About a century of research tells us that native English speakers aren't rule-based parsers, so teaching grammatical rules (like when to use the subjunctive or where to put commas) doesn't improve compliance.
Look, there's no need to get fancy - in my experience you will make a massive improvement in most (young) people's writing today just by teaching them how to use apostrophes and the difference between words like 'there' and 'their'. Mixing up 'than' and 'then' also seems to be something Americans, in particular, do a *lot* (something to do with accent, maybe ?). Speaking of which, telling people "words" like 'alot' aren't really words would also be a handy thing to do.
The state of English teaching today is atrocious, with many *teachers* not really knowing fundamental rules like when to use apostrophes, etc. Modern teaching philosophies like "as long as the message is communicated" and "it doesn't matter if you make mistakes, as long as your attempt is reasonable", combined with the steady downturn in reading (of "good" writing) and the increasing number of children (and many young adults) who are (/were) brought up with the TV as a babysitter are the prime culprits IMHO. The increasing pervasiveness of IMing and SMSing are only going to exacerbate an already bad situation. We've reached the point where even remotely correct English is unusual to see outside of carefully proofread professional documents and I, personally, am at the point now where I notice it more if someone spells "you're" _correctly_, rather than it's ubiquitous erroneous substitute, "your" (particularly on the web) .
The best way for people to improve their writing is to read, read, read. Not web pages and blogs (which are likely riddled with errors - particularly if they're written by, or targeted at, younger people - and just create a feedback loop of bad habits) but professionally published books and journals. Steer clear of low-end/populist magazines and tabloid-style newspapers, as well, as they are likely employing youger writers who will be making the same mistakes I'm talking about above - even if they *have* a degree of some sort.
The kind of attitudes you need to instil in your students are "close enough is *not* good enough", "just getting the message across os *not* sufficient" and "written language has rules, just like engineering, that should be followed to remove the possibility of ambiguity".
I have no doubt that I have also made technical mistakes just writing this, however, my point is that the level of basic spelling and grammar is so poor these days, that you don't need to be teaching complicated grammatical constructs to improve people's writing, you just need to be teaching the basics.
Foreign is the right word, but the problem is more extensive and pervasive than familiarity or experience. First there is that mess called the registry and its tortured permission structure.
What's "tortured" about it ?
Then there is an incoherent file system hierarchy where anything can be just about everywhere, except for what's supposted to in SYSTEMROOT or system32, which is where everything gets dumped anyway to avoid creating a path that's a mile long.
Just because you're unaware of where things should go, doesn't mean proper locations don't exist.
Then there's Windows bizarre concept of file ownership. I create a file, but some other group owns it instead, but it's almost always executable by everyone, so no worries, right? Executable JPGs and GIFs and text files. LOL.
Once again, your lack of understanding means nothing.
Franky... Nobody is "Administrator" of the machine anymore? (Administrators Group is not enough) Really? So essentially, they reduced the "Administrators" groups to "Well, you can admin, but you have to know what you do, and we'll annoy the hell out fo you".
Actually it sounds like that "Administrators" are being made more like the "admin" group in OS X or "wheel" on more traditional unix systems - able to elevate their privileges to a very high level without actually running a high-privilege account all the time.
Those sounded like terrible solutions to me. Basically: manually adjust the permissions of every file you create or turn off the security stuff and pray.
Article writer is clueless.
If the external drive is new, you don't need to do anything - the default permissions will work fine.
If the external drive is existing, you need to add your user with "Full Control" to the top level of the drive. By default this permission is then inherited by all the files and subdirectories on that volume. New files/subdirectories will also inherit this permission.
The situation will be *identical* on Vista has it would be - and has been - on any other platform.
Worse yet, what is the difference between "local settings" and "application data"?
Same as the difference between/usr and/usr/local.
"Local Settings" is supposed to be used for storing data only relevant to that machine. That's why it is not part of a user's Roaming Profile. An example of appropriate data for this location is a browser cache.
Actually, Windows has had "run as" since Windows 2000.
Technically, it's always had it. Just that for versions before 2000 you need to download a little "PowerToy" from Microsoft to get the handy right-click menu entry (and maybe the commandline app as well).
They can be informed by a simple "Permission Denied" message.
Clearly UI design is not your strong point.
This system is nothing like the OSX system.
Yes, it is (well, the UI is similar, under the hood it's very different).
They OSX system obtains authentication before attempting the operation.
Only in situations where a developer has anticipated the need for elevated privileges. For example, the System Preferences application and applications installers.
In other situations, however, OS X prompts after the fact. For example, in Finder, trying to copy something into/Applications as a non-admin user, or trying to delete files in/System will detect that the user does not have sufficient privileges, and then prompt them for a password and/or user account that does have the necessary privileges.
Clearly you've not used OS X much.
Apple got away with that mostly by breaking backwards compatability, but there is no reason legacy apps can't use pre-authentication with the proper error messages.
Yes, there is. It's confusing, disruptive and alarming for end users.
Treating your users like idiots creates an application for idiots. Treating your users like intellegent people creates intellegent users.
A system that automates where possible is not treating the users like "idiots". It is recognising that the users don't - and shouldn't have to - have the necessary knowledge.
Actually, Windows has always had SUDO. A limited user can right-click the icon and select "run as." It will then prompt them for credentials. It really isn't that different from how other OS's work. You can also do it from the command-line.
"Run As" is not sudo. "Run as" is more like su.
To modify Windows to operate the way other OSs do (prompt you the password at the right time) is trivial. They could just modify the user interface to prompt when you run the app. I modified the shortcuts in my "Administrative tools" folder to do this.
It's not that easy. Your shortcuts are modified with the assumption that the user will always want elevated privileges when they use them. This assumption is wrong.
What Windows is doing (and OS X does) is determing whether or not the user needs elevated privileges when they try to do something, and then prompting them after the fact.
2) The UI takes at least 3+ to do what requires 0 clicks in Linux.
This is a technical, not UI, issue. A more complex and capable security infrastructure requires more information to work.
3) They don't support, or encourage 3rd-parties to support, non-administrative users.
In fact, Microsoft have been telling developers to write LUA-friendly apps for nearly ten years now.
4) They don't clearly separate administrative actions from normal ones.
That's because 90% of users don't understand the difference between "administrative actions" and "normal actions". Nor should they have to.
It's the post-authentication rather than the pre-authentication that Microsoft got wrong though. Microsoft clearly doesn't get it, and this implementation is completely broken.
No, this imlementation (which is basically the same as OS X's) merely recognises that the vast majority of users won't know they'll need elevated privileges before they try and do something.
Well, I've run into "Run As" problems too. Mainly when I want to install something and I donwloaded it as a regular user. I have my regular users setup with ACLs that exclude Admin. So I have to copy the installer to a directory that the admin has access to.
I'm not quite sure I see where the "problem" is here. The system is behaving exactly as you have configured it to (a configuration that is not the default).
Windows 2000 was evolutionary for servers. For home users it was revolutionary. It was the end of all the blue-screen and rebooting jokes.
If that's your measure, then I'd have to argue NT4 did it 4 years earlier.
I didn't mean that DirectX was revolutionary, I meant that it was important that it was included in 2000 and could be used (as opposed to you couldn't use it on NT4 IIRC).
Er, then what do you call the Administrator account?
An account with a lot of privileges.
But there are other default accounts with more - SYSTEM, for example.
Granting that I may hold a misconception of the definition of 'super-user'.
A 'superuser' account is one that effectively bypasses the entire security system. Ie: anything that checks permissions basically does the equivalent of 'if ($USER != root) then check_permissions() && do_stuff(); else do_stuff();'
But you can't hide anything from Administrator, nor can you deny any permissions to the Administrator.
Yes, you can. Many a newbie NT user has locked themselves out of - if not completely disabled - their entire system by removing or denying Administrator or SYSTEM access from critical files.
An Administrator account in NT can't do anything unless permissions are specifically granted for it to do so. In theory, there is nothing inherently "special" about the Administrator account. OTOH, the very definition of root is that it *can* do 'everything' without needing permissions - it *is* special. The fundamental unix security model is that you're either root, or you're not - and if you're not, what you can do depends on file permissions and what groups you're in.
Of course you can. Mainly because of a broken patent system, but also because it's nearly impossible to prove you invented something before someone else if they've already patented it.
Not to mention the logical flaw in your argument. If your definition of "inventing something" is getting it patented, and a patent has been granted, then whoever the patent was granted to - by definition - invented that thing.
This is before we even get into the vast differences between "claiming to have invented something", "actually inventing something" and "the business practice of shotgun patent applications".
*Then*, of course, is the simple fact that patents are granted on inventions, not ideas. So even if we go by your shaky foundation of "if they patented it, then they're claiming they invented it", then the claim of invention is only for the specific implementation (which is if the patent is granted, is valid by your logic).
So yes I win.
Afraid not. What you need to "win" is some quote from Microsoft saying "we invented X", where X is something that they didn't invent.
According to you and people like you, Microsoft do this all the time (saying they invented something they didn't). Yet for some reason you find it necessary to try and play semantic games with obscure patent applications to provide evidence for your assertion. Could it be that it doesn't happen so frequently after all ?
The broken patent system is a whole other ball of wax lets deal with broken windows first as that's the subject of this thread.
Sound advice. Perhaps you should have considered it before bringing patents into the discussion.
I'm still waiting for even a *single* example of a Microsoft press release or other quote claiming to have invented something they didn't. Surely just one isn't too much to ask for ?
Your problem here seems to be with the patent office.
While you're at it, you might want to try and dig up a quote from Microsoft saying they invented "tabbing between hyperlinks".
We've been inspired by the comment that Microsoft's anti-spyware software is "the best product they've ever invented".
Source for this quote ? Certainly a cursory Google search shows nothing outside of that website.
"The user experience is far from ideal but Microsoft has no choice as a result of the defeat it was handed in a patent infringement suit that was filed against the company by Eolas."
Ignoring that the Eolas patent dispute was a complete farce, did Microsoft claim to have invented anything the patent covered ?
Incidentally, it's pretty clear the person writing that is one of those who supports the existing, utterly broken patent system that allows Microsoft and others like them to patent things like "tabbing between hyperlinks".
I am the winner, do I get a prize?
No. You have not satisfied the criteria. Documented evidence (ie: quotes with first level references) of Microsoft claiming to have invented something they didn't.
I mean, if it's as common as you say it is, it should be *trivial* for you to find half a dozen or more examples of quotes from Microsoft saying "we invented $EXISTINGTECHNOLOGY". Something that clealy and unambigiously demonstrates them claiming to have invented something they didn't.
That argument makes no sense. OS X's speed on legacy PowerPC hardware is in no way related to the as-yet unreleased Windows Vista's speed on legacy Intel hardware.
No, but based on both historical precedent and beta releases, its performance will be usable - but slow - on such low end hardware.
In other words, if a "400Mhz G4" runs OS X fast enough for you, then a "400 Mhz P3" (or thereabouts) will run Vista fast enough for you.
Both will be slow (dog slow by my standards), but comparitively they'll be basically the same.
Also, I have OS X running just fine on a 300MHz G3 from 1999. It's a little slower than I'd like, but it's by no means dog slow.
I'm happy it's fast enough for you. Personally I find OS X on my 1Ghz iBook dog slow for just about anything (fortunately I only bought it for very light on-the-road email, WWW, SSH and DVDs). Even my mum's G5 iMac I find slow enough to be irritating for anything more than web browsing and email. Then again, I tend to multitask fairly heavily, which is when OS X's general GUI sluggishness really starts to show.
As soon as it comes out and the deficiencies are known, organizations will have little reason not to move to Apples which are now superior in all ways except video games.
I would argue that (as per first post) that you can, at the very least, compare OS X with Classic - the threat level is about the same, and we are seeing almost nothing. It is certainly not for want of effort.
I have to disagree. OS X's marketshare is much smaller - *especially* as a relative measure - than Classic's was.
Really, OS X machines are simply not on the radar of malicious coders. There's not enough of them to be useful as distributed networks of any type and very few enterprises use OS X Servers in "useful" (from an exploitation perspective) mission-critical roles. To be blunt, there's hardly any reason to target Macs (as a general thing) in the first place.
Added to that, it's my feeling that the end-user demographic of MacOS has moved away from its historical "clueless user" base in recent years and is now largely made up of people who - while they might lack in-depth technical knowledge - are accomplished and experienced computer users able to identify most scams(/trojans) for what they are. Plus, as you note, news spreads fast in the Mac community - scams are relatively short-lived and the majority of machines are patched and up to date.
Even ignoring marketshare - which I firmly believe to be an integral part of a platform's "perceived security" - OS X simply doesn't have the same risk profile as Windows. Neither does Linux, for that matter, but mostly for different reasons.
IMHO, until marketshare levels are at least in the same ballpark, meaningful comparisons based on "security reports" are impossible - because there's a whole bunch of other stuff that comes along with increasing marketshare that dramatically changes the risk profile of a platform. If Linux and OS X were to (collectively) get up up around the 40% - 50% mark of the Desktop market, then I'd say meaningful comparisons could start to be made, based on things like how frequently exploits occur, their impact, etc, etc. Until then, no chance.
Are you seriously suggesting that Windows NT was around before Unix?
No. And re-reading my post, I can't even begin to see how you got to that conclusion.
All I was saying is that multiuser OSes - especially as a concept, rather than specific implementations - had been around before (and since) unix. To say NT copied *Unix* (and only Unix) to get its multiuser design is ludicrous - it doesn't even pass the laugh test. It would be like saying.NET copied the idea of a VM from Java (and only Java).
Unless, of course, your worldview begins and ends with Unix and Windows.
The point I'm trying to make here is that saying "NT is copying Unix" (or, even sillier, "Linux") is simply wrong. In the very few cases where there are actually new features being implemented which also exist on Unix, those features also existed elsewhere prior to their existence in Unix.
Other, older OSes did have different multi-user paradigms, but they were far, far more baroque than the simple file/directory ownership one that most modern OSes inherited from Unix and tended to be based more on volume ownership than file ownership (because they in turn tended to look at the world as a series of mounted tapes rather than random access hard drives).
Uh, NT's "multiuserness" is a lot more complex than simple file/directory permissions - particuarly the crude and primitive root/not root and user/group/other divisions found in Unix. Access to just about every object in the OS is governed by per-user ACLs. There is no concept of a "superuser" in NT, for example, and hence the security flaws that come along with that concept are absent. If anything, NT is *more* "multiuser" than Unix is.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, there's no need to get fancy - in my experience you will make a massive improvement in most (young) people's writing today just by teaching them how to use apostrophes and the difference between words like 'there' and 'their'. Mixing up 'than' and 'then' also seems to be something Americans, in particular, do a *lot* (something to do with accent, maybe ?). Speaking of which, telling people "words" like 'alot' aren't really words would also be a handy thing to do.
The state of English teaching today is atrocious, with many *teachers* not really knowing fundamental rules like when to use apostrophes, etc. Modern teaching philosophies like "as long as the message is communicated" and "it doesn't matter if you make mistakes, as long as your attempt is reasonable", combined with the steady downturn in reading (of "good" writing) and the increasing number of children (and many young adults) who are (/were) brought up with the TV as a babysitter are the prime culprits IMHO. The increasing pervasiveness of IMing and SMSing are only going to exacerbate an already bad situation. We've reached the point where even remotely correct English is unusual to see outside of carefully proofread professional documents and I, personally, am at the point now where I notice it more if someone spells "you're" _correctly_, rather than it's ubiquitous erroneous substitute, "your" (particularly on the web) .
The best way for people to improve their writing is to read, read, read. Not web pages and blogs (which are likely riddled with errors - particularly if they're written by, or targeted at, younger people - and just create a feedback loop of bad habits) but professionally published books and journals. Steer clear of low-end/populist magazines and tabloid-style newspapers, as well, as they are likely employing youger writers who will be making the same mistakes I'm talking about above - even if they *have* a degree of some sort.
The kind of attitudes you need to instil in your students are "close enough is *not* good enough", "just getting the message across os *not* sufficient" and "written language has rules, just like engineering, that should be followed to remove the possibility of ambiguity".
I have no doubt that I have also made technical mistakes just writing this, however, my point is that the level of basic spelling and grammar is so poor these days, that you don't need to be teaching complicated grammatical constructs to improve people's writing, you just need to be teaching the basics.
You can't really compare an Inspiron - which are cheap, plastic machines like the iBooks - to the MacBook Pro (/Powerbook).
You need to compare to a Latitude.
What's "tortured" about it ?
Then there is an incoherent file system hierarchy where anything can be just about everywhere, except for what's supposted to in SYSTEMROOT or system32, which is where everything gets dumped anyway to avoid creating a path that's a mile long.
Just because you're unaware of where things should go, doesn't mean proper locations don't exist.
Then there's Windows bizarre concept of file ownership. I create a file, but some other group owns it instead, but it's almost always executable by everyone, so no worries, right? Executable JPGs and GIFs and text files. LOL.
Once again, your lack of understanding means nothing.
Actually it sounds like that "Administrators" are being made more like the "admin" group in OS X or "wheel" on more traditional unix systems - able to elevate their privileges to a very high level without actually running a high-privilege account all the time.
Article writer is clueless.
If the external drive is new, you don't need to do anything - the default permissions will work fine.
If the external drive is existing, you need to add your user with "Full Control" to the top level of the drive. By default this permission is then inherited by all the files and subdirectories on that volume. New files/subdirectories will also inherit this permission.
The situation will be *identical* on Vista has it would be - and has been - on any other platform.
Same as the difference between /usr and /usr/local.
"Local Settings" is supposed to be used for storing data only relevant to that machine. That's why it is not part of a user's Roaming Profile. An example of appropriate data for this location is a browser cache.
Because of lazy/ignorant/incompetent/stupid developers writing broken software that needlessly requires elevated privileges.
It is 100% the fault of developers. Microsoft have been telling developers to write LUA-friendly apps for nearly 10 years now.
Technically, it's always had it. Just that for versions before 2000 you need to download a little "PowerToy" from Microsoft to get the handy right-click menu entry (and maybe the commandline app as well).
Clearly UI design is not your strong point.
This system is nothing like the OSX system.
Yes, it is (well, the UI is similar, under the hood it's very different).
They OSX system obtains authentication before attempting the operation.
Only in situations where a developer has anticipated the need for elevated privileges. For example, the System Preferences application and applications installers.
In other situations, however, OS X prompts after the fact. For example, in Finder, trying to copy something into /Applications as a non-admin user, or trying to delete files in /System will detect that the user does not have sufficient privileges, and then prompt them for a password and/or user account that does have the necessary privileges.
Clearly you've not used OS X much.
Apple got away with that mostly by breaking backwards compatability, but there is no reason legacy apps can't use pre-authentication with the proper error messages.
Yes, there is. It's confusing, disruptive and alarming for end users.
Treating your users like idiots creates an application for idiots. Treating your users like intellegent people creates intellegent users.
A system that automates where possible is not treating the users like "idiots". It is recognising that the users don't - and shouldn't have to - have the necessary knowledge.
"Run As" is not sudo. "Run as" is more like su.
To modify Windows to operate the way other OSs do (prompt you the password at the right time) is trivial. They could just modify the user interface to prompt when you run the app. I modified the shortcuts in my "Administrative tools" folder to do this.
It's not that easy. Your shortcuts are modified with the assumption that the user will always want elevated privileges when they use them. This assumption is wrong.
What Windows is doing (and OS X does) is determing whether or not the user needs elevated privileges when they try to do something, and then prompting them after the fact.
2) The UI takes at least 3+ to do what requires 0 clicks in Linux.
This is a technical, not UI, issue. A more complex and capable security infrastructure requires more information to work.
3) They don't support, or encourage 3rd-parties to support, non-administrative users.
In fact, Microsoft have been telling developers to write LUA-friendly apps for nearly ten years now.
4) They don't clearly separate administrative actions from normal ones.
That's because 90% of users don't understand the difference between "administrative actions" and "normal actions". Nor should they have to.
Your "workflow" involves deleting files that aren't yours ?
No, this imlementation (which is basically the same as OS X's) merely recognises that the vast majority of users won't know they'll need elevated privileges before they try and do something.
I'm not quite sure I see where the "problem" is here. The system is behaving exactly as you have configured it to (a configuration that is not the default).
If that's your measure, then I'd have to argue NT4 did it 4 years earlier.
I didn't mean that DirectX was revolutionary, I meant that it was important that it was included in 2000 and could be used (as opposed to you couldn't use it on NT4 IIRC).
NT4 had DirectX.
Without knowing what you mean by "innovative", it's hard to say.
An account with a lot of privileges.
But there are other default accounts with more - SYSTEM, for example.
Granting that I may hold a misconception of the definition of 'super-user'.
A 'superuser' account is one that effectively bypasses the entire security system. Ie: anything that checks permissions basically does the equivalent of 'if ($USER != root) then check_permissions() && do_stuff(); else do_stuff();'
But you can't hide anything from Administrator, nor can you deny any permissions to the Administrator.
Yes, you can. Many a newbie NT user has locked themselves out of - if not completely disabled - their entire system by removing or denying Administrator or SYSTEM access from critical files.
An Administrator account in NT can't do anything unless permissions are specifically granted for it to do so. In theory, there is nothing inherently "special" about the Administrator account. OTOH, the very definition of root is that it *can* do 'everything' without needing permissions - it *is* special. The fundamental unix security model is that you're either root, or you're not - and if you're not, what you can do depends on file permissions and what groups you're in.
Of course you can. Mainly because of a broken patent system, but also because it's nearly impossible to prove you invented something before someone else if they've already patented it.
Not to mention the logical flaw in your argument. If your definition of "inventing something" is getting it patented, and a patent has been granted, then whoever the patent was granted to - by definition - invented that thing.
This is before we even get into the vast differences between "claiming to have invented something", "actually inventing something" and "the business practice of shotgun patent applications".
*Then*, of course, is the simple fact that patents are granted on inventions, not ideas. So even if we go by your shaky foundation of "if they patented it, then they're claiming they invented it", then the claim of invention is only for the specific implementation (which is if the patent is granted, is valid by your logic).
So yes I win.
Afraid not. What you need to "win" is some quote from Microsoft saying "we invented X", where X is something that they didn't invent.
According to you and people like you, Microsoft do this all the time (saying they invented something they didn't). Yet for some reason you find it necessary to try and play semantic games with obscure patent applications to provide evidence for your assertion. Could it be that it doesn't happen so frequently after all ?
The broken patent system is a whole other ball of wax lets deal with broken windows first as that's the subject of this thread.
Sound advice. Perhaps you should have considered it before bringing patents into the discussion.
I'm still waiting for even a *single* example of a Microsoft press release or other quote claiming to have invented something they didn't. Surely just one isn't too much to ask for ?
Your problem here seems to be with the patent office.
While you're at it, you might want to try and dig up a quote from Microsoft saying they invented "tabbing between hyperlinks".
We've been inspired by the comment that Microsoft's anti-spyware software is "the best product they've ever invented".
Source for this quote ? Certainly a cursory Google search shows nothing outside of that website.
"The user experience is far from ideal but Microsoft has no choice as a result of the defeat it was handed in a patent infringement suit that was filed against the company by Eolas."
Ignoring that the Eolas patent dispute was a complete farce, did Microsoft claim to have invented anything the patent covered ?
Incidentally, it's pretty clear the person writing that is one of those who supports the existing, utterly broken patent system that allows Microsoft and others like them to patent things like "tabbing between hyperlinks".
I am the winner, do I get a prize?
No. You have not satisfied the criteria. Documented evidence (ie: quotes with first level references) of Microsoft claiming to have invented something they didn't.
I mean, if it's as common as you say it is, it should be *trivial* for you to find half a dozen or more examples of quotes from Microsoft saying "we invented $EXISTINGTECHNOLOGY". Something that clealy and unambigiously demonstrates them claiming to have invented something they didn't.
No, but based on both historical precedent and beta releases, its performance will be usable - but slow - on such low end hardware.
In other words, if a "400Mhz G4" runs OS X fast enough for you, then a "400 Mhz P3" (or thereabouts) will run Vista fast enough for you.
Both will be slow (dog slow by my standards), but comparitively they'll be basically the same.
Also, I have OS X running just fine on a 300MHz G3 from 1999. It's a little slower than I'd like, but it's by no means dog slow.
I'm happy it's fast enough for you. Personally I find OS X on my 1Ghz iBook dog slow for just about anything (fortunately I only bought it for very light on-the-road email, WWW, SSH and DVDs). Even my mum's G5 iMac I find slow enough to be irritating for anything more than web browsing and email. Then again, I tend to multitask fairly heavily, which is when OS X's general GUI sluggishness really starts to show.
And on Windows, too.
I challenge you to document evidence of anything Microsoft has claimed to invent that they actually haven't.
And performance.
And price.
And hardware support.
And possibly software support.
If she can handle Tiger on that machine (which IME would be dog slow to use), then Vista on an equivalent machine will be equally as usable.
I have to disagree. OS X's marketshare is much smaller - *especially* as a relative measure - than Classic's was.
Really, OS X machines are simply not on the radar of malicious coders. There's not enough of them to be useful as distributed networks of any type and very few enterprises use OS X Servers in "useful" (from an exploitation perspective) mission-critical roles. To be blunt, there's hardly any reason to target Macs (as a general thing) in the first place.
Added to that, it's my feeling that the end-user demographic of MacOS has moved away from its historical "clueless user" base in recent years and is now largely made up of people who - while they might lack in-depth technical knowledge - are accomplished and experienced computer users able to identify most scams(/trojans) for what they are. Plus, as you note, news spreads fast in the Mac community - scams are relatively short-lived and the majority of machines are patched and up to date.
Even ignoring marketshare - which I firmly believe to be an integral part of a platform's "perceived security" - OS X simply doesn't have the same risk profile as Windows. Neither does Linux, for that matter, but mostly for different reasons.
IMHO, until marketshare levels are at least in the same ballpark, meaningful comparisons based on "security reports" are impossible - because there's a whole bunch of other stuff that comes along with increasing marketshare that dramatically changes the risk profile of a platform. If Linux and OS X were to (collectively) get up up around the 40% - 50% mark of the Desktop market, then I'd say meaningful comparisons could start to be made, based on things like how frequently exploits occur, their impact, etc, etc. Until then, no chance.
No. And re-reading my post, I can't even begin to see how you got to that conclusion.
All I was saying is that multiuser OSes - especially as a concept, rather than specific implementations - had been around before (and since) unix. To say NT copied *Unix* (and only Unix) to get its multiuser design is ludicrous - it doesn't even pass the laugh test. It would be like saying .NET copied the idea of a VM from Java (and only Java).
Unless, of course, your worldview begins and ends with Unix and Windows.
The point I'm trying to make here is that saying "NT is copying Unix" (or, even sillier, "Linux") is simply wrong. In the very few cases where there are actually new features being implemented which also exist on Unix, those features also existed elsewhere prior to their existence in Unix.
Other, older OSes did have different multi-user paradigms, but they were far, far more baroque than the simple file/directory ownership one that most modern OSes inherited from Unix and tended to be based more on volume ownership than file ownership (because they in turn tended to look at the world as a series of mounted tapes rather than random access hard drives).
Uh, NT's "multiuserness" is a lot more complex than simple file/directory permissions - particuarly the crude and primitive root/not root and user/group/other divisions found in Unix. Access to just about every object in the OS is governed by per-user ACLs. There is no concept of a "superuser" in NT, for example, and hence the security flaws that come along with that concept are absent. If anything, NT is *more* "multiuser" than Unix is.