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.
PC Mag article
- Thread starter jxyama
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I understand that everything in this article is true. However, It really made me upset when he was talking about how AAC was cracked. He made it seem like it was never going to happen. WTF??? WMA or WAV will also be cracked so what's the big deal? Whatever, just my 2 cents.
Let's see, three security updates after three months, and only one was "critical", and that's assuming the cracker can actually get into your network, which is kind of hard for a wired home network. Compare that to how many in the past month for Windows?
Re: Re: PC Mag article
It was an unprofessional piece of writing. And although his main point is true he says some things that are unsupported. For instance,
"If the Macintosh OS ever became dominant, the tables would turn, and there would be just as many reports of viruses, security holes, and attacks on it as we currently have with Windows."
By the tone of the article it seems as though he is a windows zealot that finally found a response to people that harass him about Windows security. Why should this response be taken any more seriously than mac zealots about Mac ease of use and price/value ratio. It is known that no system is perfect, but when you have a choice to use a system that is much less vulnerable, for whatever reason, the argument, "Well your system isn't perfect!" really doesn't say much.
It was an unprofessional piece of writing. And although his main point is true he says some things that are unsupported. For instance,
"If the Macintosh OS ever became dominant, the tables would turn, and there would be just as many reports of viruses, security holes, and attacks on it as we currently have with Windows."
By the tone of the article it seems as though he is a windows zealot that finally found a response to people that harass him about Windows security. Why should this response be taken any more seriously than mac zealots about Mac ease of use and price/value ratio. It is known that no system is perfect, but when you have a choice to use a system that is much less vulnerable, for whatever reason, the argument, "Well your system isn't perfect!" really doesn't say much.
Re: Re: PC Mag article
he he, i guess i can always count on you to "defend" the PC side...
the biggest problem i had with that article was not so much the content but his writing style. it was very unprofessional and almost childish.
this is tabloid material. if he's even paid a penny to write on a respected magazine like PC Mag, he should never write like this. i also thought it was a nice touch of him to not put his contact info in the article.
as for the content, the basic message of the article is "ha ha, your (mac) OS sucks as much as mine (windows)!!" - yeah, that's a really professional viewpoint. offers nothing constructive to the readers... it's basically a personal rant.
he he, i guess i can always count on you to "defend" the PC side...
the biggest problem i had with that article was not so much the content but his writing style. it was very unprofessional and almost childish.
this is tabloid material. if he's even paid a penny to write on a respected magazine like PC Mag, he should never write like this. i also thought it was a nice touch of him to not put his contact info in the article.
as for the content, the basic message of the article is "ha ha, your (mac) OS sucks as much as mine (windows)!!" - yeah, that's a really professional viewpoint.
offers nothing constructive to the readers... it's basically a personal rant.
The Slashdot Discussion on this article is a tad less biased
I think the most important thing is none of these security flaws in OS X have been exploited by a virus or worm. Windows on the other hand....
I think the most important thing is none of these security flaws in OS X have been exploited by a virus or worm. Windows on the other hand....
The main problem I have with this article is that it uses bad logic. Mac OS X has one serious confirmed vulnerability, XP has had dozens if not hundreds. Yet all of a sudden, Mac OS X is just as insecure as XP?
While his factual information was certainly all true, the conclusions drawn are way off the mark.
While his factual information was certainly all true, the conclusions drawn are way off the mark.
Where's the virus?
I must have missed hearing about the OS X virus (or worm) that went around the internet. Yeah, the OS had a few holes but unless I'm mistaken they were patched relatively quickly and there wasn't an actual virus attack.
This guy's got a stiffy over a 'potential vulnerability' - imagine the article he would have written if there was an actual virus.
Sometimes there is an advantage to being in the minority, a point the author fails to understand. One of the reasons I like the Mac platform is that there is less spyware, viruses and other crap out there that can affect my computer.
I must have missed hearing about the OS X virus (or worm) that went around the internet. Yeah, the OS had a few holes but unless I'm mistaken they were patched relatively quickly and there wasn't an actual virus attack.
This guy's got a stiffy over a 'potential vulnerability' - imagine the article he would have written if there was an actual virus.
Sometimes there is an advantage to being in the minority, a point the author fails to understand. One of the reasons I like the Mac platform is that there is less spyware, viruses and other crap out there that can affect my computer.