Mac users be on your guard.

4743hudsonj

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

But then consider how many times more PC's there are than Mac's! Maybe it isn't surprising. If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say that a very small percentage on PC's get viruses either, because there's bound to be millions that never get infected.

its like comparing how many lambos crash compared to all of the fords, peugeot's etc in the uk

its just not a fair/reasonable comparison

i do concede that macs are better defended

but i do also believe pc users are more cautious and can be better protected if they choose too

fox2319

4743hudsonj wrote: »

my friend had his mac infected with some sort of virus, had to take it into the apple store for advice

pc user 1: mac user 0:D
(i do realise that the real world stats would tell a different story but its a good example for this thread!)

And a similarly clueless PC user would take his PC to the microsoft store who would fix it? Nah, more than likely they'd take it to PC world who would just wipe the hard disk (after copying any interesting files over for evidence) and then charge £50 for the privilege...

[Deleted User]

fox2319 wrote: »

And a similarly clueless PC user would take his PC to the microsoft store who would fix it? Nah, more than likely they'd take it to PC world who would just wipe the hard disk (after copying any interesting files over for evidence) and then charge £50 for the privilege...

It'd be very unreasonable to shaft someone with a repair bill following the preachings from the Apple ivory tower about how they don't pick up such malware unlike their PC counterparts..

4743hudsonj

fox2319 wrote: »

And a similarly clueless PC user would take his PC to the microsoft store who would fix it? Nah, more than likely they'd take it to PC world who would just wipe the hard disk (after copying any interesting files over for evidence) and then charge £50 for the privilege...

i never said he was clueless

just cocky and had the mac invinsibility

or so he thought

then when he was caught out he didnt know what to do

a similar pc user doesnt exist, no pc user thinks their invunrable, at least i really really doubt it

fox2319

4743hudsonj wrote: »

a similar pc user doesnt exist, no pc user thinks their invunrable, at least i really really doubt it

With the mac you could probably just roll it back using time machine.

I think most PC (& mac) users just don't realise they're vulnerable. Something I've picked up when repairing PC's (mainly virus riddled) for friends.

patman99

Anyone who runs a Windows PC (me included) KNOWS they are vonarable, thats why we use products like Kaspersky & malwarebytes.

I also have 'PCLinuxOS 2009' installed, and even though there are only 7 known Linux viruses, I still have ClamAV installed and running (also comes-in handy for scanning Win partitions for viruses that Kaspersky might miss).

Linux is ultra-secure (which is why Apple use it as the core of OSX, and Google use in as the main part of 'Android'), that's why unlike Windows, there are only 7 viruses compared to 85,396 for Windows.

Until Microsoft realizes that the best security is to run all users without admin privilages, and require an Admin password to install any new programs or updates (like Linux), then Windows will remain fully open to viruses & malware.

Given the number of PC's out there which run such an open-house OS, its no wonder all the script-kiddies attack Windows. It is not an 'anti-MS' thing, but sinpley an attack against the weakest defence, which in this case happens to be Windows.

It can get annoying having to keep entering a password every time you install a new piece of software (my son has a Mac, so I know what it is like), but if thats all it takes to prevent maliware and viruses from installing, so be it.
As for PC Worlds outragious charges, I undertake deleted file recovery & virus detection/removal for a fee that is much cheaper.

[Deleted User]

patman99 wrote: »

Linux is ultra-secure

That's actually quite far from the truth. Web servers ran on the Linux platform are regularly compromised.

which is why Apple use it as the core of OSX

OS X was based around BSD, not Linux.

that's why unlike Windows, there are only 7 viruses compared to 85,396 for Windows.

That's market share for you!

Until Microsoft realizes that the best security is to run all users without admin privilages, and require an Admin password to install any new programs or updates (like Linux), then Windows will remain fully open to viruses & malware.

Why require a password to be typed in? That's actually less secure than a dialogue box being opened up in a completely separate desktop to what the user is operating in. Windows Vista and 7 have rectified the issue of users running with more privileges than they require, but you can't override the convenience that people want by running XP or a previous version with administrative privileges, although it's beyond me why there's such a blase approach to computer security in the first place.

Given the number of PC's out there which run such an open-house OS, its no wonder all the script-kiddies attack Windows. It is not an 'anti-MS' thing, but sinpley an attack against the weakest defence, which in this case happens to be Windows.

People will get infected no matter what platform they are on if they are ignorant to the risks facing them. Windows is by no mean a weak system, the weakness in any system is always the pink fleshy thing that's typing into the keyboard.

It can get annoying having to keep entering a password every time you install a new piece of software (my son has a Mac, so I know what it is like), but if thats all it takes to prevent maliware and viruses from installing, so be it.

It's a lot less effort on the user's behalf to click on cancel or allow to keep their system secure.

Jaffa.

patman99 wrote: »

Linux is ultra-secure (which is why Apple use it as the core of OSX

Actually, OS X uses elements from Free BSD, not Linux.

patman99 wrote: »

Given the number of PC's out there which run such an open-house OS, its no wonder all the script-kiddies attack Windows. It is not an 'anti-MS' thing, but sinpley an attack against the weakest defence, which in this case happens to be Windows.

Actually, PC's with Windows on them are attacked because Microsoft has the market share, not because they have the weakest defence. Take Windows XP for instance. That's been out for God knows how long and has accumulated lots and lots of security patches making it quite a secure OS.

Marty_J

Jaffa. wrote: »

Actually, PC's with Windows on them are attacked because Microsoft has the market share, not because they have the weakest defence.

I've never entirely bought that argument. There's an enormous disparity between the amount of malware on OS X and on Windows. Infecting Windows is just easier than infecting OS X. Despite the enormous growth in Apple's market share over the past few years, there haven't been any widespread malware threats.

If I wanted to steal credit card details, I would choose a Mac user's over a Windows user's any day. Mac users, on average, have more money (though I'm sad to report I'm certainly an exception).

Interesting article:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/05/16/are-macs-more-safe-than-secure-no/

sweetstudent

If a Mac user feels the need to download Active-X then they deserve the malware or whatever it is, since AFAIK Active-X is a windows only plugin!

Somebody correct me if i am wrong here pls!