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
It is all of that, though obviously 9 will follow and lead in each. Its also the safest browser along with Chrome as its able to sandbox in Vista and W7.
The man who hacked OS X at Pwn2Own:
Charlier Miller said:
Yeah, it's hard but very rewarding
Tell us, what "reward" do you get from trolling this forum every day?
Is Microsoft paying astroturfers by the post or by the hour?
LOL.GamecockMac said:
Mike225 said:
Lilo777 said:
Rodimus Prime said:
Windows is more secure WHERE?! If it were, there would be NO WORKING VIRUSES on Windows 7. Obviously, that's not the case, considering how often the security companies put out bulletins about infected Windows boxes. Mac and Linux systems would be loaded with viruses if they were less secure. Yes, Safari did have a security hole that the guy exploited when he hacked the Mac, but Safari is also a browser on Windows, the 'secure' operating system. Apple also promptly addressed the hole, which is more than I can say for Microsoft, whose operating system, browser and office applications are full of security holes and exploits.
Internet Explorer is NOT secure. It doesn't even have an easy ad- or popup-blocking system (whether shipping or a plugin) that's comparable to what's in Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Also, Internet Explorer is a core component of Windows, and is deeply integrated in the system, so an IE exploit is likely to affect your entire Windows installation.
Again, I don't understand why all these Microsoft fans hang around here. I'm a Mac user who dislikes Windows. It stands to reason that I'm not going to hang around a Windows forum and yell at people there for using that OS. I don't see why people have to pull out these 'facts' and shout us down for using MACS on a MAC FORUM. Argh.
Its a bit hard to understand how the hacks work when next to no information is released from the events.
You misunderstood my post (again). The rewarding part is knowing that I am helping people to learn something new.
I stand corrected then. Still, IE is not very secure, even if it isn't hooked into Windows as it used to be. And since Windows isn't a true multiuser environment (even with the abominable User Account Control), it's still possible for an IE exploit to bork your Windows installation, as far as I know.
By the sub-pixel. That's why we like LARGE FONTS and BOLD....
Please explain your logic in that claim, since Terminal Services very clearly shows that multiple users can simultaneously use a Windows system.
Wait, what?
When the hack code gets executed (for example, a JavaScript on a web page), it tries to create a condition that breaks something in OS (like corrupt memory and use it to its advantage).
He stated, "There probably isn't enough difference between the browsers to get worked up about. The main thing is not to install Flash!"
So the secret to not getting hacked is avoiding Flash and staying away from questionable web sites. OMG, Steve Jobs was right!
When the hack code gets executed (for example, a JavaScript on a web page), it tries to create a condition that breaks something in OS (like corrupt memory and use it to its advantage).
He stated, "There probably isn't enough difference between the browsers to get worked up about. The main thing is not to install Flash!"
So the secret to not getting hacked is avoiding Flash and staying away from questionable web sites. OMG, Steve Jobs was right!
You are largely:
behind the times
uninformed
and confused in the subject matter being discussed
I think I can help you understand this perceived controversy. Let's take a look at one such bulletin from Symantec:
===============================================
Discovered: January 10, 2010
Updated: January 10, 2010 4:35:14 PM
Also Known As: Trojan-Spy:W32/Zbot [F-Secure], PWS-Zbot [McAfee], Trojan-Spy.Win32.Zbot [Kaspersky], Win32/Zbot [Microsoft], Infostealer.Monstres [Symantec], Infostealer.Banker.C [Symantec], Trojan.Wsnpoem [Symantec], Troj/Zbot-LG [Sophos], Troj/Agent-MDL [Sophos], Troj/Zbot-LM [Sophos], ...
Type: Trojan
Systems Affected: Windows 98, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Me, Windows Vista, Windows NT, Windows Server 2003, Windows 2000
Trojan.Zbot, also called Zeus, is a Trojan horse that attempts to steal confidential information from the compromised computer. It may also download configuration files and updates from the Internet. The Trojan is created using a Trojan-building toolkit.
Infection
The Trojan.Zbot files that are used to compromise computers are generated using a toolkit that is available in marketplaces for online criminals. The toolkit allows an attacker a high degree of control over the functionality of the final executable that is distributed to targeted computers.
The Trojan itself is primarily distributed through spam campaigns and drive-by downloads, though given its versatility, other vectors may also be utilized. The user may receive an email message purporting to be from organizations such as the FDIC, IRS, MySpace, Facebook, or Microsoft. The message body warns the user of a problem with their financial information, online account, or software and suggests they visit a link provided in the email. The computer is compromised if the user visits the link, if it is not protected.
===============================================
First, notice that Windows 7 is not listed as affected. Second, notice that the threat is classified as Trojan which means that only gets into PC when user installs it.
Threat description goes on to say that this malware may actually act like virus (i.e. to be installed by just visiting the web site). A-ha, we got a virus for Windows 7, right? Nope. Again, Windows 7 is not even listed here. The description does not provide any details but what they want to tell you is that your PC may get this virus if 1) it has older OS and 2) this OS was not properly updated.
So, here is the summary:
1. There are plenty of trojans for Windows.
2. Computers with older and not properly updated versions of Windows are vulnerable.
3. Users of contemporary Windows OSes are no more vulnerable than OS X users.
Ironically I was at Office Depot today picking up some supplies and the cashier offered me information on their PC repair service. I said "I don't need it, I have a Mac and it just works." She said, "Ouch!" The truth does hurt LOL!
Footnote: "PC" in this context refers to a machine running windows and not "personal computer."
Footnote: "PC" in this context refers to a machine running windows and not "personal computer."
By the sub-pixel. That's why we like LARGE FONTS and BOLD....
Too bad Microsoft doesn't use Apple's font rendering system then, Apple rendering system means more subpixels (among other things).
Point aside if you use Microsoft Terminal Services you shouldn't even be allowed to touch a server. Bad Aiden.
Microsoft made many improvements to IE8 but I can't see myself using it when I'm on Windows. I have Firefox for that. It's not fast though, I did a Peacemaker benchmark and not surprisingly IE is last among its competitors like Firefox, Safari, Chrome etc.
It's just my opinion so don't take it too seriously.
I hate IE, but 9 is shaping up. I'm just saying they compared it to previous IE browsers, not competing browsers. I use Chrome primarily with IE secondary. Firefox has been dropped
How do you get more than 3 subpixels per pixel?
Most Windows users are using Terminal Services, so your point is silly.
Because Mac OSX uses more pixels than Windows to create a letter. More pixels mean more subpixels.
From my Microsoft enterprise administration training manual:
From my RedHat course:
I already admitted that I was wrong about IE being integrated with Windows. Otherwise, I stand by what I said. Windows is far from secure.
By the way, I say Windows is not a truly multiuser environment because apart from the easily circumvented UAC, there isn't a root directory separate from 'userland'. On Unix-based systems, even administrative accounts are separate from root unless you log into root on a regular basis, which is a pretty stupid idea.
Did you ignore my quote from Charlie Miller (the man who hacked OS X in a few seconds) saying Windows 7 is more secure than OS X and IE/Chrome on W7 is the most secure combo?
I'm not here to talk trash about OS X I'm just trying to keep both sides represented.
Others have addressed that point already.
I'm not saying you are, but your tone throughout this thread (and any other thread in which you participate where Windows is mentioned) sends me a different message. This is an Apple forum, mostly populated by people who like Apple products and want to talk about them. Many of us, like me, are switchers from Windows, and have valid reasons for doing so. Windows users like yourself (and some of the other people doing this) show up on threads related to Microsoft/Apple competition, and try to defend Microsoft and Windows at every turn. Telling us that you think Windows is better for whatever reason isn't going to make anyone switch back. Generally, Mac users are happy with their choice of platform, so it's just going to fall on deaf ears. Besides, Microsoft's monopoly really doesn't need defence.
I'm not trying to convert any of you, especially the ones I'm arguing against. What I don't like is false info flooding sites whether it be against MSFT or Apple, such as your posts so far.
Posted from my iPhone
You have a lot to learn. The IE was just one example and person after person showed the mistakes and misinformation you have.
A lot of the things you attack and on the security are honestly over most people's head. The common agrument is this Number argument of X number of "viruses" and when it is pointed out that most of "X" using holes patch long before they got in the wild or are a trogan they do not get it.
There was a reason why the real security of an OS is going and showed be based on Zero day exploites and how long until it is patch.
The Jailbreakme.com used a Zero day on the iPhone and it took 14 days for Apple to release a patch to fix it. 14 days is good by Apple standard but 14 days is considered VERY VERY poor in terms of security rating. When one of apple best time frame is still considered poor by standards that says a lot about the OS and why OSX is rated as poor in security.
if you want to have your stuff secure on the web you have 2 choices for servers, Linux and Windows. Both are better at security and both general address Zero days in a much more timely manner and have fewer of them.
But wouldn't "more pixels per letter" also mean a larger letter? And, if I increase the font size on Windows won't I have "more pixels" too?
Which has nothing to do with my statement that "Most Windows users are using Terminal Services".
Were those references pre-Vista? (The question isn't whether the books came out pre-Vista, but whether they were talking about a network with XP and earlier RDP clients.)
So, a lot of you are acting like Microsoft is being immature.
Few key notes:
Mac VS PC ads
This
The various things Jobs has said about microsoft
Then here's what microsoft has done before they decided to say "You know what Apple? I'm tired of your ********."
This is what Bill Gates said about Macintosh computers.
Now think, before you all say MicroSoft is bad, how about you all look at what Apple has done to them.
Jobs is just a bully, and is just trying to put people that don't use Macs down.
Few key notes:
Mac VS PC ads
This
The various things Jobs has said about microsoft
Then here's what microsoft has done before they decided to say "You know what Apple? I'm tired of your ********."
This is what Bill Gates said about Macintosh computers.
Now think, before you all say MicroSoft is bad, how about you all look at what Apple has done to them.
Jobs is just a bully, and is just trying to put people that don't use Macs down.