Windows sucks cause of Virus/Spyware... a legitimate argument??

[donmei]

cryptic
to add to what you said. above, I mentioned that I've always run windows as a non privelidged user. I believe thats how I've managed to avoid viruses

But interestingly, I've run into a LOT of software incompatability issues over the years. Many developers, being lazy and sloppy, or maybe just not knowing any better, built software that MUST have local admin rights to run.

bad bad bad. Often time registry hacks can be found on google or technet, but it just illustrates that when a lot of this stuff was written, security was not even a serious consideration.

Don

 

[clevin]

Although I agree with most your argument this part I don't. Vista is not any more secure than XP if you really think about it. Vista has more security measures built in for the user such as the UAC but the system itself isn't more secure like the Mac OS X system is because of it's Unix core.

Actually Im not saying vista is More secure or anything than OSX, rather, I was merely saying vista is much better than XP, IMHO, still, I have yet to see any data that really measures vista on security.

I do not disagree the assumption that Unix core is born safer than windows. Just like I think gecko is intrinsically safer than trident.

However, there are two important points we need to ask

1. HOW MUCH safer? I don't believe the different is night and day, and I do think market share play a significant roles, altho not 100%.

2. Safe is not a static status, no OS will be 100% safe all the time, the security holes will be found, with enough hackers working on it. I think the awareness of security problem is really lacking among mac users. Apple's marketing strategy with exaggerated, sometime outright misleading, ads is really not helping the mass of mac users. and I think thats dangerous.

The problem with Windows is the buggy legacy code and the amount of inept users that use it. They started off trying to be user friendly, which did work to a point, but what happened is they opened themselves up to way too many security issues and bad user practices. Now all of a sudden they are trying to section the OS off and keep users in a "protected" environment with Vista, but the users are complaining because all of a sudden its more work for them, and some things dont work properly.

They painted themselves in the corner by not instilling user security and requiring the users to have SOME knowledge of what they are doing, and I think its going to be their downfall.

I think we can put this "stupid users logic" to rest, its not helping anyone, and it ignore that trend of opening tech to people. Its not 1990 anymore, when only rich people or elites can use computers.

 

[MisterMe]

...

However, there are two important points we need to ask

1. HOW MUCH safer? I don't believe the different is night and day, and I do think market share play a significant roles, altho not 100%.

As President Reagan used to say: "Facts are stubborn things." There are zero (0) viruses on MacOS X. Go to SARC and count the number of Windows viruses. In the entire history of the Mac, there are something like 26 Mac-specific viruses in the wild. [Most of those were System 6/System 7 era viruses.] That's a slow week for Windows.

2. Safe is not a static status, no OS will be 100% safe all the time, the security holes will be found, with enough hackers working on it. ...

You are the most enthusiastic Windows supporter on this forum, but even a Windows supporter owes some obligation to the truth. The truth is that there are no MacOS X viruses. You are correct that safe is not static. However, Apple fixes vulnerabilities that are discovered in MacOS X.

The bottomline is this: Starting from a baseline of zero (0) success, hackers have fewer vulnerabilities in MacOS X to exploit today than they did yesterday. They will have fewer vulnerabilities to exploit tomorrow than they have today. By what logic do you expect them to ever succeed? By what illogic?

 

[Cryptic1911]

I think we can put this "stupid users logic" to rest, its not helping anyone, and it ignore that trend of opening tech to people. Its not 1990 anymore, when only rich people or elites can use computers.

No we cant put that to rest. People need to know what they are doing when they sit in front of a computer. I'm not saying that your granny needs to be an MCSE, but to completely ignore the fact that the majority of computer users are grossly uninformed is just rediculous. Why do you think there are so many websites with those flashing banners that say "OMG YOUR COMPUTER HAS A VIRUS!! CLICK HERE TO REMOVE"?. Its those kind of people that help spread viruses. If people didn't blindly click "YES" on anything that popped up in front of them, then this kind of stuff wouldn't be so widespread

 

[donmei]

Cryptic,
I couldnt disagree with you more. People SHOULD NOT need to know what they are doing to use a computer.

This is why the personal computer, whether it runs OSX or Windows is a this point a disaster.

How many people do you know blindly taking hundreds of digital pictures a year with no backups?

How many people do you know who have no backups for their purchased or even freely ripped/stolen music files??

Apple has done a better job than anybody at protecting people from themselves. But we are still terribly far from providing a computing experience that those who are NOT well informed can use and trust.

How about if your OS knew that clicking on the "click to remove virus" banner was bogus and didnt display it in the first place??
How about if the user's context didnt have the rights to install the malware anyway, even if the popup was displayed?

The days of a computing appliance are coming. They will be closed (like apple they will have h/w, o/s, and apps all made by 1 company)

Upgrades and installs will not be allowed, unless pushed down by some centralized management server. A PKI infrastructure could ensure that no spoofing occurs.

Encrypted backups will happen without the users knowledge over the internet.

Guys like you and me wont buy it. We like to fiddle.

But when Granny's hard drive quits, all she'll have to do is get the device repaired, plug it into the wall and her data will be refreshed, along with bios and s/w upgrades.

It can be done. A fully integrated system like this could be done with current technology, it just needs to be integrated.

Either way you are wrong. You ahve it completely backwards. When your mothers friend loses 5 years of pictures, it is not her fault. She will have been let down by a technology industry that sold her on the benefits but did not bother to discuss the flaws.

(for that reason, when my mom was looking for a new camera, I suggested she pick up a nice zoom 35mm point and shoot and get the film processed so there are jpgs on a web site she can use electronically)

Don

 

[Man Bites Dog]

no more windows that's for sure

Finally decided to get rid of PC's all together. Macs only from now on.
Not to mention all of the above, viruses/spyware, etc...but also as an IDM producer it was just a pain in the a to have to deal crossing platforms all the time when collaborating with other producers. When Windows Vista came around it only introduced a whole new world of problems. All sorts of programs that I had gotten used to and loved to use were not compatible, amongst other things. OS X is just a solid OS, and that's why Mac's will always be better than Windows operated PC's. So I'm happy with my choice and will only work with Mac users from now on! haha...

 

[zap2]

Honestly, the biggest reason Windows is so suspectible to viruses is because it has 90%+ market share..

Its one the reasons....we can't measure how big, because nothing like Windows doesn't have a huge marketshare.


For me, I like not having to worry about virus as much, but if that was the only thing Vista had that I didn't like, and loved everything else, I'd start using it.

 

[cohibadad]

Hopefully my earlier comment wasn't ignored but have any of you run XP in a limited user mode? It's a pain in the ass to try to do anything. You need to get out of the typical always running as administrator and idiot run anything/everything security arena. That's the majority of user experiences sadly.

I tried limited user and it was such a pain. I tried it for my kids accounts and it just resulted in me having to do more to admin their computers. I don't know which takes more time, administering limited accounts or cleaning up the problems of admin accounts.

 

[donmei]

Yep, it can be a pain.
The unfortunate thing is it doesnt need to be that way. There is no need for an ap to write to the registry after its been installed.

Although I thik I may have come up with a windows that works. . . with vmware workstation.

make a clone, and throw it away after a week. Just a thought.

I also got ubuntu running on vmware wkstation today. Still figuring it out, but it seems rock solid.

Don