Interesting link for XP users

sturgo

http://securityawareness.blogspot.com/2006/05/mac-vs-pc.html

Tar.Aldarion

Eh, lol!


'calculator...clock'
'sounds like hours of fun'

Cryos

sturgo wrote:

http://securityawareness.blogspot.com/2006/05/mac-vs-pc.html

LOL

where is all those links about the mac freezing and stuff

Linoge

Yes, great that Macs dont get many viruses, they just dont get anything. More powerful than a PC?! WTF is the point if you can't play HL2!?!? (Might be available on the new intel ones now though)

Basq

Heh.. so that's where Justin Long has got to? (the guy who's the Mac.. recognise him from 'Dodgeball'?)

kippy

This was so interesting that you had to post in (at least) 2 fora?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054930315

NutJob

Macs had a more complicated instruction set which is why it was harder to develop viruses for the Mac unlike the x86 instruction set.


Also Macs were based on a BSD/Unix like kernel which gave it proper file and user rights and permissions like structure. This didn’t start to appear in PCs until the Nt Code base operating systems.

Also Macs were copyrighted hardware meaning that unlike the IBM PC any company could not just throw one together. This decision was one of the the reasons that PCs overtook it with rapid development and sheer numbers.

So the virus writers aimed for numbers and the same precedent exists today with Linux based viruses! There almost non-existent.

seamus

NutJob wrote:

Macs had a more complicated instruction set which is why it was harder to develop viruses for the Mac unlike the x86 instruction set.

That's not really that big of a deal. Complicated instruction set or not, if someone is intent on causing hassle with a virus, then they'll write it. The complexity of the instruction set is irrelevant. It can be learnt.

Also Macs were based on a BSD/Unix like kernel which gave it proper file and user rights and permissions like structure. This didn’t start to appear in PCs until the Nt Code base operating systems.

Apple machines have only been based on Unix since OS X, which is in fact the most recent OS for Apples. I can't comment on the file/folder structure before that, or its security, but the introduction of OS X and its file security structure would have coincided with Windows XP's release. While a Windows install still had the potential for an unsecured file system (by formatting it FAT23), most opted for the NTFS format.

So the virus writers aimed for numbers and the same precedent exists today with Linux based viruses! There almost non-existent.

You're correct on this point: It's mainly a numbers game.

The explosion in virus numbers and infections in the last 5 years would seem to run contrary to your theories about OS security. The Windows platform has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of its security (but it's far from perfect). Yet there are far more viruses now than there were when Windows 95 was released.

Virus writing is no longer confined to malcontent students. Now they're in the toolbox of thieves, political activists and anyone else out to make a quick euro. By concentrating their efforts on the most widely-used operating systems, their viruses spread quicker and more efficiently than if they were tied to an Apple system. Look at it this way - if a company has 250 PCs and three Macs, you could infect the Macs, and it would end there. If you infect a PC, you have the potential to infect the entire network, and from there to spread to other MS-based networks via the Internet.

It's nothing to do with security or instruction set complexity, it's just a pure numbers game.

For the record, OS X has suffered two serious viruses recently which have revealed some glaring holes in their OS.

Capt'n Midnight

NutJob wrote:

Macs had a more complicated instruction set which is why it was harder to develop viruses for the Mac unlike the x86 instruction set.
...
So the virus writers aimed for numbers and the same precedent exists today with Linux based viruses! There almost non-existent.

DEP is a small step towards what the 68000's offered decades ago, preventing program area in memory being overwritten so the program could not be altered after it had loaded. Judging by the number of windows protection faults, and their many names in the past, it probably helped stability.

As for it being a numbers game - the numbers of Unpatched Microsoft SQL servers on the internet would be far smaller than apple / mainstream *nix varients. Not really a huge target really.

http://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2003/sapphire/sapphire.html The [Sapphire] worm (also called Slammer) began to infect hosts slightly before 05:30 UTC on Saturday, January 25.
....
As it began spreading throughout the Internet, it doubled in size every 8.5 seconds. It infected more than 90 percent of vulnerable hosts within 10 minutes.

exiztone

Blitz wrote:

LOL

where is all those links about the mac freezing and stuff

Yeah, I didn't see Mr. Mac saying "Those of you that don't want to pay $130 to upgrade to OSX will have to deal with frequent bombing. There's no ctrl + alt + delete, just good old fashioned complete system restart!"

Also, it's a bit naive saying 'Mac' over 'Personal Computer'. What's a Personal Computer? An IBM standard x86 machine, right? Haven't Mac gone x86? I guess that makes them PCs now, so from their adverts, can we only assume virii and breakdowns?

If it was the OS they were referring to, once again, every popular Linux distro has an x86 version. You get a few more things than a clock and calculator. Terrible ads, simple terrible.

seamus

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060513

Cryos

seamus wrote:

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060513

LOL

So True!!!!!

I dunno people that switch over to macs just to have their lotus notes work "better" than a pc just need their head checked... Honestly... Lotus Notes People!!!!!! (btw this comes from the hundreds of switch commericals with some dude saying "eh well i use office and lotus notes.....")

Lotus notes and a mac how much more evil can you get ?

Cake Fiend

The problem with most Mac zealots (which is only reinforced by these ads) is that they don't know anything about computers (hence them using Macs?).
</controversy>

I'm sick of OSX vs. Windows being touted as 'Mac vs PC' by these idiots. Any of you people used Linux on a PC? Or OSX on a PC? Or Windows on a Mac?

Also, I can build a PC for about €300.
How much did your Mac cost?
Was the feeling of bourgeois smugness worth it?

NutJob

Consider myself slapped :-)


Though i do differ on the instruction set as more of a deterrent than anything. Usually some crazy person / virus writing group do it for the kudos anyway but if it was x86 it would have happened properly by now.

The example being the few months it took virus writers to catch up to windows 95 with Bizatch virus which was a big leap from 16bit to 32 bit plus the overhead of 9x kernel. The underlying technology would have been tough to develop first time (searching for apis in kernel32) but after that the kiddies take over.

amp

Sico wrote:

The problem with most Mac zealots (which is only reinforced by these ads) is that they don't know anything about computers (hence them using Macs?).
</controversy>

I'm sick of OSX vs. Windows being touted as 'Mac vs PC' by these idiots. Any of you people used Linux on a PC? Or OSX on a PC? Or Windows on a Mac?

Also, I can build a PC for about €300.
How much did your Mac cost?
Was the feeling of bourgeois smugness worth it?

I doubt you could spend 300 and end up with the same build quality Macs have. I'm thinking about getting a Mac Mini, and installing Windows on it, just to be really perverted and annoy zealots from both sides. Hey Macboy, look at my sexy os! Hey PCboy! isn't white just the best colour?

It's a lot easier than my other plan which was to convert a G3 case into a pc using a dremel and a hammer.

Cake Fiend

amp wrote:

I doubt you could spend 300 and end up with the same build quality Macs have.

OK, but show me where you can buy a mac for €300. Also, if you spent the same amount of money on a PC as you did on e.g. a G5, you'd get comparable power (and style, if that's your bag). I've never understood this whole 'macs are more powerful' guff. It's like saying a Ferrari is more powerful than a Mercedes - if you spend twice as much on it, it damn well better be (although if you spent the same amount on a nice SLR, it probably wouldn't be).