Microsoft Posts 'PC vs. Mac' Section to Windows 7 Website

[Burger Thing]

Not knowing about patch Tuesday. Saying every other day which I know is not true. They do not put them out that often.

So I have patch Tuesday and also the Restart-Regularly-Day At least once a week to get rid of mysterious performance problems 😀

 

[Mike225]

So I have patch Tuesday and also the Restart-Regularly-Day At least once a week to get rid of mysterious performance problems 😀

Its once a month patch tuesdays. Howd that Snow Leopard graphics update work for you? Enjoy the full sized iTunes "updates"?

 

[Burger Thing]

Its once a month patch tuesdays.

Have I said otherwise? But there should still be the (at least) weekly Restart-Regularly-day 😀

Howd that Snow Leopard graphics update work for you?

Splendid!

 

[DMann]

Tell us, what "reward" do you get from trolling this forum every day?

Is Microsoft paying astroturfers by the post or by the hour?

By the post, apparently.

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.

As BG attempts to cover his ass, knowing quite well his intentions of cloning the Mac OS and branding it Windows. 😉

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.

Complete and utter BS.

Apple, in two weeks, makes a patch which is effective, unlike MS's multiple failed patch attempts:

Also Microsoft tends to get exploited on previously patch holes.

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.

Security rating you say?

We're all sure now that Windows alleged high ratings have kept Windows malware at bay - AV begone. LOL

LOL.
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.

As well as back doors, and The Beloved Registry, which is a self-replicating virus in-and-of-itself. 😉

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!

Apparently more so, for some who reside here. 🙂

I was not talking about cost or even thought it in the factor I was more talking about the software side.
Apple central IT control is poor, the Enterprise level network is just not as good and central IT security is not that good among other things.
OSX and Apple hardware is great for consumer and individual users but kicking it up to enterprise level it is not that good. For server I would honestly run either linux or windows.

Talk about hypocritical FUD.

Apple's networking works well, without the multiplicity of failures which occur regularly, on a Windows system.

Ask any IT worker - MS keeps them in business.

Sadly for them, since we went Mac, we no longer need an IT on-site.

Don't forget the Windows patches that install every other day and ask you to restart! (Seriously, Microsoft doesn't keep sending out patches because Windows is more secure; it sends out packages because there are so many vulnerabilities and Microsoft has to run after them.)

Known as 'Damage Control.'

Too bad their placebo endeavor: 'Patch Tuesdays' does so little to bolster confidence anymore. 🙂

LOL @ mysterious performance problems... As for me, I rather have a "magical" device than "mysterious" performance problems 😛

Mysterious performance problems - comic platinum. 😀

 

[UltimaLink]

As BG attempts to cover his ass, knowing quite well his intentions of cloning the Mac OS and branding it Windows. 😉

Jobs certainly wasn't original with his ideas either, look it up, he didn't think of the idea of having a graphical user interface on a computer, so both of them copied from eachother.

Jobs stole from IBM, Bill Gates stole from Jobs.

The only difference is that Gates made it so you could put Windows on nearly any machine, if Jobs had done this Apple would be KING. KING OF EVERYTHING.

So yeah, Microsoft's success has to deal with this.

 

[blunderboy]

Also Microsoft tends to get exploited on previously patch holes.

If they're previously patched holes, why is Microsoft being exploited, then?

I'm kind of tired of feeling that I have to 'defend' my preferred platform on a site devoted to it.

Jobs certainly wasn't original with his ideas either, look it up, he didn't think of the idea of having a graphical user interface on a computer, so both of them copied from eachother.

Jobs stole from IBM, Bill Gates stole from Jobs.

The only difference is that Gates made it so you could put Windows on nearly any machine, if Jobs had done this Apple would be KING. KING OF EVERYTHING.

So yeah, Microsoft's success has to deal with this.

Steve Jobs made a deal with Xerox; he didn't steal from IBM. Microsoft did, though, copy the Mac's interface and label it Windows. And Steve Jobs had little control over the Macintosh after 1984; a year after the first Mac was released, Steve Jobs was pressured into resigning from Apple by John Sculley and his supporters. Steve Jobs was absent from Apple for twelve years. If you'd like to blame an Apple executive, I would blame John Sculley and Jean-Louis Gassée. I do think that the innovation presented by the Mac could have been leveraged further in the '80s, but this is, as I said, less about Jobs and more about Sculley and Gassée.

 

[OllyW]

You do know this put even more damage on your credibility of everything you are saying against windows.

Not knowing about patch Tuesday. Saying every other day which I know is not true. They do not put them out that often. There just a lot what you keep saying that does not add up.

I've had to restart my Windows 7 PC twice in the last month due to software updates.

I've had to restart my Macs twice in the last month due to software updates.

Damn you Microsoft and your every other day software updates. 😀

 

[DMann]

Jobs stole from IBM, Bill Gates stole from Jobs.

The only difference is that Gates made it so you could put Windows on nearly any machine, if Jobs had done this Apple would be KING. KING OF EVERYTHING.

So yeah, Microsoft's success has to deal with this.

You've got some studying to do there, yourself. 🙄

Jobs, however, did agree to offer Xerox the right to acquire pre-IPO stock in return for his working with the unit at PARC - hardly stealing. 😉

 

[blunderboy]

I've had to restart my Windows 7 PC twice in the last month due to software updates.

I've had to restart my Macs twice in the last month due to software updates.

Damn you Microsoft and your every other day software updates. 😀

*laughs* (but seriously! every other day = hyperbole. I think my situation was not typical, now that I think of it, because I had a new PC that prob. shipped with older windows patches.)

 

[-hh]

I agree to some extent however there is some way to evaluate how difficult/easy it is to break the system. Modern flaws are not as simple as they used to be. The hacker needs to run special code that tries different combinations of data to exploit buffer overruns and such. It may take quite a lot of time actually. This year, it took 10 seconds to break Safari. It took 2 minutes to break IE 8.

Obviously the time may depend not only on the nature of the vulnerability but also on sheer luck (state of the program/system etc.). One reason why breaking IE 8 took so "long" was because the exploit had to overcome Windows 7's ASLR (address space layout randomization). This is a technique implemented specifically to improve the security (which BTW OS X still lacks).

So on the one hand you claim that "time to crack" isn't a factor ... and then you try to use it anyway (OS X = 10 seconds; W7 = 2 minutes, etc).

This is YA scientifically invalid attempt to claim a metric. Afterall, the time spent on an automated loop to overcome randomized address space is predicated solely by the size of the address space AND the random number seeds that picked your starting space and the system's "hiding" space.

Furthermore, with anything that is thus automated, the question of if it is 500 vs 2,000 iterations before it is hit becomes increasingly irrelevant over time, as it becomes an inevitability for a system that is sitting online 24/7, particularly as infrastructures become faster.

Did you ignore my quote ...

Do you mean this one?

I'm not here to talk trash about OS X I'm just trying to keep both sides represented.

Heaven forbid if the above cite alludes to a MR poster trying to run away from being called on for unfairly trash-talking or something like that!

Not to worry there: many MR regulars use MS on a daily basis too. The claims of Win-ignorance are, in a word, overstated.

Maybe we can not stand misinfomation being just spit out.
Your entire attack was rip apart by multiple people. Some of huge misinformation you put up was even torn apart by people complaining about MS.

The key question is:

Exactly how does being torn up by "multiple people" lend any credibility if all of these participants are clearly MS Apologists? Wouldn't it be much more valid if the critiques disputing a particular point came from both sides?

All in all I have a problem with Apple fans spitting out misinformation and repeated Apple lies unknowing because they make all of us who like Apple products look like mindless Zombies who can not think for ourselves and just repeat the crap out of SJ mouth.

His name is blunderboy, he can't help it.

That's dangerously close to namecalling (which is a TOS violation). Question is: what will you do about it? That's what will illustrate your personal ethos and character.

You've got some studying to do there, yourself. 🙄

Jobs, however, did agree to offer Xerox the right to acquire pre-IPO stock in return for his working with the unit at PARC - hardly stealing. 😉

Golly, where did all of those "I speak for the TRUTH!" advocates disappear to, instead of speaking up to correct this example of misinformation?

Afterall, from an ethical perspective it simply doesn't matter if the misinformation is pro- or anti- (Apple or Microsoft).

As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words."



-hh

 

[linux2mac]

I am Not Impressed with Microsoft At The Enterprise Level

A lot of facts and details on Microsoft security has been exchanged over the course of this thread but I am still not buying it. I am a former MSDN license holder and worked in a well respected Fortune 500 company that was 100% Microsoft. I learned about computers and programming in college and at work on Microsoft technology. I have a lot of training and time invested in Microsoft. I am an independent consultant now and will never implement a windows system again unless a client specifically needs windows. One thing that I will never forget is back at my big company we were sent home early one day because a virus brought down the entire site affecting 3000 plus PC's. Also, this company had top Microsoft certified network security admins running the network and knew what they were doing. To date I have not had to perform any virus removal on any of the Linux and OSX systems I have implemented for clients. One client is a middle school that I set up with a Linux network running OpenSuse desktops and SLES servers and to date there has been no report of a virus unlike when the school was running windows. I am going on three years supporting Linux and OSX systems and no virus yet. I feel like the Maytag guy sometimes when it comes to tech support for clients. I like it because I get to spend more time developing custom solutions to aid clients in driving their businesses forward rather than backward due to fixing problems that should not exist due to "buggy software" and "third-rate products."

P.S. On another note, I am console gamer in my limited spare time and I recently bought a PS3 because my second Xbox 360 fell victim to the infamous "Red Ring of Death" - AGAIN! I have friends that are on their 5th and 6th 360! This is another example to back up Steve's comment on Microsoft making "third-rate products."

 

[dgree03]

Serious question, when was the last Virus on windows? Not malware or spyware or trojans.. I mean bonafide virus?

 

[AidenShaw]

If you were actually versed in both operating systems you would know what I'm talking about. How Mac OSX renders fonts mean more pixels are used per letter than windows.

I'd honestly like to understand what you mean, rather than be dismissed with a smug comment. A link would be nice.

How can Apple use more pixels to draw a letter the same size?

..., which is if you use terminal services you shouldn't be touching a server...

Well most people are using terminal services, and virtually all of them are touching servers.

...and the sky hasn't fallen.

Perhaps links for the Microsoft and RHEL docs would be helpful too. I'd like to see the context (since most security experts discourage running SSH or any other management protocol on the Internet links of a production server - it would make since that they suggest disabling RDP as well).

 

[diamond.g]

I'd honestly like to understand what you mean, rather than be dismissed with a smug comment. A link would be nice.

How can Apple use more pixels to draw a letter the same size?





Well most people are using terminal services, and virtually all of them are touching servers.

...and the sky hasn't fallen.

Perhaps links for the Microsoft and RHEL docs would be helpful too. I'd like to see the context (since most security experts discourage running SSH or any other management protocol on the Internet links of a production server - it would make since that they suggest disabling RDP as well).

You could RDP over the internet. Using a combination of ipsec and taclanes and be perfectly fine...

 

[AidenShaw]

You could RDP over the internet. Using a combination of ipsec and taclanes and be perfectly fine...

That wouldn't pass most security audits - production servers should not have management protocols exposed on the Internet NICs if you want best security. Allowing in-band access to management protocols is an additional risk.

 

[blunderboy]

Aiden, Windows draws letters to match the pixel grid, whereas Mac OS X preserves the letterform. To do that, Windows uses fewer pixels to represent the same letter, because they're drawn to match the grid, rather than to match the way they were designed. This can facilitate reading at small point sizes, but I fail to see most of its benefits, and find Windows type rendering ugly.

(here's a link that discusses it: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html)

and to dgree03's question—Yeah, there are still bona fide viruses, even though trojans and malware are more popular (probably because of social engineering). There was a virus discovered yesterday: http://home.mcafee.com/VirusInfo/VirusProfile.aspx?key=269123

 

[linux2mac]

... but I fail to see most of its benefits, and find Windows type rendering ugly.
]

This thread has been brought up in some of my conversations recently with fellow IT colleagues who are also Mac users. One colleague of mine commented that in addition to the better stability OSX offers, he likes the polished look of OSX applications stating that they all look as if a reputable graphic designer was involved in the process.

 

[blunderboy]

This thread has been brought up in some of my conversations recently with fellow IT colleagues who are also Mac users. One colleague of mine commented that in addition to the better stability OSX offers, he likes the polished look of OSX applications stating that they all look as if a reputable graphic designer was involved in the process.

Yeah, I don't get that vibe off Windows. I think that some of it was competently designed, but just 'competently'—neither outstandingly good, nor eye-sporkingly terrible. Rather mediocre. With the amount of influence and money Microsoft has, they can do better.

 

[diamond.g]

That wouldn't pass most security audits - production servers should not have management protocols exposed on the Internet NICs if you want best security. Allowing in-band access to management protocols is an additional risk.

Oh it would be plugged into the taclane which would be pluged into the internet. Last time I checked taclanes were perfectly fine to be running secure communications over the internet. That taclane would only talk to another taclane with the same key, there shouldn't be any security concerns even though that interface is on the internet (technically). Check this link out (warning PDF).

You could then use ipsec to make sure the device on the other end of the taclane is further secured, but it would be pointless if you are plugged directly into say a laptop.

EDIT: maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. All I was saying is if you wanted the management side to be visible on the internet then you better freaking secure it. I don't care if you are using blueberry peach cream OS. Spend the 12k per site and freaking taclane your comms...

 

[lilo777]

and to dgree03's question—Yeah, there are still bona fide viruses, even though trojans and malware are more popular (probably because of social engineering). There was a virus discovered yesterday: http://home.mcafee.com/VirusInfo/VirusProfile.aspx?key=269123

Notice that the linked page does not specify which OSes are affected. It might be just Windows 98. Or Windows XP (many people still use this one). This is not a proof that viruses for Windows 7 exist.

 

[blunderboy]

Notice that the linked page does not specify which OSes are affected. It might be just Windows 98. Or Windows XP (many people still use this one). This is not a proof that viruses for Windows 7 exist.

http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable-8-10-viruses/

This virus was discovered yesterday; do you really think that anyone is going to bother making a virus that only runs on Windows 98 and not later versions of the OS? Obviously, they're probably going to want to target XP, Vista and 7. And a Windows virus would probably still affect newer versions of Windows if they're similar enough. There are differences between XP and Windows 7, but Windows 7 is still vulnerable to viruses. Even with the changes to the way Microsoft handles security on Windows, you can still get infected.


Viruses on Win7: http://social.technet.microsoft.com...y/thread/106daf92-d542-42f3-b093-e1b9f8a44506

http://social.technet.microsoft.com...y/thread/f44e889e-f3a5-4ab1-be52-fbbae6f0d2c5

http://social.technet.microsoft.com...l/thread/f26b7645-ab52-4548-89aa-8bdd5bfd64f8

http://social.technet.microsoft.com...f/thread/404fab87-46c9-4c06-86ac-27f2a7095210

Microsoft security bulletins: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS10-aug.mspx

 

[Mike225]

http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable-8-10-viruses/

This virus was discovered yesterday; do you really think that anyone is going to bother making a virus that only runs on Windows 98 and not later versions of the OS? Obviously, they're probably going to want to target XP, Vista and 7. And a Windows virus would probably still affect newer versions of Windows if they're similar enough. There are differences between XP and Windows 7, but Windows 7 is still vulnerable to viruses. Even with the changes to the way Microsoft handles security on Windows, you can still get infected.


Viruses on Win7: http://social.technet.microsoft.com...y/thread/106daf92-d542-42f3-b093-e1b9f8a44506

http://social.technet.microsoft.com...y/thread/f44e889e-f3a5-4ab1-be52-fbbae6f0d2c5

http://social.technet.microsoft.com...l/thread/f26b7645-ab52-4548-89aa-8bdd5bfd64f8

http://social.technet.microsoft.com...f/thread/404fab87-46c9-4c06-86ac-27f2a7095210

Microsoft security bulletins: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS10-aug.mspx

Im not going to lie and say W7 is immune to viruses, but I will say that you managed to leave out affecting XP which is the largest OS today and the one that probably houses the most information around the world. Thats why this virus could easily target XP.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable-8-10-viruses/

This virus was discovered yesterday; do you really think that anyone is going to bother making a virus that only runs on Windows 98 and not later versions of the OS? Obviously, they're probably going to want to target XP, Vista and 7. And a Windows virus would probably still affect newer versions of Windows if they're similar enough. There are differences between XP and Windows 7, but Windows 7 is still vulnerable to viruses. Even with the changes to the way Microsoft handles security on Windows, you can still get infected.

Just going to point out to that a Trojan is not a virus.
If you want to call a Trojan a virus the OSX has been infected by multiple viruses already.....

 

[blunderboy]

Im not going to lie and say W7 is immune to viruses, but I will say that you managed to leave out affecting XP which is the largest OS today and the one that probably houses the most information around the world. Thats why this virus could easily target XP.

I wasn't leaving out XP. Lilo777 had mentioned viruses for Windows 7 specifically, so I looked for information and reports of Windows 7 viruses. If you'd wanted XP viruses, there would be a lot more reports.

 

[AidenShaw]

Aiden, Windows draws letters to match the pixel grid, whereas Mac OS X preserves the letterform. To do that, Windows uses fewer pixels to represent the same letter, because they're drawn to match the grid, rather than to match the way they were designed. This can facilitate reading at small point sizes, but I fail to see most of its benefits, and find Windows type rendering ugly.

(here's a link that discusses it: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html)

So, according to that link (and the pictures) - Apple will make the letters larger.

What I find most interesting, though, is that to me the Windows text is clearer and easier to read - especially the smaller red text explaining the differences.

Anyway, thanks to you and MorphingDragon for bringing this up. The next time we astro-turfers negotiate our sub-pixel pricing contract with our Redmond Overlords - we'll be sure to stipulate that we get paid for the sub-pixels on the Apple target systems, not the sub-pixels on our Windows source systems. 😉

(click the thumbnail to see the non-scaled version)