A Must See pic --- Why you should buy a Mac

[amac4me]

This says it all:

http://hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2005-07-27#4323

[mjstew33]

haha, too bad Apple can't use it. It would be great.

That is one true reason to get a mac ;)

[jonomo]

haha, too bad Apple can't use it. It would be great.

That is one true reason to get a mac ;)

4% market share... only 4% viruses... makes sense...

[taeclee99]

4% market share... only 4% viruses... makes sense...
More like 4% marketshare...zero viruses.

[G5Unit]

I just went to a media mart while I was in Europe. They are pretty cool!

[Heb1228]

4% market share... only 4% viruses... makes sense...

Ignorant comment...

[stevietheb]

I'm just counting the days until a nasty virus rips through the mac community. Then where will our argument be?!?! Well, I suppose market-share is so small that we won't have to tell anyone that there was a virus...we'll all collectively agree that it didn't happen.

Deal?

[Heb1228]

I'm just counting the days until a nasty virus rips through the mac community. Then where will our argument be?!?! Well, I suppose market-share is so small that we won't have to tell anyone that there was a virus...we'll all collectively agree that it didn't happen.

Deal?

Keep waiting for the day. Windows Vista will be out before then. And thats a long time.

[Heb1228]

4% market share... only 4% viruses... makes sense...

From Symantec's Website:
Intelligent Updater:
Virus Definitions created July 27
Virus Definitions released July 27
Norton AntiVirus Corp. Edition:
Defs Version: 70727h
Sequence Number: 47044
Extended Version: 7/27/2005 rev. 8
Total Viruses Detected: 70337


4% of that would mean we would have to have... um lets see...2813 viruses for OS X.

What would even just 1% be? 703 Viruses...

And you're talking about the day when the first one is released?!??! I'm not saying it can't happen. But the marketshare argument just doesn't work.

[iPoster]

4% market share... only 4% viruses... makes sense...
:rolleyes:

"There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory."
So there are far fewer viruses for Mac OS X and Linux. It's true that those two operating systems do not have monopoly numbers, though in some industries they have substantial numbers of users. But even if Linux becomes the dominant desktop computing platform, and Mac OS X continues its growth in businesses and homes, these Unix-based OS's will never experience all of the problems we're seeing now with email-borne viruses and worms in the Microsoft world.

Link to article. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/)

[g4cubed]

As I read his statement I was thinking the same thing.

From Symantec's Website:
Intelligent Updater:
Virus Definitions created July 27
Virus Definitions released July 27
Norton AntiVirus Corp. Edition:
Defs Version: 70727h
Sequence Number: 47044
Extended Version: 7/27/2005 rev. 8
Total Viruses Detected: 70337


4% of that would mean we would have to have... um lets see...2813 viruses for OS X.

What would even just 1% be? 703 Viruses...

And you're talking about the day when the first one is released?!??! I'm not saying it can't happen. But the marketshare argument just doesn't work.

[matticus008]

:rolleyes:
"something about 40 for Macintosh..."


Yes, but none of those 40 are for OS X. They are all from the OS 9 days. So, zero viruses.

[wdlove]

A sign that says it all and very succinctly. I like the sale price also.

[pubwvj]

Yeah, too bad. But I can see why they would hesitate to make such a claim. So, it is up to us, you and I, to spread the word to friends and family! I converted three people this past year. More to go! :)

[mjstew33]

Yeah, too bad. But I can see why they would hesitate to make such a claim. So, it is up to us, you and I, to spread the word to friends and family! I converted three people this past year. More to go! :)

Alleluhia!

[katie ta achoo]

I like the sale price also.

Mmm... $5 off.. :p

Nice sign. It'd be super-awesome if Apple could use it.

[mad jew]

I don't get it. Why can't Apple use the "Virus-free internet" mantra? :confused:

[Alone2Gether]

just found another virus. :mad:
cannot wait til I switch over to the Mac. PB update after Apple Expo Please!

[jonomo]

Ignorant comment...

And your comment is moronic.. why don't you give a reason why you think its ignorant...???

listen.. i luv mac.. but i don't think one should be blinded and think that mac is the save all of all computing... the perfect computer with some halo around it...
if you can tell me a good reason WHY mac is superior against PC in terms of viruses.. plz let me know...

if you're gonna make a virus to cause harm to as many people as possible, you would make it for a computer that the majority of the people in the world use.. maybe you're an eeediot and think computer viruses just evolve or something.. :rolleyes: hehe.. seriously though.. there's really no incentive to make viruses for mac... not enough machines to infect..

I really hope the move to intel will increase the number of mac users.... but i guarantee that once mac hits a certain threshold of users, there will be a influx of mac viruses....

Thats when having a G4 mac will have an advantage... there will be very little incentive too create a mac g4 virus... as it will have a diminishing number of users to infect... virus creators want their viruses to spread and grow... (just to make clear to you.. viruses don't grow on trees).. no point in creating a virus for a computer that no longer exists... Whens the last time you heard of a virus hitting Windows 3.1???

come on dood... come up with a fairly reasonable arguement.. if you can.... :rolleyes:

[jonomo]

I don't get it. Why can't Apple use the "Virus-free internet" mantra? :confused:

Cause once they start using it.. everyone who creates viruses will work to create a Mac breaking virus....

[Heb1228]

And your comment is moronic.. why don't you give a reason why you think its ignorant...???

if you can tell me a good reason WHY mac is superior against PC in terms of viruses.. plz let me know...

come on dood... come up with a fairly reasonable arguement.. if you can.... :rolleyes:

A good reason? Because Root access is disabled by default on Macs and not on PCs. Thats why you have to type in your password to install software on a Mac and not on a PC. :D I think its a pretty good reason.

BTW... I gave two reasons earlier in the thread why i thought it was a ignorant statement, you obviously didn't read. :D

[Heb1228]

I really hope the move to intel will increase the number of mac users.... but i guarantee that once mac hits a certain threshold of users, there will be a influx of mac viruses....

Thats when having a G4 mac will have an advantage... there will be very little incentive too create a mac g4 virus... as it will have a diminishing number of users to infect...

come on dood... come up with a fairly reasonable arguement.. if you can.... :rolleyes:

LOL I could go on forever with this guy... Viruses are software and don't care if you have a G4 or a G5. But I guess you probably meant a PowerPC Mac as opposed to an Intel Mac.

And what is the "threshold" of users that when we cross it, all these viruses are suddenly going to start flooding in? Mac user have bragged for years that we have no viruses. That's not incentive enough for someone to write one? How about the ability to say, "I was the first to write a virus for OS X and prove all the Mac users wrong." You don't think some hacker would love to say that?

Come on dood.. LOL

[Whyren]

I'm just counting the days until a nasty virus rips through the mac community. Then where will our argument be?!?! Well, I suppose market-share is so small that we won't have to tell anyone that there was a virus...we'll all collectively agree that it didn't happen.

Deal?

Or worse yet, someone manages to create a virus to destroy filesystems and directories on iPods :eek:

[milozauckerman]

In 3+ years of running OS X, I've had the same number of viruses and general malware problems as my parents have had running Windows machines: zero.

The horrors of malware on Windows PCs are, I'd say, greatly overstated for semi-knowledgable users. Don't open "britney spears nude!!!.exe" off of LimeWire and you're probably in good shape.

[mad jew]

Cause once they start using it.. everyone who creates viruses will work to create a Mac breaking virus....


I suppose that could be argued but I don't think it'd create a huge virus-making problem spree. Sure, one of the reasons OSX doesn't have viruses is because of its relatively small market share but another is the fact that it handles processes differently and is inherently more difficult to write viruses for.

...I think. :)

[Lacero]

Don't open "britney spears nude!!!.exe" off of LimeWire and you're probably in good shape.Well guess what? You can get a virus just from viewing JPEG images. [peter griffin voice] Take that .exe!

[Heb1228]

In 3+ years of running OS X, I've had the same number of viruses and general malware problems as my parents have had running Windows machines: zero.

The horrors of malware on Windows PCs are, I'd say, greatly overstated for semi-knowledgable users. Don't open "britney spears nude!!!.exe" off of LimeWire and you're probably in good shape.

As a former semi-knowledgable Windows user, I'd say your parents have been lucky. I never got a virus, but thats because i was obsessive about keeping my AV up to date and I had to do weekly scans for Spyware, usually finding between 30-50 pieces from normal use.

And thats not to mention the victims of viruses like the Sasser worm and others who didn't have to do anything to get infected, just be connected to the internet.

[notjustjay]

The horrors of malware on Windows PCs are, I'd say, greatly overstated for semi-knowledgable users. Don't open "britney spears nude!!!.exe" off of LimeWire and you're probably in good shape.

This was true maybe 5 years ago, and was the reason why I *never* worried about Windows viruses -- I knew I was smart enough not to do anything stupid to get myself infected. I remember getting dozens of copies of ILOVEYOU in my mailbox at work; why everyone was foolish enough to open it was beyond me.

NIMDA was my first Windows virus hit, when it got the whole company almost all at once. No attachments to open or any user action at all -- if you were on the network, you were hit. I remember almost the instant it happened -- my machine began grinding to a halt immediately.

Nowadays I've heard that an unprotected Windows machine would last about 5 minutes on the internet before a vulnerability gets exploited and the machine becomes infected -- all without the user doing anything at all.

Luckily I switched to the Mac before any of that started happening. :)

[KingSleaze]

So exactly how many millions of processors out there does it take to attract the attention of "hacker/s" intent on making a name for themselves by being the one to write a virus? Or should that be 'millions of users of an operating system'?
(I still fail to see how a different processor running Windows is more secure than another. A software virus is attacking the software of the operating system and/or applications)

[Chaszmyr]

70,000 Windows viruses, 0 OSX viruses.

Lets just say OSX got a virus... That would be... 0.001429% of viruses, I believe.

[matticus008]

(I still fail to see how a different processor running Windows is more secure than another. A software virus is attacking the software of the operating system and/or applications)

Some processors (mostly AMD, but some Intel ones now, too) stop certain kinds of viruses because of how they hijack programs. The NX bit prevents some kinds of overflow vulnerabilities from being exploited by viruses by refusing to execute code coming from such an overflow. The CPU can stop software pretty easily, considering all software is really just instructions for the CPU and system components, and if the CPU ignores the command, the virus is not executed and the system is therefore not infected.

In a more or less accurate nutshell, that's how some processors fare better than others. Of course, these CPUs aren't immune to all viruses...just some. But making any dent in 70,000+ is a step in the right direction.

[weg]

More like 4% marketshare...zero viruses.

What about Word macro viruses? Ain't they perfectly portable? ;-)

[solvs]

come on dood... come up with a fairly reasonable arguement.. if you can.... :rolleyes:
There are thousands of viruses for Windows. Create one and you are just another script kiddie, even if you cause some damage. But there are plenty of smug Mac users out there that don't even protect their systems. If you could create a virus for OS X, all it would take is for a few machines to get infected, and you would immediately gain the notoriety of being the first person to ever infect a modern Mac (OS 9 excluded... which BTW did have viruses, so your entire argument goes right out the window). There are no such viruses.

Not saying there never could be, but it would take a lot more than 1 to match the percentage of Macs actually in use (marketshare notwithstanding). That point was already proven above "dood" in post #19 by the same guy who's statement you called moronic.

BTW, ignorant is not an insult. Moronic is. ;) 4.5% marketshare, 0% viruses.