Jump to content

Windows 7


CA2OR

Recommended Posts

Gotta love Google man....here is some more quotation regarding this stuff. Odd....there is so much for something that doesn't exist.

 

"Somewhere in PC hell there is loud, presumably obnoxious laughter; and it is directed at the Mac OS X operating system. The Mac OS X has always boasted an outstanding record against spyware, adware, viruses and the other detritus that afflict its rival PC. However, it has recently fallen victim to not one, but two different strands of the ubiquitous trojan horse virus. One strand named Trojan-PSW:OSX/PokerStealer appeared as a Mac OS X titled “Poker Game.” When run, this virus triggers Secure Shell on the operating Mac, sending user names, passwords and IP addresses to a remote server. A dialogue box appears saying “a corrupt preference file has been detected and must be repaired,” prompting a password input which enables the virus to complete its task. From here on, the Mac is subject to the whims of its new user.

 

The second strand of a Mac trojan horse virus was created by a group of gray-hat hackers on the Macshadows.com site forum. It was purportedly crafted to test the vulnerability of the ARDAgent. The ARDAgent’s flaw lies in the root privileges of Applescript. If the victim is fooled into installing Hovdy, no passwords are needed, providing easy, backdoor access to the intruder.

 

Several antivirus programs and internet security suites intended for Mac are already in existence, with others in the works. Whether or not these viruses ever make a real impact, one thing is for sure: The disease-free days of the Mac are over."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one from Symantec that says something amazing....OSX is LESS secure then Windows XP....wait what? It takes Microsoft and average of 10 days to resolve leaks and it took MAC 62....hmm....

 

" In Symantec's newly-published Internet Securtiy Threat Report, it appears that the Mac OS X is less secure than Windows XP.

 

According to the report, Microsoft took an average of 3 weeks to develop a patch after a vulnerability was reported. This turnaround was faster than Sun, HP, Red Hat and Apple although it was slower than their 13 day turnaround for the patches in the first 6 months.

 

Apple, during the same period, took an average of 66 days to patch vulnerabilities. This was also a slowdown from the first 6 months in which their turnaround was 37 days.

 

Moving into web browsers, Internet Explorer was reported as having 54 vulnerabilities while Mac's Safari had 40. However, Microsoft patched its browser vulnerabilites in an average of 10 days, while it took Apple 62 days to patch their default browser vulnerabilities. Symantec did however explain that those stats were "skewed by a smaller sample set of patched vulnerabilities and exploits."

 

Excuses excuses....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For $1199, you can get a new imac with a 21.5 inch monitor with a 3.06 dual core processor, 4 gigs/ram and 500meg HD.

 

Sure, but I can put a PC together for much less.

 

As far as them being upgradeable, how many everyday users need (or want) to upgrade their computers.

 

I do! And so do many of my friends. I think this is partly generational. Many of the people I know that are my age and younger have grown up putting together computers. But I don't know too many that are much older than me that do (however, a lot of us do upgrades for our parents, etc). Case in point: this summer, my wife's PC was too slow to run some of the software that she wanted to run, so for $300 and a couple of hours of effort (including my shopping trip) I upgraded the video card and RAM to the point that it will probably last her another couple of years. Weigh that against a minimum $1,000 replacement imac and it seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

BTW, she also has a MAC laptop. Some of what I don't like about it simply has to do with the fact that it is a different interface than I am used to (who in the heck thought that mice with only 1 button are sufficient? I thought those were out in the 90's! Also, the shortcuts and menus are all different), but for performance I wouldn't trade it with my equally priced laptop on any application, audio recording and editing included. We both run Reason and Ableton Live, and my computer outpaces hers in every aspect and has from day 1. People say that MAC's are better for photos, audio, and video, but that has not been my experience.

 

Plus, I'm a gamer, so that pretty much settles the MAC vs. PC question for me right there.

 

If MAC's give better performance (ferrari vs. yugo) for approximately equal $, then why do the yugos own so much of the market?

 

Having said all of that, I drive a Toyota instead of a Ford because even if I knew about car repair, it wouldn't be worth the hassle or my time to be working on it, and the price premium isn't that great. So I can certainly understand why some folks feel that way about computers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Undrtkr....well said....

 

Sorry for the rant...but I have been working on computers for over 13 years and I get a bit frusterated when people say that MAC's don't have problems or viruses when the fact is they do...just nowhere close to as many as PC has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...