PDA

View Full Version : PC v. Mac


MacBytes
Aug 1, 2006, 04:13 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Hardware
Link: PC v. Mac (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060801171350)
Description:: Need I say more.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Blue Velvet
Aug 1, 2006, 04:18 PM
Need I say more.


Nope.


Viruses: PCs are more vulnerable. That's not a PC flaw. It's a reality of hackers targeting the biggest market. Logic says more-popular Macs will attract more viruses.

Price: PCs are cheaper. There's a cool factor you're paying for with Macs.

:rolleyes:

Willis
Aug 1, 2006, 04:33 PM
some fair points. Macs are PC's at the end of the day... Just better than Windows :rolleyes:

bryanc
Aug 1, 2006, 04:33 PM
It always pains me to see someone who is a 'professional' in their field, but manages to do a worse job than any random grade 6 student you might choose.

I guess that's what one would predict as a consequence of decades of degradation of the American educational system.

Cheers

someguy
Aug 1, 2006, 04:36 PM
Viruses: PCs are more vulnerable. That's not a PC flaw. It's a reality of hackers targeting the biggest market. Logic says more-popular Macs will attract more viruses.
They are absolutely right. Finally, someone has the right idea! Security vulnerability is NOT a PC flaw!






It's a Windows flaw. ;)

gauchogolfer
Aug 1, 2006, 04:37 PM
What a terrible article. I feel for the people of Greenville if that's how all their news is presented.

thegreatluke
Aug 1, 2006, 04:40 PM
I like how the author tried to claim that the PC's file system is just as easy to use as the Mac's. :D

Last time I opened my PC's My Computer icon, there were about thirty thousand folders to root through to find one specific file. It's madness I tell you!

63dot
Aug 1, 2006, 04:41 PM
yes, the PC is a bigger target, a much bigger target

it does not matter how stable or unstable XP is, it's the visible operating system dominating the world right now

Snowy_River
Aug 1, 2006, 04:43 PM
I find this statement remarkable:

Price: PCs are cheaper. There's a cool factor you're paying for with Macs.

Given that most people who properly do their research find that PC systems from major manufacturers will cost on a par with a similar Mac system. So I guess that means you get the cool factor for free!

Oh, yeah, and then there's

Peripheral friendliness: Previously, Macs had the "plug and play" thing down. PCs used to be a struggle. Now, though, PCs have made major strides toward add-on friendliness.

This statement implies some pretty incorrect things. First, saying "Previously, Macs had the "plug and play" thing down." implies that they no longer do. Wrong. Then, the overall implication of the paragraph is that Macs and PCs are on a par with their implementation of Plug-n-Play. This, too, is wrong. In my experience, it is very common that I can plug something into my Mac and have it immediately work, whereas I can plug the same thing into my PC (WinXP Pro) and it will "search for drivers", fail to find them, tell me to look on the internet or contact the manufacturer. It's still plug-n-pray, to me, on the Windows side.

nagromme
Aug 1, 2006, 04:43 PM
it does not matter how stable or unstable XP is, it's the visible operating system dominating the world right now

Correction: visibility/target size matters... AND stability, quality, and design matter also :)

When it comes to security, Macs have TWO advantages. It's not either/or, both are true, and we may glad of them.

63dot
Aug 1, 2006, 04:47 PM
Correction: visibility/target size matters... AND stability, quality, and design matter also :)

When it comes to security, Macs have TWO advantages. It's not either/or, both are true, and we may glad of them.

in my neck of the woods, silicon vallley and surrounding areas, there are guys and gals who can get by anything so it's not a factor among those who know thier shyza

Blue Velvet
Aug 1, 2006, 04:48 PM
If the 'logic' referred to by the person who wrote the article was correct, we'd have approx. 4% (conservatively based on reported marketshare) of the number of viruses that Windows has...various estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000.

So by that token we'd have maybe 2000-4000 or so?

Instead, we have 0.

Security through obscurity is complete FUD.

winmacguy
Aug 1, 2006, 04:49 PM
Nope.






:rolleyes:
nuff said.;)

63dot
Aug 1, 2006, 04:50 PM
If the 'logic' referred to by the person who wrote the article was correct, we'd have approx. 4% (conservatively based on reported marketshare) of the number of viruses that Windows has...various estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000.

So by that token we'd have maybe 2000-4000 or so?

Instead, we have 0.

Security through obscurity is complete FUD.


as great as apple inc and their products are, we have not (outside of the iPod), ever gone on the radar of high tech...we fly, thankfully, way, way below

winmacguy
Aug 1, 2006, 04:54 PM
I like how the author tried to claim that the PC's file system is just as easy to use as the Mac's. :D

Last time I opened my PC's My Computer icon, there were about thirty thousand folders to root through to find one specific file. It's madness I tell you!
Bill Gates can read and write code, Steve Jobs can't
Bill Gates designed a system for geeks because he is one

Blue Velvet
Aug 1, 2006, 04:55 PM
as great as apple inc and their products are, we have not (outside of the iPod), ever gone on the radar of high tech...we fly, thankfully, way, way below

The first successful virus for OSX represents such a kudos-worthy prize of such prestige in the world of 'high tech' that it's remarkable that we haven't seen one yet.

I would bet my last penny that many have tried. And failed.

MacBoobsPro
Aug 1, 2006, 04:57 PM
I like how the author tried to claim that the PC's file system is just as easy to use as the Mac's. :D

Last time I opened my PC's My Computer icon, there were about thirty thousand folders to root through to find one specific file. It's madness I tell you!

I STILL cant get my head round how to access a CD on a PC. You put the disk in, then have to go searching for it? :confused: And whats that Start button all about? The first thing you see when you click 'start' is shut down? Quite handy for us mac users i guess :rolleyes:

LethalWolfe
Aug 1, 2006, 04:59 PM
Whenever the "security thru obscurity" bit comes up I think of something that I read a while ago that said that even though MS is a minority in the web server market they still suffer the majority of attacks. Can anyone who knows more about the server confirm/deny this?


Lethal

Earendil
Aug 1, 2006, 05:05 PM
Whenever the "security thru obscurity" bit comes up I think of something that I read a while ago that said that even though MS is a minority in the web server market they still suffer the majority of attacks. Can anyone who knows more about the server confirm/deny this?


Lethal

Not with facts, but it's true. The first one to crack the Unix based operating systems and get a virus out there is going to be huge.

SiliconAddict
Aug 1, 2006, 07:47 PM
Meh. Or use both. I have my MBP and I have my aging desktop that will be replaced with a core 2 duo with SLI goodness sometime next year. Its all the same melting pot for me at this point and XP has gotten to a point that its pretty dang stable and secure (as long as you follow the holy 4....Firewall, AV, patches, Firefox(with extensions.))

Meh.
I like Windows. . . I like OS X. Neither blows me away.

PS- As a Dell warrantee person I just visited someone today who just migrated from an old first gen iMac to a Dell Dimension. Poor guy. I think his motherboard blew. It definitely wasn't the video card Dell had me replace. Oh I did my job and did the troubleshooting "thing" but the guy obviously had no buisness being near a PC. What with not knowing that no it really doesn't matter which USB port you plug in yur mouse and keyboard. As always I plant the seed mentioning that I purchased my first Mac a few months ago that runs Windows and OS X. . . questions ensued. Can't decide if my company would fire me if they found out. Not like I really care since I want the heck out of this crap factory of a job. But I digress.

thegreatluke
Aug 1, 2006, 08:08 PM
Bill Gates can read and write code, Steve Jobs can't
Bill Gates designed a system for geeks because he is one
No offense or anything, but are you trying to prove a point?

ezekielrage_99
Aug 1, 2006, 09:22 PM
Personally I like the Systems' Properties thing in Windows :D
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~scmcbride/system_properties.jpg

flipper
Aug 1, 2006, 10:04 PM
I was forced to use a Sony Vaio running XP recently at a company i was visiting and God knows why, but it puked about 5 minutes after booting up. What was surprising, was the reaction of the half dozen or so other Windows users at the same desk. It was like, "Oh, blue screen of death, eh?" as if this is a normal occurrance for them. Obviously something was wrong, though i was not doing anything weird on it - just email, web and SAP gui.

Whereas, on my Macs (and i have a few) running OSX 10.3 and 10.4, touch wood, I have had one kernel panic on one machine in the last 5 years. My G4 (sawtooth) has been on 24/7 for the last 6 years without a glitch. Hell, I even forgot to restart for about 4 months straight, still no worries.

XP has supposedly improved from the days for Win 95/98/ME, but for simplicity of use and reliability, forget about it.

alexstein
Aug 1, 2006, 10:32 PM
This article was a complete waist of time to read. It started out alright and than it got worse from there.

SiliconAddict
Aug 1, 2006, 10:46 PM
I was forced to use a Sony Vaio running XP recently at a company i was visiting and God knows why, but it puked about 5 minutes after booting up. What was surprising, was the reaction of the half dozen or so other Windows users at the same desk. It was like, "Oh, blue screen of death, eh?" as if this is a normal occurrance for them. Obviously something was wrong, though i was not doing anything weird on it - just email, web and SAP gui.

Whereas, on my Macs (and i have a few) running OSX 10.3 and 10.4, touch wood, I have had one kernel panic on one machine in the last 5 years. My G4 (sawtooth) has been on 24/7 for the last 6 years without a glitch. Hell, I even forgot to restart for about 4 months straight, still no worries.

XP has supposedly improved from the days for Win 95/98/ME, but for simplicity of use and reliability, forget about it.

About twice a month. Last crash, more accurately freeze, was with a WYSISWYG web editor that took down the system. The previous crash was when I plugged in my USB HUB and then plugged in my 24" monitor then rotated the screen 90* to port mode. I must have done all of this too fast because X choked HARD. OS X is not crash proof by a long shot.

dsnort
Aug 1, 2006, 10:47 PM
Personally I like the Systems' Properties thing in Windows :D
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~scmcbride/system_properties.jpg
Thats hilarious!!!:D :D :D

I had two XP machines before I bought my Mac, one I bought about the turn of the century, the other my company supplied early 2004. The first one was a train wreck. The second was usable, and fairly stable.

The difference was a third party website I found that had about seven pages of settings changes to make to XP. By the time I found that website, it was too late for my first XP machine. It's OS was shot so full of holes it was a wonder it ever booted up at all. I instituted all seven pages of changes on the second machine before it ever got near connecting to the internet or a network. (Well, not all. I had to use IE to connect to the internet and download Firefox BEFORE I could uninstall IE). It still works well to this day.

What always bothered me about that was, if a third party could figure out how to make XP reliable, why couldn't M$?

Dane D.
Aug 1, 2006, 11:03 PM
"I understand why people call people Mac zealots now,"
It just takes some poeple longer to figure it out.
"I think PCs are much friendlier, much easier to use than they used to be, and Macs aren't really as non-geeky as they used to be."
What the hell is non-geeky mean? I mean come on our hardware works and is industry standard.
"The only strength or reality that Mac has right now," Allen says, "is that kind of unified look that they have, but that's not a distinction or difference that's incredibly significant."
Yeh, that look, that look doesn't run the OS, I do and the look is nice thank you.
Fluffy read to most Mac users.:D

After G
Aug 1, 2006, 11:20 PM
A bit off-topic, but I noticed Mac OS X chokes or KPs on bad hardware.

Personal story - 160 GB HD would beach-ball the finder when I was looking for stuff on it. 10 minutes later, the HD died, and I took it apart and got three nice hard drive platters to give as mirrors to my mom and sisters. They work great for that.

Even without SMART status, I knew something was up with that HD. Apparently Mac OS X did too. :D

Back on topic, Macs FTW!

Scarlet Fever
Aug 2, 2006, 03:19 AM
OS X is not crash proof by a long shot.
No program is ever going to be completely crash-proof (unless its just the "beep" command in AppleScript :p). You can find programs that crash rarely, but there is always going to be some fault in the coding of the program that causes a problem to occur. I find OS X crashes less often than Windows does, and it can generally hold up while a program crashes fairly well.

PCMacUser
Aug 2, 2006, 04:43 AM
I like how the author tried to claim that the PC's file system is just as easy to use as the Mac's. :D

Last time I opened my PC's My Computer icon, there were about thirty thousand folders to root through to find one specific file. It's madness I tell you!
As a Mac user, I have to admit that the Windows file system is easier and more intuitive to use than OS X's. The fact that you had to root through 30,000 folders to find your file indicates that you need beginner's computer lessons. Sorry.

PCMacUser
Aug 2, 2006, 04:46 AM
No program is ever going to be completely crash-proof (unless its just the "beep" command in AppleScript :p). You can find programs that crash rarely, but there is always going to be some fault in the coding of the program that causes a problem to occur. I find OS X crashes less often than Windows does, and it can generally hold up while a program crashes fairly well.
My beloved iBook crashes more than my PC used to. And worse, it doesn't always come out of standby mode, which means I lose everything I had open at the time. Sure, I could save my stuff before going into standby, but it's just not meant to die like that! :(

Lollypop
Aug 2, 2006, 05:01 AM
Rather pointless article IMO, all things I already know. I do agree that the mac gets attention due to the coolness factor, and that PC's are mostly cheaper, but ease of use is still on the macs side. Someone I know (artist) recently commented about how hard it was to use removable media, on a mac you plug it in, and drag to it, on the windows side you still have to do a few clicks before dragging can be done.

Killyp
Aug 2, 2006, 05:29 AM
OS X has been FAR more reliable for me than Windows! I don't have to worry about odd sound card settings crashing the computer (used to happen on my old Dell machine) and it's so much more logical.

It isn't just about reliability, it's also about user interface. My dad can work OS X well, uninstall applications, dammit even make workflows, but he can't for the life of him install a piece of hardware in XP...

SPUY767
Aug 2, 2006, 06:11 AM
Correction: visibility/target size matters... AND stability, quality, and design matter also :)

When it comes to security, Macs have TWO advantages. It's not either/or, both are true, and we may glad of them.

Here's how the whole smaller target thing works. There are two motives behind malicious software: money, and notoriety. In the interest of money, we get spyware and adware. These buggers can be quite nasty, but on the whole, the Macintosh will be completely ignored in this market because of its smaller marketshare. On the other hand, we have Malware and viruses. Hackers write true malware and viruses for notoriety, much like the melissa and michaelangelo viruses of years past, viruses are still written for notoriety, "Look what I did. . ." The Mac is a HUGE target for hackers seeking notoriety. Imagine the media coverage and the PR fallout if a hacker were to write a virus that brought droves of Macintoshes to their knees. A successful virus written for a Mac would stroke any self-hating hacker's little man-member a thousand times more than writing a hundred viruses for the PC.

The MKac is a target for Hackers and virus writers, they just haven't brought it down yet.

SPUY767
Aug 2, 2006, 06:15 AM
As a Mac user, I have to admit that the Windows file system is easier and more intuitive to use than OS X's. The fact that you had to root through 30,000 folders to find your file indicates that you need beginner's computer lessons. Sorry.

The fact that you think window's file system is easier means that you don't really know how to use a mac. If I know where a file Is, i can find it in a matter of seconds of a Mac, even if it is nested ten folders deep. Column view smites Windows Explorer a thousand times over.

j26
Aug 2, 2006, 07:21 AM
Thats hilarious!!!:D :D :D

I had two XP machines before I bought my Mac, one I bought about the turn of the century, the other my company supplied early 2004. The first one was a train wreck. The second was usable, and fairly stable.

The difference was a third party website I found that had about seven pages of settings changes to make to XP. By the time I found that website, it was too late for my first XP machine. It's OS was shot so full of holes it was a wonder it ever booted up at all. I instituted all seven pages of changes on the second machine before it ever got near connecting to the internet or a network. (Well, not all. I had to use IE to connect to the internet and download Firefox BEFORE I could uninstall IE). It still works well to this day.

What always bothered me about that was, if a third party could figure out how to make XP reliable, why couldn't M$?

Where's that third party site? A mate has bought a pc laptop and I'd like to be able to point him to it so he can set it up properly.

mkaake
Aug 2, 2006, 07:25 AM
You can have all of the comparo articles in the world you want, but in my little world, every time I've demo'd my machine (ranging from techno geeks to afraid to touch computer personalities), people have walked away amazed that the computer would let them do that that easily. (edit: and this is on a 3 year old eMac, 1ghz!)

All it takes is about 5 minutes of iPhoto and a demo of projects I've put together in a matter of a day or two using iMovie and iDVD.

The typical reaction is something along the lines of: "Wow - that's what I've always wanted to do with my computer, but it's always been so hard that I just gave up!" or for those previously afraid of computers, the first question (honestly) is always: "How much does one of those cost?"

Re: Virii... we may have been saved a few attacks because of visibility, but who cares? We've been saved those attacks! And I don't think any security person worth their weight in peanuts can say that Windows is a more secure OS by default than the mac OS. Both can be made lock tight, but the mac OS ships that way by default... and in the end, does it matter why there are fewer virii on the mac? Call me up when your mac gets its first virus...

PCMacUser
Aug 2, 2006, 07:31 AM
The fact that you think window's file system is easier means that you don't really know how to use a mac.
Or that you don't know how to use a PC. See what I mean? We're both probably idiots and don't even know it. Although I'm a Mac user, so where does that get us?

If I know where a file Is, i can find it in a matter of seconds of a Mac, even if it is nested ten folders deep. Column view smites Windows Explorer a thousand times over.
Hmm, I can do the same on Windows Explorer. You just click on the little '+' sign next to the folders. I'm not sure column view will be smiting anyone just yet. (Smiting? What the hell?).

PCMacUser
Aug 2, 2006, 07:39 AM
Re: Virii... we may have been saved a few attacks because of visibility, but who cares? We've been saved those attacks! And I don't think any security person worth their weight in peanuts can say that Windows is a more secure OS by default than the mac OS. Both can be made lock tight, but the mac OS ships that way by default... and in the end, does it matter why there are fewer virii on the mac? Call me up when your mac gets its first virus...
Yeah the lack of viruses (just so you know, virii is not the plural of virus) was one of the deciding factors in my purchasing an iBook. Although I never had one on Windows in 8 years. But not having to pay Symantec for update subscriptions and bloating my system with buggy software makes me happy. :)

bowens
Aug 2, 2006, 08:09 AM
OS X has been FAR more reliable for me than Windows! I don't have to worry about odd sound card settings crashing the computer (used to happen on my old Dell machine) and it's so much more logical.

It isn't just about reliability, it's also about user interface. My dad can work OS X well, uninstall applications, dammit even make workflows, but he can't for the life of him install a piece of hardware in XP...

Agreed. My windows laptop used to crash everytime I'd get online. A nice little screen would pop up and say "Your computer will shut down in 60 seconds." And Macs are so much easier to use. I haven't quite convinced my wife of this yet, but she's now got her own iMac G3 with 10.2 installed so hopefully once she uses that a little bit she'll jump on board too.

MacBoobsPro
Aug 2, 2006, 08:09 AM
As a Mac user, I have to admit that the Windows file system is easier and more intuitive to use than OS X's. The fact that you had to root through 30,000 folders to find your file indicates that you need beginner's computer lessons. Sorry.

:confused:

I can get to ANYWHERE on my mac with 2 clicks! The majority of it only needs 1. Thats not including Spotlight. Thats just with the finder.:rolleyes: Also I think Vista will prve you wrong when it comes out and copies OSX.

whooleytoo
Aug 2, 2006, 09:05 AM
Not with facts, but it's true. The first one to crack the Unix based operating systems and get a virus out there is going to be huge.

I'm not sure why people focus so much on viruses on OSX, when trojans present a far greater threat insofar as OSX (or any OS) offers little defence against them, and they can be used to carry a virus, adware or, most worryingly, spyware.

It's not only possible to do this, but it's quite easy.

bryanc
Aug 2, 2006, 09:13 AM
OS X is not crash proof by a long shot.

If you can crash OS X reliably (as in, reproducibly), please file a bug report. This is exactly the kind of input that allows the programmers in Cupertino to make OS X better for all of us. However, it may not be the OS.

I've been running OS X since 10.0, and have seen very few crashes. I saw several on an old 350 MHz G3, which turned out to be due to a flaky RAM socket. My 667 MHz TiBook started KPing after it got dropped, but it still seems to run all right if you don't move it while it's running (if you move it, it'll panic almost every time).

In a nutshell, I've found OS X to be as stable as the hardware you run it on. If you're seeing crashes, you've probably got a hardware problem.

Cheers

someguy
Aug 2, 2006, 09:13 AM
It's not only possible to do this, but it's quite easy.
Why don't you tell us how, then? Or better yet, do it. Make a 'proof of concept' trojan and send it to all skeptics, including me.

I'd love for someone to prove that the theory that Windows has viruses ONLY because it's the more targetted OS, and that it has nothing to do with it's level of security.

Let me know when that trojan is finished, and I'll give you my email address so you can send it to me, along with directions on how to get it going.

I can't wait.

SPUY767
Aug 2, 2006, 09:16 AM
Or that you don't know how to use a PC. See what I mean? We're both probably idiots and don't even know it. Although I'm a Mac user, so where does that get us?


Hmm, I can do the same on Windows Explorer. You just click on the little '+' sign next to the folders. I'm not sure column view will be smiting anyone just yet. (Smiting? What the hell?).

For the sake of argument, I don't have to click anything, I just type the first few letters of the folder and hit the -> key, but that's another time and place.

If you can crash OS X reliably (as in, reproducibly), please file a bug report. This is exactly the kind of input that allows the programmers in Cupertino to make OS X better for all of us. However, it may not be the OS.

I've been running OS X since 10.0, and have seen very few crashes. I saw several on an old 350 MHz G3, which turned out to be due to a flaky RAM socket. My 667 MHz TiBook started KPing after it got dropped, but it still seems to run all right if you don't move it while it's running (if you move it, it'll panic almost every time).

In a nutshell, I've found OS X to be as stable as the hardware you run it on. If you're seeing crashes, you've probably got a hardware problem.

Cheers

There is a way to reliably crash Mac OS X, and it involves crappy programming. I accidentally programmed a program once, that when running in multiprocessing mode, would attempt to access the same address in memory with both procs at the same time. Out like a light. But that's the only thing I've seen that will bring down a Mac on the spot.

SPUY767
Aug 2, 2006, 09:22 AM
Why don't you tell us how, then? Or better yet, do it. Make a 'proof of concept' trojan and send it to all skeptics, including me.

I'd love for someone to prove that the theory that Windows has viruses ONLY because it's the more targetted OS, and that it has nothing to do with it's level of security.

Let me know when that trojan is finished, and I'll give you my email address so you can send it to me, along with directions on how to get it going.

I can't wait.


A trojan is easy to make. It can be as simple as a shell script entitled BritneySpearsDrippingWet.jpg.sh. Believe me, some tool will open it, and even tho he has to type in his root password to open a picture, which 99.99999% of us would find quite odd, he'll do it, and it will delete his system folder.

whooleytoo
Aug 2, 2006, 09:30 AM
Let me know when that trojan is finished, and I'll give you my email address so you can send it to me, along with directions on how to get it going.

I can't wait.

I already have explained the steps in detail here, on more than one thread.

The only difficult part is the "honey", making a download that appeals to people enough that they download. Once they run the installer (if a package), or run the application/game itself (if a drag install), they're in trouble.

someguy
Aug 2, 2006, 09:30 AM
A trojan is easy to make. It can be as simple as a shell script entitled BritneySpearsDrippingWet.jpg.sh. Believe me, some tool will open it, and even tho he has to type in his root password to open a picture, which 99.99999% of us would find quite odd, he'll do it, and it will delete his system folder.
Awesome, so get to the part where it affects users that were born with common sense? Sure some people would enter their password, not knowing the consequences, but the fact that they have to says a lot about OS X security. And is that the best that anyone can come up with? Why doesn't someone (just ONE person in the entire world) make a virus that cripples ONE Mac the way thousands of them cripple thousands of Windows machines?

This proves that Windows being the dominant OS (read: used most) has little to do with the amount of malware designed for it, and everything to do with the likelyhood of damage being done as a result of it. How can anyone argue otherwise?

someguy
Aug 2, 2006, 09:32 AM
I already have explained the steps in detail here, on more than one thread.

The only difficult part is the "honey", making a download that appeals to people enough that they download. Once they run the installer (if a package), or run the application/game itself (if a drag install), they're in trouble.
Sounds just as easy as getting yourself in trouble on a Windows machine, doesn't it? I wonder why no one does this for OS X? And where is the "difficult part" of crippling a Windows machine via malware?


I just want someone to tell me why people think that Windows has so much malware only because it is used more than anything and no one targets the Mac OS? Seriously, I want to know where this mindset comes from. I am not saying it is wrong for sure, but I can't see how it could possibly be accurate when it isn't hard to see that OS X is lightyears ahead of Windows in terms of security.

whooleytoo
Aug 2, 2006, 09:34 AM
A trojan is easy to make. It can be as simple as a shell script entitled BritneySpearsDrippingWet.jpg.sh. Believe me, some tool will open it, and even tho he has to type in his root password to open a picture, which 99.99999% of us would find quite odd, he'll do it, and it will delete his system folder.

A trojan like that is at the bottom of the malware genetic pool! :) It's not very convincing, and requires a password to open it.

A more dangerous trojan would appear like a normal application/game, but would install its malware payload quietly in the background. It wouldn't require a password, nor would it delete your system folder (too obvious, user would notice immediately and realise the trojan was the issue).Instead it would start scanning files in the users home folder for keywords, such as user name, password, Visa, Mastercard, social security numbers etc. and send them back quietly through port 80.

someguy
Aug 2, 2006, 09:39 AM
A trojan like that is at the bottom of the malware genetic pool! :) It's not very convincing, and requires a password to open it.

A more dangerous trojan would appear like a normal application/game, but would install its malware payload quietly in the background. It wouldn't require a password, nor would it delete your system folder (too obvious, user would notice immediately and realise the trojan was the issue).Instead it would start scanning files in the users home folder for keywords, such as user name, password, Visa, Mastercard, social security numbers etc. and send them back quietly through port 80.
Note: Before I post this, whooleytoo, know that I am trying to learn and understand, not attack or insult. :)

Let's do this, then, as a proof of concept. I'm willing to risk a little to learn a lot. Create this trojan and send it to me. I'll install it (although I would hope, for the sake of proving that it's dangerous, it'll install itself) and I want you to return any information you can about me in an email back to me. Give me my name, address, any information you can find that I know you'd have no other way of knowing.

Then, we both present this to Steve Jobs and get rich. :D

whooleytoo
Aug 2, 2006, 09:42 AM
Sounds just as easy as getting yourself in trouble on a Windows machine, doesn't it? I wonder why no one does this for OS X? And where is the "difficult part" of crippling a Windows machine via malware?


Honestly, I don't know why there isn't malware for OSX. It offers more security than Windows, but not very much - certainly nothing to prevent a trojan doing a lot of damage.

I just know, from my work (Mac developer of corporate in-house content management & delivery software) that pretty much everything I do legitimately day in, day out could just as easily be done by malware developers to spread spyware and adware. It is very difficult for a person to spot a well disguised trojan (of which there haven't been many!), but it's extremely difficult to build an OS and can spot and prevent them.

My only guess is that most malware is being written by a small group of people, whose skill sets and financial interests lie in the biggest market, Windows.

someguy
Aug 2, 2006, 09:45 AM
Honestly, I don't know why there isn't malware for OSX. It offers more security than Windows, but not very much - certainly nothing to prevent a trojan doing a lot of damage.

I just know, from my work (Mac developer of corporate in-house content management & delivery software) that pretty much everything I do legitimately day in, day out could just as easily be done by malware developers to spread spyware and adware. It is very difficult for a person to spot a well disguised trojan (of which there haven't been many!), but it's extremely difficult to build an OS and can spot and prevent them.

My only guess is that most malware is being written by a small group of people, whose skill sets and financial interests lie in the biggest market, Windows.
I understand this, but what about my proposal. I really want to see it done, and you sound knowledgable enough to make it happen, if anyone can.

whooleytoo
Aug 2, 2006, 10:00 AM
Note: Before I post this, whooleytoo, know that I am trying to learn and understand, not attack or insult. :)

Let's do this, then, as a proof of concept. I'm willing to risk a little to learn a lot. Create this trojan and send it to me. I'll install it (although I would hope, for the sake of proving that it's dangerous, it'll install itself) and I want you to return any information you can about me in an email back to me. Give me my name, address, any information you can find that I know you'd have no other way of knowing.

I'm willing to do this, but it'll take a bit of time to do this right, primarily to build the 'horse' itself. I'll have the time to do it this weekend, if you have the patience! :)

Just to be clear how this would work (whether testing, or in "real life"):
- I put up a page offering a download, perhaps a game, or a useful system utility.
- You download it, and install it (if a package) or run it (if an application).
- Whether you run the installer, or launch the application, the "malware" helper program has launched quietly in the background, and will continue to do so even when you quit the game/utility.
- Then, it begins scanning your home directory looking for keywords, and sends anything useful back through port 80.

Obviously, it would be hit and miss whether it'll find anything useful or incriminating. If any female user of Macrumors with kinky pictures of herself lying around her home folder would like to try this, I'd certainly be willing! ;)

someguy
Aug 2, 2006, 10:12 AM
I'm willing to do this, but it'll take a bit of time to do this right, primarily to build the 'horse' itself. I'll have the time to do it this weekend, if you have the patience! :)

Just to be clear how this would work (whether testing, or in "real life"):
- I put up a page offering a download, perhaps a game, or a useful system utility.
- You download it, and install it (if a package) or run it (if an application).
- Whether you run the installer, or launch the application, the "malware" helper program has launched quietly in the background, and will continue to do so even when you quit the game/utility.
- Then, it begins scanning your home directory looking for keywords, and sends anything useful back through port 80.

Obviously, it would be hit and miss whether it'll find anything useful or incriminating. If any female user of Macrumors with kinky pictures of herself lying around her home folder would like to try this, I'd certainly be willing! ;)
If I have to purposely and knowingly download and install it, can you do your best to "disguise" it so that I feel like it might be something I'd fall for if I were the average Mac user? PC users almost never know beforehand that they are going to get a virus, it usually just "happens", so I'd like this to seem like something that could just happen to someone if possible.

Other than that, I think this will be fun. I look forward to seeing what information you can return this way.

whooleytoo
Aug 2, 2006, 10:19 AM
If I have to purposely and knowingly download and install it, can you do your best to "disguise" it so that I feel like it might be something I'd fall for if I were the average Mac user? PC users almost never know beforehand that they are going to get a virus, it usually just "happens", so I'd like this to seem like something that could just happen to someone if possible.

Other than that, I think this will be fun. I look forward to seeing what information you can return this way.

:p

Ok, now this IS difficult. "I'd like to try out a trojan, but ideally without knowing it's a trojan. Could you ask me to download something without me figuring out it's a trojan?" :)

PC users seem to get viruses either by running an infected application (which essentially is much the same as the trojan above) or by opening an email attachment (still requires user interaction). The 'ideal' malware is a worm, which requires no user interaction whatsover, but they are more difficult and relatively rare, on all platforms.

Earendil
Aug 2, 2006, 10:26 AM
I'm not sure why people focus so much on viruses on OSX, when trojans present a far greater threat insofar as OSX (or any OS) offers little defence against them, and they can be used to carry a virus, adware or, most worryingly, spyware.

It's not only possible to do this, but it's quite easy.

Until you can train the user, you will never stop trojans. It's the equivalent of getting a car maker to make it harder to install a bomb that is triggered by the ignition system, or handing a bomb to the driver and saying "push this button when you start the car".
A proper program can do all kinds of damage and "normal" things if the user opens it themselves, and gives it their password.

That said, Trojans don't carry Viruses, because they are two different things. Viruses, like the real world equivalent, are self propgating self opening programs/scripts. They don't need any human interaction to spread, and cause damage. These are the ones that take down large portions of the internet overnight. No one had to open it, it just spead in a matter of hours across a large portion of the net.

Spyware/Adware are names for types of Trojans/Viruses, and they refer to the purpose. Trojans and Viruses are the type of delivery, while Spyware and Adware are the result. Spyware, because of it's nature of rooting around in other systems information, or other programs file, can be neutered to a degree. However anyone that has access to my email archive can find out way too much about me. Adware pops up a window with a picture in it, or the contents of a website. Even I can do this, and in fact it was my second C# program I think :rolleyes: ;)

So there are three ideas to stopping Viruses/Trojans: First you want to keep them from getting to your computer at all (firewalls up, no holes in the OS to let unidentified traffic in), Second is to keep the app/script from running (the OS can help stop viruses, you have to train a user to stop trojans), and lastly limit the effects of a program once it has been opened.

The upside and downside of Trojans is that they DO require human interaction, and so can be spotted easily, and don't spread fast, if at all. Most of them rely on being downloaded as well, and don't spread themselves. However if someone does open one and gives them their admin password, that Trojan has the same power as your email program, firefox, prefferences, Activity Monitor, ady many more avenues for destruction and propogation, far more than a Virus that has no such access.

It's that access that for a long time had OSX blasting XP out of the water, because far more could be done with a Virus on XP than on OSX. Though XP has made great leaps in the past 2 years, they still haven't caught up, and no one has yet produced a true Virus for OSX. There have even been paid compitition for it...

~Tyler

someguy
Aug 2, 2006, 10:36 AM
:p

Ok, now this IS difficult. "I'd like to try out a trojan, but ideally without knowing it's a trojan. Could you ask me to download something without me figuring out it's a trojan?" :)

PC users seem to get viruses either by running an infected application (which essentially is much the same as the trojan above) or by opening an email attachment (still requires user interaction). The 'ideal' malware is a worm, which requires no user interaction whatsover, but they are more difficult and relatively rare, on all platforms.
:D

I just meant that it's kind of difficult to prove anything when the only way you can get a trojan on my system is for you to email it to me, have me purposely download and install it, etc. when it isn't packaged with or disguised as anything. No PC user downloads trojans on purpose, so I was hoping that maybe the trojan could LOOK like a legitimate program, just for the effect. I suppose it's not really important to the experiment, it just kind of shows that although something like this can be written for OSX, it's not realistic to think that you could actually infect anyone who wasn't willing to help you do so. :)

63dot
Aug 2, 2006, 10:38 AM
Bill Gates can read and write code, Steve Jobs can't
Bill Gates designed a system for geeks because he is one

and bill gates is a superior businessman and great at making money at all costs...and so it goes, he's into business and geeky code

steve jobs is into a computer that pleases it users

30 years later, which machine would you get?

Earendil
Aug 2, 2006, 10:42 AM
and bill gates is a superior businessman and great at making money at all costs...and so it goes, he's into business and geeky code

steve jobs is into a computer that pleases it users

30 years later, which machine would you get?

What a silly question to pose here ;)

jsw
Aug 2, 2006, 10:44 AM
I personally thought that it was a good article, given that the audience wasn't intended to be an expert on either platform.

To most people, PCs are cheaper because they can buy one for much less money. The fact that it has poorer build quality, less software, and less performance than a more expensive Mac - or PC - doesn't matter to them, as they don't need, or feel they need, those extras. You can put together a new under US$600 PC that'll fit the needs of many buyers. You cannot do that with a Mac. You can get close, if you have some things already, but you can't hit that number, for example.

Also, the virus/malware issue has been addressed above. Yes, Windows has lots of older code and has historically been more vulnerable. However, it's now arguable that Windows XP, fully updated, is substantially more vulnerable than OS X 10.4.7 - we seem to get more frequent security updates which are more extensive now, when compared to Windows users (I'm both). The fact that we're a smaller market and that, in general, more professionals or higher-end consumers have been the main buyers of Macs has kept us safe, but that will change.

I thought the article's points were fair, esp. as someone who uses mid-to-high-end versions of both platforms.

I can get to ANYWHERE on my mac with 2 clicks! The majority of it only needs 1.I'd love to see how you do that.

whooleytoo
Aug 2, 2006, 10:47 AM
Fair points mostly, but I do have to poke a few holes! ;)

Until you can train the user, you will never stop trojans. It's the equivalent of getting a car maker to make it harder to install a bomb that is triggered by the ignition system, or handing a bomb to the driver and saying "push this button when you start the car".
A proper program can do all kinds of damage and "normal" things if the user opens it themselves, and gives it their password.


User training won't stop trojans either, not if they're cleverly written. I think more and more we're likely to see things like File Vault being on by default (perhaps, eventually, on permanently), plus a more secure OS which has a 'quarantine' or 'safe' partition, which only the Finder (i.e the user manually copying deleting) has read, write and delete access to.


That said, Trojans don't carry Viruses, because they are two different things. Viruses, like the real world equivalent, are self propgating self opening programs/scripts. They don't need any human interaction to spread, and cause damage. These are the ones that take down large portions of the internet overnight. No one had to open it, it just spead in a matter of hours across a large portion of the net.


Viruses are often initially seeded into the wild via a trojan; i.e. the trojan's payload is the virus, which then infects other apps, which then infect... etc. Incidentally, viruses do require user interaction, they require an app to be launched, or a file opened to execute. An executable that doesn't require interaction would be a worm.


Spyware/Adware are names for types of Trojans/Viruses, and they refer to the purpose. Trojans and Viruses are the type of delivery, while Spyware and Adware are the result. Spyware, because of it's nature of rooting around in other systems information, or other programs file, can be neutered to a degree. However anyone that has access to my email archive can find out way too much about me. Adware pops up a window with a picture in it, or the contents of a website. Even I can do this, and in fact it was my second C# program I think :rolleyes: ;)


Adware is easy, yes, that's part of my point. There's little point in spyware rooting around in the system files, it's far more interesting to poke around in the user's home folder and read their personal files. The OS offers virtually no protection against this.


The upside and downside of Trojans is that they DO require human interaction, and so can be spotted easily, and don't spread fast, if at all. Most of them rely on being downloaded as well, and don't spread themselves. However if someone does open one and gives them their admin password, that Trojan has the same power as your email program, firefox, prefferences, Activity Monitor, ady many more avenues for destruction and propogation, far more than a Virus that has no such access.


How many programs (games, utilities etc.) have you installed on your Macs? Ten? A hundred? Could any of them have been carrying a malware payload? How would you know?

Plus, remember that a lot of users use administrative accounts day in, day out, hence wouldn't need to enter the admin password to install a trojan.

:D

I just meant that it's kind of difficult to prove anything when the only way you can get a trojan on my system is for you to email it to me, have me purposely download and install it, etc. when it isn't packaged with or disguised as anything.

No problem. It will be packaged as a normal app, and - other than you knowing before it's a trojan - you shouldn't be any the wiser after having run it. :)

someguy
Aug 2, 2006, 10:54 AM
No problem. It will be packaged as a normal app, and - other than you knowing before it's a trojan - you shouldn't be any the wiser after having run it. :)
Great. Now, will the app itself (the patsy app, if you will) run like it should after I double-click it? Or, will nothing happen (that I can see) leaving me wondering what's going on?

It'd be a nice idea if it were packaged with, say Firefox.app so when I run it, Firefox opens, but the trojan is also let loose without my knowledge. Makes it a little more believable that it could happen in the real world. :)

63dot
Aug 2, 2006, 10:56 AM
What a silly question to pose here ;)

what's funny here is that we all know the two steves revolutionized the field and gave us a great machine and great operating system that is user friendly

but some mac faithful try to insist that gates, allen, dell, etc didn't outmanuever apple inc in business strategy :)

i don't care if apple ever catches ms in the os business or dell and hp/compaq in the desktop/laptop arenas, i am just pleased that i have a couple of macs and these days, i never boot up my pc machines

and in the future, i seriously doubt apple can reach and sustain any five percent share of the market, even three percent would be a stretch

...if most people want to remain ignorant and think macs are toys, boutique items, or too expensive, let them think that

we here, on this forum, know better

whooleytoo
Aug 2, 2006, 11:04 AM
Great. Now, will the app itself (the patsy app, if you will) run like it should after I double-click it? Or, will nothing happen (that I can see) leaving me wondering what's going on?

It'd be a nice idea if it were packaged with, say Firefox.app so when I run it, Firefox opens, but the trojan is also let loose without my knowledge. Makes it a little more believable that it could happen in the real world. :)


If nothing happened when you launched the app, you'd be immediately suspicious, hence that'd be an extremely poor trojan (though most trojans are that obvious!). Ideally a malware writer would want a fully functioning, normal app so as not to create suspicion. By the time anything happens, (your Mac starts acting funny, or your identity has been stolen! :) ) you'd probably have forgotten about this app you launched a few hours/days/weeks ago.

I think it might be possible to package it within a 3rd party app, but that's something I haven't tried before. I'll give it a try when I get home tonight.

p.s I'm starting to feel really evil here after this thread. What's more - if I don't get it working, I'm an idiot. If I do, I'm an evil malware writer! :eek: :)

Earendil
Aug 2, 2006, 11:30 AM
Fair points mostly, but I do have to poke a few holes! ;)

Fair enough, you have some good points :)


User training won't stop trojans either, not if they're cleverly written. I think more and more we're likely to see things like File Vault being on by default (perhaps, eventually, on permanently), plus a more secure OS which has a 'quarantine' or 'safe' partition, which only the Finder (i.e the user manually copying deleting) has read, write and delete access to.

Yes, these are things that will happen in the future. However right now, with the average users ability to use a computer, this cure would be worse than the disease*.

Viruses are often initially seeded into the wild via a trojan; i.e. the trojan's payload is the virus, which then infects other apps, which then infect... etc. Incidentally, viruses do require user interaction, they require an app to be launched, or a file opened to execute. An executable that doesn't require interaction would be a worm.

They could be seeded with a trojan, but a good virus should be able to just start from a host computer and spread from there.
Wiki has a pretty good write up on the definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus
However, to avoid the exact definitions of the different words, I'll reinterate my point. Trojans are easy to write, and require a user to trick. Viruses/Worms generally don't require a user to trick, and rely on 'tricking' the OS so to speak.

[quote]Adware is easy, yes, that's part of my point. There's little point in spyware rooting around in the system files, it's far more interesting to poke around in the user's home folder and read their personal files. The OS offers virtually no protection against this.[/quote

No protection because to protect would be to disable other programs from also interacting with that data. I suppose things could be done.. you could always die partiular data to a particular program. But you would have to go a step farther than that, you would have to have it tie to a unique program, similar to putting a DRM like layer on your data.

However a hacker could always get the raw data and crack the DRM like layer.

[quote]How many programs (games, utilities etc.) have you installed on your Macs? Ten? A hundred? Could any of them have been carrying a malware payload? How would you know?[/quote

hundreds, if not more. I know because I download from trusted sites, with many user reviews, and 95% of the time it is a recomendation by a trusted news source. Outside of that I know if a program should be asking for my admin password or not. If I don't think it should be, I go looking for info on whether it should or not.

[quote]Plus, remember that a lot of users use administrative accounts day in, day out, hence wouldn't need to enter the admin password to install a trojan.[quote]

Wait, that is the beauty of OSX. While you might be logged in as an "admin" you aren't truely. Every time you are asked for you password you are giving admin privledges to a program, or else proving that you yourself are the admin. Your account doesn't have unrestricted admin rights, such that a program that gets in would also have those rights. You have to give that program the access by providing your admin password, but this can be done under any account, assuming the user knows the admin password.

You also can not give any program root access without intentionly creating the password, through unintuative steps. The OSX kernel is very well protected.

Also, and I'm not as sure about this, but I believe OSX has a "sections" concept about it. That is, giving access to a particular area of the OS does not entitle the program to ALL admin areas of the OS, just a section of it.

Below is a small portion of the Wiki site I listed above. I thought it would be informative to the users here reading the thread.

Cheers,
Tyler

Trojan horses
A Trojan horse is just a computer program. The program pretends to do one thing (like claim to be a picture) but actually does damage when one starts it (it can completely erase one's files). Trojan horses cannot replicate automatically.
Worms
A worm is a piece of software that uses computer networks and security flaws to create copies of itself. A copy of the worm will scan the network for any other machine that has a specific security flaw. It replicates itself to the new machine using the security flaw, and then begins scanning and replicating anew.
E-mail viruses
An e-mail virus will use an e-mail message as a mode of transport, and usually will copy itself by automatically mailing itself to hundreds of people in the victim's address book.

Computer viruses are called viruses because they share some traits of types of biological viruses.

A computer virus will pass from one computer to another like a real life biological virus passes from person to person. For example, it is estimated by experts that the Mydoom worm infected a quarter-million computers in a single day in January of 2004. In March of 1999, the Melissa virus spread so rapidly that it forced Microsoft and a number of other very large companies to completely turn off their e-mail systems until the virus could be dealt with. Another example is the ILOVEYOU virus which occurred in 2000 had a similarly disastrous effect.


*Not a type of harmful computer software, self propogating or otherwise ;)

Shotglass
Aug 2, 2006, 11:38 AM
If the author of that article had even at one point written down the WHOLE truth, his PC-using readers would've lynched him. It's a shame how people that can't afford macs, or don't think they can afford them, or are too scared to make the switch, or are insecure about their computing needs, make jokes about mac users instead.
I have a friend who is a PC user. He always makes fun of Macs. Until I showed him mine. He never told me when his PC crashed again. Before that, I heard a "crash and reformat" story every two weeks. Now it's all quiet. He is sooo ashamed.

SPUY767
Aug 2, 2006, 11:46 AM
Awesome, so get to the part where it affects users that were born with common sense? Sure some people would enter their password, not knowing the consequences, but the fact that they have to says a lot about OS X security. And is that the best that anyone can come up with? Why doesn't someone (just ONE person in the entire world) make a virus that cripples ONE Mac the way thousands of them cripple thousands of Windows machines?

This proves that Windows being the dominant OS (read: used most) has little to do with the amount of malware designed for it, and everything to do with the likelyhood of damage being done as a result of it. How can anyone argue otherwise?

Hey, all I gave you was the textbook definition of a trojan program. The covering doesn't matter. It could eb masquerading as a screensaver.

SPUY767
Aug 2, 2006, 12:57 PM
You can put together a new under US$600 PC that'll fit the needs of many buyers. You cannot do that with a Mac. You can get close, if you have some things already, but you can't hit that number, for example.

Not true, I just built my second Bastard Mac less than three days ago for $372.71, That's a 3.8 GHz Pentium D, 1 Gig of DDR2 5300, an 80 Gig HD, Keyboard, Mouse, DVD/CDRW, ASUS P5LD2-VM with intel GMA950 Onboard Video. Runs 90% of processor intensive Apps faster than my Dual G5, and cost under $400. So yes, you can build Macs for less money, but no, my Cheapo box isn't that great of quality, I don't care, it's just a jukebox and movie Player in a Crappy PC Case.

I'd love to see how you do that.

I would too, I can navigate fast, but that is just plain AMAZING!

ezekielrage_99
Aug 2, 2006, 07:58 PM
The two things Windows has over Mac OSX:

1) Disk Defrag
2) Solitare

Snowy_River
Aug 3, 2006, 02:14 AM
...and in the future, i seriously doubt apple can reach and sustain any five percent share of the market, even three percent would be a stretch...

Apple reaching three percent is a stretch? How do you account for their current 4.8% (or 4.6%) marketshare? (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060721110602.shtml) And based on that, they're almost at that seriously doubtful 5%, right?:rolleyes:

Also, to put things in a slightly different perspective, this article (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/1052F769-AC24-4892-8937-E3E90BCFD5CC.html) discusses the improper comparison between Apple and other computer makers, because Apple is both a hardware and software company. The result is that, while Apple still has 4.6% of the combined hardware/software market, it is above Gateway (3%), and in fourth place, overall, behind HP (9.4%), Dell (15.9%) and the giant in the room, Microsoft (48.3%). It's an interesting article.

Snowy_River
Aug 3, 2006, 02:15 AM
Not true, I just built my second Bastard Mac less than three days ago for $372.71, That's a 3.8 GHz Pentium D, 1 Gig of DDR2 5300, an 80 Gig HD, Keyboard, Mouse, DVD/CDRW, ASUS P5LD2-VM with intel GMA950 Onboard Video. Runs 90% of processor intensive Apps faster than my Dual G5, and cost under $400. So yes, you can build Macs for less money, but no, my Cheapo box isn't that great of quality, I don't care, it's just a jukebox and movie Player in a Crappy PC Case.



I would too, I can navigate fast, but that is just plain AMAZING!

And it's illegal, too. The only computers that can legally run Mac OS X are Apple built computers. So, this is hardly a realistic option.

Snowy_River
Aug 3, 2006, 02:18 AM
The two things Windows has over Mac OSX:

1) Disk Defrag
2) Solitare

Mac OS X uses the HFS+ filesystem with journalling, which is designed to self defrag. While this isn't always 100% effective, it is, in my experience, more than adequate for the most part.

So, that leaves Solitaire. Hmm. Windows comes with Solitaire and Macs come with Chess. What does that tell us? ;)

Mav451
Aug 3, 2006, 02:48 AM
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm on ezekielrage's part...

PCMacUser
Aug 3, 2006, 04:08 AM
:confused:

I can get to ANYWHERE on my mac with 2 clicks! The majority of it only needs 1. Thats not including Spotlight. Thats just with the finder.:rolleyes: Also I think Vista will prve you wrong when it comes out and copies OSX.
Please tell me how you can get to anywhere on your Mac with only one click! It takes one click just to OPEN finder! And don't say you use keyboard shortcuts... Apple invented the mouse didn't they?

Now you mention Spotlight. Spotlight is superb. It's just Finder that I find awkward and difficult to use for the things that I can do easily in Windows Explorer on XP.

And I have used Vista (well, the latest pre-release versions). I've just finished working for a Microsoft Partner company and it was part of my job to test Vista. Personally I don't like it. Yet. It's chunky and slow and the 3d implementation looks like a cheap XP skin in my opinion. But it is certainly NOT copying OS X Finder!!!! In fact the new file browser is unlike ANYTHING I've seen before on a personal computer. Could Microsoft be innovating?

Sure they've copied Spotlight - but who hasn't?

macidiot
Aug 3, 2006, 05:22 AM
For some reason I really don't see a Mac user wearing an orangey-tan leather-ish Members Only jacket.