Are Macs really safer than Windows?

TangoWhiskey

TangoWhiskey

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
14,210
Location
Midlothian, TX
Display Name
3Green
Home Airfield
KJWY - Mid-Way Regional
Now, if that title isn't guaranteed to start a firestorm of opinion on this board, and get my thread booted straight to the Spin Zone, I don't know what will! ;-)

Not trying to stir the pot, and I have no opinion in the Mac vs. Windows debate, but I thought those of you that DO might latch on like monkeys on a cupcake over Logbook Pro's published opinion on the subject, in their most recent newsletter:

http://www.logbookpro.com/logbookpro/newsletters/2008/04/#MAC

Excuse me, while I go get some popcorn. The show is about to begin!

popcorn.gif
 
He's wrong but it's not worth the breath.

I guar an damn tee you I know more about computer security than he does....and the 2 or 3 Russian mafiosos that are running stuff on his Windows machines.
 
So as a MAC owner I can tell you stick with Windows! It's solid, proven, feature rich, extremely well supported with software and will provide you with a computer that you can use for any need you may have.
Click to expand...
Yeah 'solid', solid waste is more like it. 'Proven' it has proven many things to me. One it is not 'solid'. Two, it ages poorly e.g. with DLLs, Three system upgrade degrade performance and are hard to install as compared to MACOS, Four, not intuitive, Five some cool software that you can't get on WinDoze that is made for doing specialized creative stuff. Six, chicks dig a guy with a MAC. ;)
 
Neil of LogBookPro.com said:
after only one day of using it my thoughts were ... the usability design in Windows is done right, we know where things are, how they work, and it's logical to us
Click to expand...

My thoughts were.... you were only willing to invest one day in learning how things work and where things are on the Mac, and you're already whining about it?? No wonder you hated it. You expected it to be just like Windows, Neil? Sheesh. I had the same "lost" "where are things" feeling when I tried to use my wife's copy of Vista. It's just "different".
 
TangoWhiskey said:
My thoughts were.... you were only willing to invest one day in learning how things work and where things are on the Mac, and you're already whining about it?? No wonder you hated it. You expected it to be just like Windows, Neil? Sheesh. I had the same "lost" "where are things" feeling when I tried to use my wife's copy of Vista. It's just "different".
Click to expand...

No. He invested 5 or more years learning "where stuff is" in Windows - and relearning it and relearning as MS moved "stuff" that was where it should be with each new OS release.

On a Mac you have to learn that "stuff" is the Applications folder and/or on the launch bar.

The dumbest argument is that the OS with fewer security updates issued more often is less secure than the one with more, uncountable updates issued on schedule once a month, allowing enough time for the exploits to propagate.
 
The computer is only as secure as the user. Most security problems are the direct result of user stupidity instead of operating system vulnerability.
 
There's been no perfect OS since VMS.:goofy:

I get patches all the time for my MS, Apple, and HP-UX and Solaris systems.

For me:
  • Unix lets me do anything I want. The bad news is that I have to know how computers work at a very low level to get the most out of Unix, or sometimes to get it to boot at all! It's my choice for any server apps I want to run.
  • The Mac does some things very very well, and is easy to use. But there's a lot of stuff that it doesn't run (like MS Flight Sim), and the same gotcha's that apply to Unix CAN apply to the Mac if you really want to customize things. I use it for signal processing and audio/video work primarily.
  • Windows runs what I need to run, is stable (XP Pro), reliable (I haven't had a blue screen EVER on my current self-built PC), and secure (with my perimeter firewall and IDS) I use it for most of my work and all of my flight-related apps.
 
Windows are unsafe only when you fail to open them before tossing out the Macs.





:D

Actually, I have to go with Jesse's statement. I come across so many people with problem after problem on their machines. Well, when you leave it open to collect every cookie under the sun and allow web sites to have control of your computer with dynamic editing, you're gonna have problems. You can't run the same OS installation forever like this and expect to have no problems.

On this very computer, I have no firewall. I have no anti-virus protection. Yet, it works beautifully and has for nearly a year. Of course, I'm picky on what web sites I go to. I'll have you know, I stick with only quality porn sites recommended by Scott!

Edit: The section in blue was intended as a joke. My apologies for not adding emoticons to assist in that effect earlier.

Scott, I'm sorry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think there's any real debate regarding the inherent security of MacOS (and other Unix-like systems) being superior to that of Windows. Almost everything about how Windows works is bass-ackwards from a security point of view, as far as I'm concerned.

But I also think it clear that the trend in malware is moving towards browser-based exploits. In the case of cross-platform browsers like Firefox, it would be pretty simple to craft a malware "extension" that would give a miscreant sufficient control over a machine to carry out malicious tasks (spamming, data theft, etc.) even without root privileges over the machine itself.

Old-skool crackers and script kiddies were more interested in glory, and wanted to take the machine. Today's miscreants tend to be more commercial and pragmatic. It is not in a spammer's interest to take your machine down. It is, in fact, in his interest to keep it running well.

Similarly, an identity thief can gather more data from a malicious browser extension on a public library computer in a big city than from tens of thousands of phishing emails; but he has to keep the computer running to do that. Browser-based exploits can function on multiple platforms, with very little overhead, and with very little evidence of their existence.

Rich
 
It's really simple.

Connect a windows machine with a fresh install to the internet. Do the same with an OS X machine.

The Windows machines, on average, get infected within 15 minutes. OS X doesn't. Not much of a debate, really.

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
It's really simple.

Connect a windows machine with a fresh install to the internet. Do the same with an OS X machine.

The Windows machines, on average, get infected within 15 minutes. OS X doesn't. Not much of a debate, really.

-Felix
Click to expand...

You must have watched me install Win 2k Pro. Got a trojan in under 45 minutes while downloading updates without surfing web or installing anything.

Windows is less secure because they have to keep some flavor of compatibility down to Win 3.1 progs which leaves misc bits of code floating around. OS X initially screwed many OS 7-9 progs from running seamlessly.
 
sba55 said:
It's really simple.

Connect a windows machine with a fresh install to the internet. Do the same with an OS X machine.

The Windows machines, on average, get infected within 15 minutes. OS X doesn't. Not much of a debate, really.

-Felix
Click to expand...
See my previous post.
 
Macs are way more secure! Only kids and artsy fartsy gay people use them...and neither knows how to write virus or code.

All 30 Mac users are safe.
 
SkyHog said:
Macs are way more secure! Only kids and artsy fartsy gay people use them...and neither knows how to write virus or code.

All 30 Mac users are safe.
Click to expand...

sigh....
 
I am good friends with our security officer -- an ex Fed employee -- and I share his view. If it runs commercially available software, it's vulnerable. My Mac is the same threat as the Windows PCs all across the floor.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Pi1otguy said:
You must have watched me install Win 2k Pro. Got a trojan in under 45 minutes while downloading updates without surfing web or installing anything.

Windows is less secure because they have to keep some flavor of compatibility down to Win 3.1 progs which leaves misc bits of code floating around. OS X initially screwed many OS 7-9 progs from running seamlessly.
Click to expand...

Windows is less secure because they hire a) fresh CS grads who only know enough coding to copy the other students code, who are only supposed to sustain working 60-80 hour weeks for 4-5 years and are motivated by fear and unlimited free soda pop. b) programmers both employee and contract overseas who have the same years of experience, albeit at colleges that would have the American thinking they were in Gitmo.

Apple, BTW, evidently has much the same hours and fear (of THE Steve), but has the advantage of better esprit d'corps through knowing the end products don't suck, which means they keep the talent.

MS employees on the Windows Vista beta: "...shipping a turd."

As Rich says the main advantage OS X has security wise is being built on Unix, a multl-user, multi-tasking OS from day one, vs. Windows built on MS-DOS, a single user, "almost works" OS based on stolen code on day one.
 
Any version of Windows currently supported is NOT built on DOS, it's built on the NT kernel, which is largely based on VMS.
 
TMetzinger said:
Any version of Windows currently supported is NOT built on DOS, it's built on the NT kernel, which is largely based on VMS.
Click to expand...

It's not largely based on VMS. It's largely based on a team led by a guy who developed VMS.
 
TMetzinger said:
Yah - and Neal didn't bring any of the good ideas from VMS over to NT, did he? Nah.
Click to expand...

Of course not. None of the source either. That would be unethical. We know how strongly Microsoft holds respect for intellectual property rights. :rolleyes:
 
"After receiving a few e-mails regarding this article it appears that this article was taken out of context and simply not worth the consternation it caused. "

Hmmmmm. Wish I could have read the original.

Off to buy his competitor's product in 3...2...1... :D
 
flyingcheesehead said:
"After receiving a few e-mails regarding this article it appears that this article was taken out of context and simply not worth the consternation it caused. "

Hmmmmm. Wish I could have read the original.

Off to buy his competitor's product in 3...2...1... :D
Click to expand...

In other words, like I said, he was dead wrong. :D
 
flyingcheesehead said:
"After receiving a few e-mails regarding this article it appears that this article was taken out of context and simply not worth the consternation it caused. "

Hmmmmm. Wish I could have read the original.

Off to buy his competitor's product in 3...2...1... :D
Click to expand...

Basically he used a Mac for a day and determined that Windows was better because he knew it better. That was pretty much the whole of the article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top