I have to share this

[PraisiX-windows]

Plus you must factor in the hours you need to reformat and reinstall software when you buy a new PC. Takes hours to get rid of all that crapware and a million updates! With a new Mac I get my clone drive ready before I buy. Once I'm home I clone to the new mac and have a beer or 2 while I wait. I'l never forgive microsoft for the 24 hours I lost trying to reinstall Vista on a computer. Even if i'm a walmart greeter making 10$ an hour, that is $240 of my time!

I mean what is this? By what you state here I'd say this is what people call apple fanboys sheep for, no offense (if that's even possible).

Get rid of the crapware? I mean, if you buy a new PC you won't have any software on it to begin with, except a few programs but they'll be deleted in a matter of seconds (obviously browsing to the place where you delete them could take a minute).

And all those updates, I mean, you can just have them download, no reason your computer shouldn't be usable while that is, and you ARE also able to clone your drive in windows.

 

[Mode-III fan]

I mean what is this? By what you state here I'd say this is what people call apple fanboys sheep for, no offense (if that's even possible).

Get rid of the crapware? I mean, if you buy a new PC you won't have any software on it to begin with, except a few programs but they'll be deleted in a matter of seconds (obviously browsing to the place where you delete them could take a minute).

And all those updates, I mean, you can just have them download, no reason your computer shouldn't be usable while that is, and you ARE also able to clone your drive in windows.

I agree. I use macs and my wife uses PCs. She seldom has problems when purchasing a new PC. She's just careful not to buy a cheap machine. The only difference I notice between the two types is that we've experienced fewer problems interfacing my macs with items such as monitors and printers. But that's not to say the PCs have ever been a real pain, the macs just seem happier to connect to stuff, which is great for non-technical folks like myself. The only other thing I have noticed is that Apple seems to have the track pad nailed down pretty well compared to track pads I've used on PC laptops. But I guess this is a moot point for those who favor mice.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

This is pretty much my response to folks who ask me about the Apple Tax. A used Mac in good condition will sell for an excellent price. For instance, I recently sold a year-old Macbook Pro on Ebay for over 60% of my original purchase price. That meant my upgrade to a new 17" MBP was less than $1000. Of course, you have to pay the higher price for the original unit in the first place, but upgrading to a newer mac is then relatively cheap thanks to the high resale value of used macs.

I just wish they were cheaper here in Denmark.

The ultimate version of the macbook air costs 2505 dollars approximately, compared to the 1799 in the US, which does make it alot more expensive than anything else there is.
However, I'm going to convert from windows to mac osx with the refresh of the MBA so we'll see whether or not it is worth that extra price.

- I sort of hope it is, one of the things I hope to get rid of is one of those billion options one has with windows, there's always something that can be tweaked, and I'm hoping to get a simpler more straight forward solution once I get started with osx.

 

[Mode-III fan]

I just wish they were cheaper here in Denmark.

The ultimate version of the macbook air costs 2505 dollars approximately, compared to the 1799 in the US, which does make it alot more expensive than anything else there is.
However, I'm going to convert from windows to mac osx with the refresh of the MBA so we'll see whether or not it is worth that extra price.

- I sort of hope it is, one of the things I hope to get rid of is one of those billion options one has with windows, there's always something that can be tweaked, and I'm hoping to get a simpler more straight forward solution once I get started with osx.

That's a good point. My original comment about used pricing is only based on my experience in the U.S

 

[GGJstudios]

MACdefender for example, I realize that by your classification it may not qualify as a virus but to the average Joe that's exactly what it will.

It's not "my" classification. It's the industry's classification. If the "average Joe" calls it a virus, that doesn't make it so. MacDefender is, at best, a trojan, and really more like a lame phishing scam. It requires the user be duped into continuing the installation process. A virus wouldn't require any user intervention to install or spread.

However spreading the word that OS X doesn't get any viruses as a fact is very misleading, since it hints that using OS X would keep you entirely safe and thus provides a sense (false) of security that basically says that you can leave your brain in the drawer and browse the internet without any sort of awareness.

So who is saying that OS X is entirely safe and the user doesn't have to be cautious? No one with any sense is saying that. Go back and read my statement that you quoted. Read all of it.

Harmful software does in fact exist on both platforms.

No one is suggesting otherwise.

but to the general public this all blends into one - hence the misleading.

Well, I'm not talking to the general public, but if I could, the message would be the same. I'm talking to those who come to this forum seeking help and understanding about malware. That indicates that they are willing to learn, and the best defense against malware is an informed and careful user. Learning the difference between a virus and a trojan and why the difference is important is a very basic and simple thing. So why not educate as many as are willing to learn? That's not misleading at all. You won't find me simply saying "there are no viruses for Mac OS X" and leaving it at that. Read the Virus/Malware link I post frequently, which clearly defines viruses, trojans, malware, scareware, etc. Read my posts in these virus threads. There is nothing at all misleading about my posts, and nothing that would promote a false sense of security.

 

[pandamonia]

i would never own a mac desktop and never own a windows laptop.

does this answer your point?

 

[PraisiX-windows]

Read my posts in these virus threads. There is nothing at all misleading about my posts, and nothing that would promote a false sense of security.

Okay I'll come with an example here as to why I find it very misleading.

For instance, say you wanted to move into a city, and you ask how much violence there is in the city, and you get the answer NO violence, that would make you feel very safe, and you'd automatically assume that you can feel safe there.
However, if it was the case that there were occasional massacres there, just carried out in a non-violent fashion, you'd feel mislead by the guy who told you there was no violence, and didn't inform you of the massacres, because you assumed (rightly so) that if there were no viruses there would be no multi killings either?

Saying that there are no viruses is giving only half the picture, and is a useless statement if it stands alone, when it is the case that there is in fact harmful software out there.

You mention that there are trojan horses, well, the difference between that and a virus/worm I believe is that it doesn't replicate itself, however it can be just as destructive. - Wouldn't you agree that you only told somebody half the truth when you quite handedly left this part out - and because of this actually were misleading?

Edit: I believe a virus does in fact need to be user run? That's at least what I read now when I've been reading up on these classifications.

 

[Jason Beck]

Windows 7 just works for me. Then again I homebuilt my pc with all aftermarket parts and didn't install any bloatware. As long as you install AVG or something after you do a clean format/install you are fine. W7 is the best Windows yet imho. Not a single problem yet. It all boils down to how you use Windows. If you use it with respect and understand it can be vulnerable (and force close your browser if you have any weird popups), then you will be okay.

Visiting torrent sites and downloading pirated goods as well as porn sites are the 2 biggest exploits for Windows. If you don't do anything except maybe a round of Youporn once in a while your machine is secure.

 

[GGJstudios]

and you get the answer NO violence

That would be akin to saying there is no malware. No one is saying that.

However, if it was the case that there were occasional massacres there, just carried out in a non-violent fashion

That makes zero sense. How do you carry out a massacre without violence?

Saying that there are no viruses is giving only half the picture, and is a useless statement if it stands alone,

Quote were I, or any informed person, made such a statement, leaving it to stand alone?

You mention that there are trojan horses, well, the difference between that and a virus/worm I believe is that it doesn't replicate itself, however it can be just as destructive.

That's not the whole difference.

Edit: I believe a virus does in fact need to be user run?

You are misinformed. A virus doesn't require user intervention to spread or to execute and infect. You don't need to read any further than this, to understand the differences: Mac Virus/Malware Info

To use your crime scenario, it's more accurate to say this:

You buy a certain type of securely-build home, which was first introduced to the home market 10 years ago. Today there are over 50 million such houses being occupied in the world. In 10 years of these houses being built and occupied, not one of them has ever been broken into by a burglar coming through a window, breaking down a door, climbing down a chimney or any other method of entry that the homeowner didn't permit and wasn't aware of. (These burglars who can sneak into homes without the homeowner's permission or action are viruses.)

However, there are scammers in the world that will knock on a door, pretending to be a Girl Scout selling cookies, or a TV repair man, or a home security specialist, who really want to steal or destroy homes they enter. These thieves cannot enter these secure homes unless the homeowner opens the door and invites them in. They can't force their way in. They can, in some cases, even get one foot in the door, but they cannot enter unless the homeowner opens the door fully and invites them in. (These are trojans.)

The only defense such a homeowner needs is to be aware that these scammers exist and to make sure they only allow people they know into their homes. So the message is this: there are no burglars, but there are ways for your home to be ripped off. However, you can avoid these scams by simply being careful who you allow into your home.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

That makes zero sense. How do you carry out a massacre without violence?

You gently pull the people aside inform them of what's going to happen and then shoot them down one by one making sure they die by the first shot, and fall down into their very soft coffins that are then gently burrowed, that's hardly violence that's used then. - At least using my definition of violence - not that this would ever happen outside of lala land though

Quote were I, or any informed person, made such a statement, leaving it to stand alone?

I'm not saying you or anyone here in this thread said this, but I'm sure most of us if not all have read or heard that mac OSX has got no viruses and uses that as an argument for it being safe.

That's not the whole difference.

I'm sure it's not but that's irrelevant.

You are misinformed. A virus doesn't require user intervention to spread or to execute and infect. You don't need to read any further than this, to understand the differences: Mac Virus/Malware Info

I read that definition from symantec, and it actually does say it doesn't require any user intervention, however, it was the only one I found (albeit I only checked out 3 websites) that supported that idea. I mean it is a lot more legit coming from them than wikipedia and the other site that I checked. - The other sites however stated than it would be bound to an .exe-file (as an example) and only once that had been run by the user would it have free reign over the machine.

To use your crime scenario, it's more accurate to say this:

Certainly more detailed, but okay have another scenario that is perfect (and short):

You want to move to another country, you ask a guy from that country about the cost of food, house-hold appliances etc.
And he tells you that it's alot cheaper than in your current country.
You go there only to realize that the average wage is equally less, so really it's the same, but because of the way you were told about it you really thought you'd have alot more.
- This is a scenario to describe exactly why using "OSX has no viruses" as a standalone argument is misleading.

Tbh though, the companies that create antivirus software have got a big part of the blame for the blending of the definitions, since they usually call their software antivirus something, like AVG antivirus or Norton antivirus when it's really supposed to take care of all the offenders.

edit:
I found this link, I do not know about it's credibility but to me at least it seems legit since it seems unbiased.

http://www.macforensicslab.com/Prod...in_page=document_general_info&products_id=174

After reading this to me it seems like, sure, mac osx won't get infiltrated by viruses, unless the user has accidently activated it, but still it will also have free reign over the machine in case that happens.

 

[GGJstudios]

You gently pull the people aside inform them of what's going to happen and then shoot them down ...

By any intelligent person's definition, the act of shooting someone or killing them in any way constitutes violence.

I'm sure it's not but that's irrelevant.

The other primary difference is extremely relevant: that a trojan requires the user to actively install it before it can infect a system, whereas the virus does not. It's an even more important distinction than self-replication, as it is the determining factor in whether an infection originates with a computer.

I read that definition from symantec, and it actually does say it doesn't require any user intervention, however, it was the only one I found (albeit I only checked out 3 websites) that supported that idea.

There is no factual and complete definition of a virus that doesn't include the fact that, unlike a trojan, a virus can spread and infect computers without the user's permission, action or knowledge. It is the primary distinction between those two malware types. To dismiss this fact is truly misleading.

The other sites however stated than it would be bound to an .exe-file (as an example) and only once that had been run by the user would it have free reign over the machine.

Since there were viruses that ran on Mac OS 9 and earlier, they obviously didn't require .exe files, since those can't run in Mac OS. Once a virus has been launched, it spreads without the user being involved, infecting other files and/or software and other computers without requiring any user's knowledge or action.

This is a scenario to describe exactly why using "OSX has no viruses" as a standalone argument is misleading.

Again, who is making that as a standalone argument? Certainly not me or anyone else who is even moderately informed. Go back to the very first statement I made in this thread that you quoted. Read the entire statement. Where do you see such a standalone argument? Where do you see anything that promotes a false sense of security? Where do you see anything misleading or inaccurate? So you don't have to dig for it, I'll repeat my original statement. Try this time to read it all:

It is a fact that no viruses exist in the wild that can run on Mac OS X, and there never have been any, since it was released 10 years ago. The handful of trojans that exist can be easily avoided with some basic education, common sense and care in what software you install.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

By any intelligent person's definition, the act of shooting someone or killing them in any way constitutes violence.

That's uncalled for.

Again, who is making that as a standalone argument? Certainly not me or anyone else who is even moderately informed. Go back to the very first statement I made in this thread that you quoted. Read the entire statement. Where do you see such a standalone argument? Where do you see anything that promotes a false sense of security? Where do you see anything misleading or inaccurate? So you don't have to dig for it, I'll repeat my original statement. Try this time to read it all:

I'm not saying you or anyone here in this thread said this, but I'm sure most of us if not all have read or heard that mac OSX has got no viruses and uses that as an argument for it being safe.

Whoppah! - Friends, anyone?
You say if anyone even "moderately informed" has ever used this as a stand alone argument, hopefully not, but that's not what I said in the first place either. Back when we started debating this, GGJstudios, I was writing this to describe the people that I would call sheep, who are not supposed to be informed in the first place.

Reading up on what symantec writes, I believe you are wrong, but let's see.
Quote from symantec:
"File infector viruses infect program files. These viruses normally infect executable code, such as .com and .exe files. The can infect other files when an infected program is run from floppy, hard drive, or from the network. Many of these viruses are memory resident. After memory becomes infected, any uninfected executable that runs becomes infected. Examples of known file infector viruses include Jerusalem and Cascade."

This virus has to be run first by the user or autorun, for example from the infected executable residing on the floppy, and after that it's its own shepherd.

If this is a virus then a program you download, that is disguised as something else, but actually replicates itself after it's been run by the user and keeps activating it self as well after having been run, would also be a virus.

Are you saying that never has this happened? - Perhaps it's impossible?
If it is, the statement "There are no viruses" would be true, however if it has, that statement goes from being misleading to being straight up false.

Edit:

In the last paragraph I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to put words into your mouth, I am not doing that, I realize that that is a very low way of debating.

 

[GGJstudios]

That's uncalled for.

What's uncalled for? The truth?

If this is a virus then a program you download, that is disguised as something else, but actually replicates itself after it's been run by the user and keeps activating it self as well after having been run, would also be a virus.

Nothing that self-replicates has ever been released into the wild that can affect Mac OS X.

Are you saying that never has this happened? - Perhaps it's impossible?
If it is, the statement "There are no viruses" would be true, however if it has, that statement goes from being misleading to being straight up false.

While nothing is impossible, the statement that "there are no Mac OS X viruses in the wild, and there never have been any" is completely true. That statement doesn't suggest that there haven't been other forms of malware, such as trojans, that can affect Mac OS X... only no viruses, so there is nothing misleading or false about that statement. If want to prove it false, simply name one virus that has ever existed in the wild that runs can affect Mac OS X. It's your time to waste, since you won't find one.

 

[Mode-III fan]

PraisiX-Windows and GGJstudios:

Can you guys duel it out privately? I appreciate your debate is in the spirit of the thread, but it seems like for the nth time (on this forum) the original thread has been masked by two folks dueling it out.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

What's uncalled for? The truth?

Noo, the insult.

Nothing that self-replicates has ever been released into the wild that can affect Mac OS X.

I find it beculiar that you would add "into the wild", because that's not where we are coming from. - And how would you know?

Self-replicates, what does that even mean, that it copies itself to knew destinations? Either way, with the user being the real security flaw on a computer, I'd think it's more than likely that it would be possible to create software that, after having unknowingly been executed by the user, would have admin rights and be able to do pretty much what ever it would like to running in stealth-mode, including modifying various other files with its own code.

Saying that there are "NO viruses for Mac OS X" has another very misleading meaning, i.e. it could lead people to believe that the system is invulnerable, which again could lead them to discard their awareness and common sense.

And this is all good, but I don't think we'll ever get anywhere with this. - So how about we stop it here, neither one of us wants to give in to the other's belief, whether that's because of pride, I don't know, but it's not going to happen unless someone can mention a virus that has been created for mac os x.

I'll just go back to my feeling good about myself for not stooping to the level of insulting you - WIN

PraisiX-Windows and GGJstudios:

Can you guys duel it out privately? I appreciate your debate is in the spirit of the thread, but it seems like for the nth time (on this forum) the original thread has been masked by two folks dueling it out.

I've called it off, but I don't get what you're saying? I believe the OP did put up the groundworks for a mac vs pc discussion. - Which was what was going on.
- People may pitch in.

edit*:
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2006-110217-1331-99
Now at least we're done for good.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

How do I delete this post?

 

[Mode-III fan]

Noo, the insult.


I find it beculiar that you would add "into the wild", because that's not where we are coming from. - And how would you know?

Self-replicates, what does that even mean, that it copies itself to knew destinations? Either way, with the user being the real security flaw on a computer, I'd think it's more than likely that it would be possible to create software that, after having unknowingly been executed by the user, would have admin rights and be able to do pretty much what ever it would like to running in stealth-mode, including modifying various other files with its own code.

Saying that there are "NO viruses for Mac OS X" has another very misleading meaning, i.e. it could lead people to believe that the system is invulnerable, which again could lead them to discard their awareness and common sense.

And this is all good, but I don't think we'll ever get anywhere with this. - So how about we stop it here, neither one of us wants to give in to the other's belief, whether that's because of pride, I don't know, but it's not going to happen unless someone can mention a virus that has been created for mac os x.

I'll just go back to my feeling good about myself for not stooping to the level of insulting you - WIN




I've called it off, but I don't get what you're saying? I believe the OP did put up the groundworks for a mac vs pc discussion. - Which was what was going on.
- People may pitch in.

edit*:
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2006-110217-1331-99
Now at least we're done for good.

Really?? You don't realize that you two spent 7 fairly long posts picking at what the other had said (now I'm doing the same thing!! LOL)?? Go look!

The original post covered a number of different points:

1. The expense of macs.
2. Mac owners being seen as sheep.
3. MBA being nothing more than a net book with an apple logo.
4. The IOS location data issue.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

Really?? You don't realize that you two spent 7 fairly long posts picking at what the other had said (now I'm doing the same thing!! LOL)?? Go look!

The original post covered a number of different points:

1. The expense of macs.
2. Mac owners being seen as sheep.
3. MBA being nothing more than a net book with an apple logo.
4. The IOS location data issue.

Right, these ones were about sheep. -It originally started with, me stating that the people I'd justify calling sheeps would be the ones that wrongly say that Mac hardware is different to PC hardware and that there does not exist any viruses for the mac os.

 

[Mode-III fan]

I just think this thread was interesting as it highlights (as others mentioned here) people's bias towards things, which result in statements like "Macbook Airs being nothing more than net books with apple logos."

It would be interesting to read through a thread consisting of really objective posts regarding the Mac versus PC topic.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

I just think this thread was interesting as it highlights (as others mentioned here) people's bias towards things, which result in statements like "Macbook Airs being nothing more than net books with apple logos."

It would be interesting to read through a thread consisting of really objective posts regarding the Mac versus PC topic.

Some people find that demeaning, they'd rather get into semantics, LOL.

Well, I believe that the Mac is very overpriced considering its hardware, at least here in Denmark where it costs about 25%-30% (edit: 35%-45%) more than in the US using apple's online store.
And I don't believe that the bundled software makes up for that considering the fact that you are forced to buy that with it.

However, I have not tried using an apple machine yet, but I'm going to buy the 2011 MBA. I think that the real strength of the mac is the OS but that is still for me to find out.

But when discussing price a piece of the hardware that is not usually accounted for when people call it more expensive with worse hardware, is the quality build of the casing, and in this case with the MBA, also size and weight (and looks, heating issues and noise also, can't forget about these, oh no).

With that being said, Windows 7 is a damn nice OS and I think the challenge will be difficult for this coming MBA if it is to win my favor in the end, but we'll see.

From a performance point of view though, for the same price you'll get a worse Mac than a PC, but using a mac, at least I think so, is just as much a fashion statement, which makes the performance pov redundant. If both perform acceptably.

 

[Mode-III fan]

Some people find that demeaning, they'd rather get into semantics, LOL.

Well, I believe that the Mac is very overpriced considering its hardware, at least here in Denmark where it costs about 25%-30% (edit: 35%-45%) more than in the US using apple's online store.
And I don't believe that the bundled software makes up for that considering the fact that you are forced to buy that with it.

However, I have not tried using an apple machine yet, but I'm going to buy the 2011 MBA. I think that the real strength of the mac is the OS but that is still for me to find out.

But when discussing price a piece of the hardware that is not usually accounted for when people call it more expensive with worse hardware, is the quality build of the casing, and in this case with the MBA, also size and weight (and looks, heating issues and noise also, can't forget about these, oh no).

With that being said, Windows 7 is a damn nice OS and I think the challenge will be difficult for this coming MBA if it is to win my favor in the end, but we'll see.

From a performance point of view though, for the same price you'll get a worse Mac than a PC, but using a mac, at least I think so, is just as much a fashion statement, which makes the performance pov redundant. If both perform acceptably.

Would you consider opening a thread, detailing your impressions of your MBA once you've had a chance to evaluate it? I think that would be cool.

 

[PraisiX-windows]

Would you consider opening a thread, detailing your impressions of your MBA once you've had a chance to evaluate it? I think that would be cool.

Most definately
I only wish it would be soon though (because I'm excited), I think I'll order it either the 1st of july (if it's out then) or by the release of Lion (assuming that's before august).

 

[nebulos]

where is the 'kill this thread' button?

 

[Mode-III fan]

where is the 'kill this thread' button?

Right next to the "why did you bother to read this thread then" button.

 

[nebulos]

Right next to the "why did you bother to read this thread then" button.

i didn't