual Studio, etc.? And if the 60 seconds for a reboot from Mac OS X to WindowsXP is too costly, perhaps you don't have time to be playing video games. Or maybe I just don't get it.
---You get more security, etc, and you will get your next cool OS upgrade 1-2 years later instead of 5. (And you get to wear black turtle necks and jeans)
And if Apple did something like put a firewall around the Windows instead, and not let it make internet connections except with user warning first, and you did all of your surfing and email in Apple land, wouldn't that be just fine?
You get your windows XP apps running at ~ full speed, and you get your new OS, and you get security.
How does Vista compete with that? Apple would have the same compatibility with XP apps (maybe more, XP would be running natively on the Leopard system, vista is a new version of the OS, and might have compatibility issues) Apple could even throw in an upgrade sticker kicker to make it even more cost competitive. Like if you show proof of purchase of XP you get an upgrade discount buying the Apple hardware.
As a bonus you get iLife with the Mac: http://www.apple.com/ilife/, which could be better than most if not all of what is available on Windows for entry level photo/music/iPod Casting/Movie making, etc, and is FREE. You can always turn the mac into a beautiful windows Vista only machine later if you desire, so there is no Vendor lock in on stuff. You are basically trading the cost of the (Apple machine + Free iLife + MacOSX Tiger/Leopard + Free More Security) vs (new Vista Machine+Vista+Security headaches). To me this is the reason why the Mac argument works vs. the other OS choices, and in addition you have most of the important software Mac Native as well, so you can wean yourself off of Windows versions of other stuff at your convenience, trading increasing vendor dependency for more Mac native stuff (some people think that stuff is better, Ill leave that to you to make up your own mind).
You do, of course, realize that WoW and Starcraft are native Mac applications and if you buy either game, the disc just happens to be a hybrid Mac/PC disc (usable on either system)? It's not using "Wine", it's using the native APIs in the OS.
Now, playing CoV/CoH and DDO is a different story, but, two of the most popular games ever are Mac native and have been for quite a while.
I won't bother to explain why since I'll just get labeled a troll anyway, but I also prefer Windows. It's what I'm used to and I am fast enough with the interface to be essentially mouse-less, so there's little reason for me to change until my needs change. I also play a lot of PC-only games.
- For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
I think that "peer code review" advantage of OSS is overrated - or at least offset by hunks of code being copied/reused all over the place. Remember the serious SNMP vulnerability from a couple of years ago that affected damn near *everybody*? How many times had *that* code been reviewed over the last twenty years?
KeS
I predict that within a week or so Sophos will follow-up this report with a "clarification" saying that they didn't actually mean it, that Microsoft Windows is a secure operating system when properly configured, etc., etc. The language will be such that anyone with an ounce of sense will realize that Microsoft has tightened the thumbscrews on them and essentially forced a retraction.
--Stuart
So what has kept you from running linux for so long then? Wouldn't that solve your malware issues?
I must say, a well secured windows PC has no reason to become infected, you generally need to sit an idiot down in front of it for that to happen. To make infection even quicker you should explain to them that should not download and install every program advertised on every webpage, this ensures that they ignore your advice and do completely the opposite.
Software Freedom Day!.
Most people have no damn clue why they are buying a computer. Ask anyone you're doing "free" tech support for, honestly and nicely, what they really want to do with the machine, so you can help them make an appropriate purchase.
They won't know, and they'll buy a PC anyway.
People buy all sorts of shit they don't need. It's fueled the home computer industry for years.
They end up using them mostly for games, when a console machine would be better from the standpoint of reliability and ease of use.
+++OK ATH
Umm, obviously you're just looking for some way to criticize Microsoft without actually knowing what you are talking about. Whether it says 'OK' or 'RUN', a dialog is a dialog. The fact is, people don't read them after they've popped up a handful of times.
Read a book on interface design. Most all of them will cover the "ok/cancel mistake." It is classic operant conditioning. By providing the same two buttons over and over again, buttons that are not actions, and by not providing the user with the means to make a good decision, users are conditioned to always click "OK." If, however, users are provided with buttons that are actions and which are pertinent to the question asked the response is very different. On Windows users reflexively click the "OK" button that is always there and which is always in the same place and which means "keep working" to the average user. On other systems the user can't just click the same button in the same place, because they are not given that option. Instead they see the buttons, "don't run the program" and "run the program." Simply be reading these buttons the user is made aware that it is a program about to be run and not a picture about to be opened. It takes them a half a second and they have to think. At this point users that know what they want click and those that don't pause, and most read the dialogue box looking for help.
This has been demonstrated time and again in usability studies and human/computer interaction experiments. The key is having different choices for different situation, using actions as button names, providing regular English in the dialogue messages, and providing reasonable choices. Windows does a terrible job of this and even after moving to another system, some users (but not most) take a little while to break conditioning and not just click on a random option all the time. Many other OS's and applications have varying levels of success with their implementation of this concept. OS X is one of the better ones, although far from perfect.
Please, if you are going to comment and sound credible, at least know what you are talking about.
I've studied UI design both formally and informally for years. I've read quite a few good books, and reviewed quite a few experiments. I've attended conferences and conducted usability testing. Using Google you should not have too much trouble finding information on this concept. UI design is part engineering and part psychology, but it is a maturing field. Windows is a poster child for what not to do in this case (although they do manage some other good UI design here and there in Windows). The fact is, people do read dialogue buttons and boxes as is appropriate, if they are presented with the proper frequency and in the correct way, instead of in the terribly broken way Windows has implemented them.