By the way, don't kid yourself. All hype aside, across the world Windows is FAR more popular than OSX (by something like 10 to 1), and so it is a much more attractive target for malware writers. One payoff to being in the minority is Apple users get overlooked by the creators of badware.
Justin Long ("I'm a Mac") and John Hodgman ("I'm a PC") might try to lead you to believe the Apple is inherently better and more secure, and it clearly is in some ways - and less in others, but the simple truth is it simply isn't being hammered as hard by the world.
I am not sure I'd use the word popular. I might be more inclined to use the word "used." While I agree that Windows is a more popular target--if only because it is used more--the fact remains that Macs don't require nearly the same vigilance against malware as Windows systems do. I just wish malware wasn't an issue for any operating system.
Microsoft had a vision of the whole world being connected electronically, and you being able to run software from who knows where to get whatever job you needed done. Thus things like ActiveX controls were born, leading to web pages that run software on your computer.
This, of course, led to unscrupulous people trying to steal your passwords, get their software's foot in your door so as to market all kinds of crap to you, or just crash your computer and wipe out your files. In general the problems we see today. All the things that make the Internet BAD.
It was a good idea, but Microsoft clearly underestimated the evil in the computing world. Now those of us trying to develop good software and make an honest living suffer through trying to make UAC-friendly installers, and of course unsuspecting users continue to be taken in.
It's interesting that there continue to be victims of various scams from Nigeria. These are not really computer-related, save for the fact that a computer may be used to deliver the messages to people.
What I'm getting at here is that increasing knowledge, awareness, and proficiency in using computers can help people far more than erecting guard rails.
The other day I mashed the gas in our car (a 2009 model with "drive by wire"). I expected the car to take off and help keep me and my family out of danger in a specific situation. The programmer who wrote the software that transmits the signal that the accelerator has been pushed down must have decided that it was unsafe to have the engine suddenly develop a lot of power, because it was several seconds before anything much happened, and then the power came on gradually. As it turns out I had enough room and there was no crash, but clearly the system did not perform as I had expected and hoped it would. What a crock!
Give me a system that lets ME weigh the variables and make the decision about what's safe, or necessary. And I in turn will learn to use it well.
There has not been one documented case of a Mac with a computer virus since it's inception.
The antivirus companies that make Mac products might dispute this. There may not have been a huge number but that time is long past.
Do you run antivirus software on your Mac? If not, do you really KNOW you have no viruses/worms/malware?
No one is contesting your choice to use a Mac; more power to you. But it is just another computer system, quite capable of being hacked and corrupted. It's just not popular to do so, nor to talk about Mac crashes or problems. Kudos to Apple for cultivating that kind of marketing environment.
Oh, and let's not forget Apple changed out the entire mechanics of the operating system... Hell, even the processor's been through several change-outs. Good luck running stuff from the era of OS9 or earlier. Yet some of the same PC software that ran almost 3 decades ago still can be run. Now, you might ask whether that's a good thing, and I might agree that the usefulness of being able to run an old DOS command line app is debatable, but it shows that Microsoft has more of a compatibility committment and this does figure into the discussion.
Oh, and let's not forget Apple changed out the entire mechanics of the operating system... Hell, even the processor's been through several change-outs. Good luck running stuff from the era of OS9 or earlier. Yet some of the same PC software that ran almost 3 decades ago still can be run. Now, you might ask whether that's a good thing, and I might agree that the usefulness of being able to run an old DOS command line app is debatable, but it shows that Microsoft has more of a compatibility committment and this does figure into the discussion.
-Noel
Noel, this is starting to get a little one sided.
Apple moved their users on gradually to new systems. You can spin it as some sort of deficiency, but they took the hard decisions to retire old code and processors while in the windows world developers were having to jump though hoops coding around old problems in the OS that MS didn't remove for fear of breaking compatibility. In the end, there are plenty of older Windows programs that have great difficulty running (some won't run at all) under newer Windows releases, so it's not all beer and skittles in the MS world despite what you suggest.
Apple did wholesale user migration for both hardware and for OS. Each time, they delivered compatibility within the OS for both the prior software and the prior hardware. Only recently (August) has the OS become Intel only even though the hardware on sale has been completely Intel since 2006.
Mac OS9 dates back to 1999. The OS9 Compatibility 'Classic Environment' was built into OSX and remained there until the release of OSX 10.5 in 2007.
I think I mentioned before that Apple has been very good at managing change. This is a feature of the company, not a demerit point IMHO.
As far as viruses etc are concerned, I would expect an AntiVirus developer to make all sorts of claims about saving you from infection on a Mac. The industry thrives on fear, especially if you have switched from Windows. Reality bites, but apart from some particularly difficult to run 'viruses' there are currently none in the wild that impact Mac or Linux systems. Nil.
Of course that could change, but the systems have proven to be less than easy to code for viruses, partly because of their user-is-not-and-does-not-need-to-be-a-superuser model inherited from Unix.
It's funny you know, if I want to immerse myself in finetuning and micromanaging a system, the system I switch to is not the Mac, not the Windows box, it's the Linux box.
Mike.
__________________ Mike Adelaide
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
The antivirus companies that make Mac products might dispute this. There may not have been a huge number but that time is long past.
Do you run antivirus software on your Mac? If not, do you really KNOW you have no viruses/worms/malware?
If you can produce an example of a Mac virus please do so, otherwise your statement is just conjecture.
I do not use antivirus software on the Mac platform it is simply not needed. I trust the Mac OS to keep my system secure and believe it should be a function of the OS, not third party software. So far Apple has an excellent track record in this regard.
Because my system dual boots with Vista Ultimate 64 bit, I have to run antivirus software on that specific boot drive. The rest of the system is not susceptible.
Quote:
No one is contesting your choice to use a Mac; more power to you. But it is just another computer system, quite capable of being hacked and corrupted. It's just not popular to do so, nor to talk about Mac crashes or problems. Kudos to Apple for cultivating that kind of marketing environment.
As I mentioned before, the reason doesn't mater. Mac OS is a more secure choice of an operating system.
Quote:
Oh, and let's not forget Apple changed out the entire mechanics of the operating system... Hell, even the processor's been through several change-outs. Good luck running stuff from the era of OS9 or earlier. Yet some of the same PC software that ran almost 3 decades ago still can be run. Now, you might ask whether that's a good thing, and I might agree that the usefulness of being able to run an old DOS command line app is debatable, but it shows that Microsoft has more of a compatibility committment and this does figure into the discussion.
-Noel
When Windows moved to the Vista 64 bit platform it also stopped supporting many 32 bit programs that are simply not compatible. It also had hardware requirements that required end users buy new computers because their systems simply would not support it. Let's face it, computer hardware and software has about a 3 year useful life after which a "must have" feature is developed to sell more systems. If computers were truly upgradeable, the profit margin would diminish.
I prefer to have tightly integrated hardware and OS produced by the same manufacturer. This insures I have a quality product that I can trust will work.
Snow Leopard no longer supports the Power PC chip and Apple did move to the Intel Processor but 10.6 can run Power PC based programs using the Rosetta emulator.
The advantage of Apple computer and Mac OS that makes it the most versatile OS on the market is that it can also run Windows, if anyone has the need for it and wants to subject that specific drive or partition to computer viruses.
On that last point, OSX CAN be run under Windows in a virtual machine, and probably on PC hardware directly, but it's not legal per Apple's license. I call that a bit stingy on Apple's part. It makes it hard for PC-centric people to develop for Mac.
I'm sorry you feel this sounds one-sided, but I guess you'll have to live with it. Frankly I'm beyond fed up with hearing how great and wonderful Macs are and how much PCs suck.
Linear Mode
