thats because no viruses for Mac exist
trojans! wait I thought those were viruses too!
there's a difference???!?!one!?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Posts 'PC vs. Mac' Section to Windows 7 Website
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
trojans! wait I thought those were viruses too!
there's a difference???!?!one!?
Still the fact is All the PC's i've owned have had major issues not just viruses. I've only ever had one issue with any of my Macs & it was my late '07 MacBook it had a display issue, everything was grey on screen. Took it back to Apple Store got a brand new one right away. Mate of mine had a display issue with his dell it went all green, Dell repaired it and it still wasn't right, they swapped the screen out and the laptop came back pretty battered
still the issue wasn't fixed
trojans! wait I thought those were viruses too!
there's a difference???!?!one!?
yes there is a difference
from wikipedia
A Trojan horse, or Trojan, is malware that appears to perform a desirable function for the user prior to run or install but instead facilitates unauthorized access of the user's computer system
so in other words
It can only affect the system if you give it your user password when any changes are going to be made
and virus
A computer virus is a computer program that can copy itself[1] and infect a computer.
so in other words
once a virus is in it can gain access without user intervention, there has never been a Mac virus that I'm aware of
trojans! wait I thought those were viruses too!
there's a difference???!?!one!?
I haven't been following the thread closely enough to know if you are being sarcastic, but there is an important difference between viruses and trojans.
Viruses spread without user interaction by taking advantage of security holes in software. Trojans spread with help from people, usually by fooling them into doing something that allows the trojan to install/replicate (i.e. they take advantage of security holes in humans).
Even the most secure OS will not be immune to trojans because the user specifically gives the trojan permission to run.
That is your argument? You do know the reason viruses on Apples are rare is because most hackers don't bother with OSX because of the smaller user base.
I have a masters degree in information security. That means what I say is right. Period. Listen to me, noob. OS X is far more secure than Windows for a reason, and that is NOT security through obscurity. That is a cop out for people that don't know ANYTHING about computer security. So, tell me, what is your education?
Oh, should I mention that I TEACH THIS? Also, I'm working on my Ph.D in info sec, also my CISSP. Go look it up, noob.
Sorry admanimal i'm being facetious.
seriously, I've had this stupid discussion on these boards so many times it's not even funny. Well, now it is, but typically it's just annoying when someone says "Macs get viruses!" to which the reply is "well, where are they", then they link to a bunch of flipping trojans. Most notably osx.trojan.iservices.a and OSX/HellRTS.D ((both of which require user install)).
I hear this argument all of the time. It sounds reasonable enough. At the same time, one has to think that some hacker would love to be the guy that shuts up Apple's "no viruses" mantra...yet this hasn't happened yet. Weird.
No sweat...I kind of thought you might be, but I couldn't tell if that smiley face was accidental or not.
LOL i find the opposite with my MacBook Pro
Well, your MBP probably cost 4 times more but don't be fooled about MBP superiority. PC manufacturers offer models with more RAM than any MBP can accommodate and more powerful CPUs as well. As you well know Sony Vaio Z is more powerful than MBP. And we are not talking about computers like HP EliteBook or Dell Precision M6500 (real quad core processors and up to 32GB of RAM).
This stuff is entirely irrelevant and pointless; of course Microsoft is going to try to advertise a product it sells.
What I'd like to see is how much money they're spending on Windows development versus WP7/Tablet/Embed development. The major desktop OSes are one major revision and a service pack or two away from being pointless in the consumer sphere. The profit (and thus innovation) is no longer with personal computers. And if they're wasting their money developing for PCs, that doesn't bode well for Microsoft.
What I'd like to see is how much money they're spending on Windows development versus WP7/Tablet/Embed development. The major desktop OSes are one major revision and a service pack or two away from being pointless in the consumer sphere. The profit (and thus innovation) is no longer with personal computers. And if they're wasting their money developing for PCs, that doesn't bode well for Microsoft.
ahh yep.
Apple sold 3.47 million macs last quarter (according to their press release) and since , clearly, Apple boxes are the most unsecure computers on the planet (
), hackers would forgoe such an easy target wafting in the wind.......because....
....why, again?
o thats right small marketshare duh my mistake.
carry on people. security by obscurity! Apple had better knock it off with all those "best quarter evar" releases or they are going to eventually start pissing off alot of virus writers who are currently busy hacking everything else except the easy target.
lol
That's because they're not selling 90 odd percent of new OS's. That's the installed user base, not sales. Apple laptops are still holding around 1 in 4 actual new sales last time I looked, so 25% of new OS installs on laptops are therefore not Windows 7. Take away the customers who insist on XP installs, means 7's new PC installs sales are even less.
Microsoft's largest competitor is actually itself. They've only sold enough Windows 7 to claw 15% of the overall desktop OS user base so far, the same as Vista's user base. So those 15% Vista users are still resisting spending their money to upgrade and only doing so in a trickle (20% share 12 months ago to 15% now = only a quarter of Vista users have upgraded to 7). This I assume is because Vista sales were primarily new PC installs and these peope don't have the inclination to spend money to upgrade until they actually buy another new PC.
And Windows XP is still holding at over 60% of the installed user base. The rapid slide in XP share (72% down to 61% over 12 months) which began when 7 was released has tapered off over the last month (losing only 0.7%) now that the Windows 7 euphoria has worn off, so Microsoft are hitting a wall there too.
My conclusion - struggling to get more XP users to upgrade, the remaining Vista users will only upgrade if they buy a new PC - ergo, new PC sales with Windows 7 pre-installed is their main marketing target now (just like it was with Vista), which means going up against new iMac/Macbook sales.
It's especially funny how they bring up the topic of touch support. I've used Windows 7 on a tablet PC. It's not very fun to have to
- Precisely press your finger in the very very top right corner to close a window, and if you miss it, you could end up clicking on "Restore" next to it instead
- Press a tiny rectangular area (or even smaller side borders) of a window to resize it -- yay, window management, it's even in the product name!
- Press and hold icons to drag them, and sometimes it randomly releases those since it forgets that you're keeping your finger pressed. WTF? Hello, mis-copies in Explorer.
- Forget about clever ideas like "double fingers = right-click" on a touchpad. Hold your finger *absolutely still* with your finger pressed for two seconds to turn that into a right-click. What's more annoying after a while? It's like trying to tell a retard what you want.
I mean, the list just goes on and on... Windows 7 isn't a touch OS. It has window management, and that sucks hardcore when trying to interface with your fingers. You don't want to manage windows with tiny widgets to get stuff done. A touch OS is needed for a touch device, and that is what Microsoft doesn't get. It's easier to work with iOS on a small phone than Windows 7 on a 7" display.
- Precisely press your finger in the very very top right corner to close a window, and if you miss it, you could end up clicking on "Restore" next to it instead
- Press a tiny rectangular area (or even smaller side borders) of a window to resize it -- yay, window management, it's even in the product name!
- Press and hold icons to drag them, and sometimes it randomly releases those since it forgets that you're keeping your finger pressed. WTF? Hello, mis-copies in Explorer.
- Forget about clever ideas like "double fingers = right-click" on a touchpad. Hold your finger *absolutely still* with your finger pressed for two seconds to turn that into a right-click. What's more annoying after a while? It's like trying to tell a retard what you want.
I mean, the list just goes on and on... Windows 7 isn't a touch OS. It has window management, and that sucks hardcore when trying to interface with your fingers. You don't want to manage windows with tiny widgets to get stuff done. A touch OS is needed for a touch device, and that is what Microsoft doesn't get. It's easier to work with iOS on a small phone than Windows 7 on a 7" display.
Great points indeed. Granted, as I stated, I have have had very limited experience with 7, though what I have tried is an improvement over XP, albeit with a slight learning curve if one jumped straight from XP to 7 instead of getting their feet wet with Vista, so I haven't had much time to tinker with the core OS features let alone new software available for it. Corporate IT isn't too keen on installing your own apps even if it makes your workflow better. I did use a PC with primo PDF, but again, only used it just to basically save PDFs and not go into to deeper features.
As for 3, I do appreciate how easy it is to line up windows side by side and maximizing. Each OS has its own strengths. No, you can't rearrange windows as easily in OS X, but being able to actually see everything at a glance in Expose vs Flip 3D is more productive in my case. I might have misunderstood the OP's question as I thought it was regarding moving actual files and folders than entire windows.
I'd like to consider myself just a computer, not specifically a Mac or PC, though I would love to have some extra time to learn Linux a little bit better, but I digress. As with anything though, YMMV and use what works best for YOU, be it one or a combo of platforms. Makes me wonder if thousands of years ago, people were having the same type of debates about the various abaci of the day.
To prove to that idiot above you that I actually have a MB Air, one that is running OS X. But I guess that wasn't proof enough.
I love the mac.
I just wish a six core mac pro with 3 gigs of ram wasn't $4172 with my state tax and applecare.
I just wish a six core mac pro with 3 gigs of ram wasn't $4172 with my state tax and applecare.
Screen Shot capabilities built into OS X allow for capturing/lassoing selected sizes (⌘+SHIFT+4)
I much prefer OS X's system-wide solution for creating PDF files.
Exposé is far superior, IMO.
Likely because,
1) It would take a herculean effort to do so
2) Apple would swiftly issue a security fix to render their new virus useless