It looks like Norton Antivirus – a program that seems to do more damage to one’s system than most viruses – has a massive security flaw in it.
One of the biggest reasons I left the Windows world is because of crap like this. It’s not enough that you have to use a painfully obnoxious operating system, but you have to run a bunch of painfully annoying software to clean up all the accumulated crap that piles up. Norton Antivirus or another of its ilk, a firewall program that’s usually intrusive and irritating, spyware cleaners, popup blockers, etc. All of them slow down one’s system, usually keep dialing home for updates, and almost all of them are both ugly and irritating to use. Why people put up with this crap seems to me to be only attributable to some kind of digital Stockholm Syndrome.
But hey, I’m just one of those arrogant hipster Mac users… who doesn’t have to worry that some crappy antivirus program will hose his system…
I was talking to my computer tech about this the other day, and he said that the Macs have their own problems with viruses too. He said if it’s going to happen, it will happen. I don’t know anything about things like that—-all I know is I can’t afford the Macs that I have seen and being a Grandma, I’m too old to learn a new system.
There aren’t any real Mac viruses out there – at least not yet. It’s possible some might appear, but the way Mac OS is written makes it much harder for a virus writer to cause much damage.
If for whatever reason your current computer stops working, I would highly recommend the Mac mini as a replacement. It’s not very expensive, it’s very easy to use, and things like organizing pictures and watching movies are much easier with a Mac than with a PC.
And you’re never too old to learn – I used to teach computers at a senior center in my high school days, and I was quite surprised how many of the seniors there were up and running very quickly. If you can leave a comment on a blog, you’re already most of the way there.
Have you seen the new Mac ad campaign, with the cool Mac guy and the dorky PC guy? Excellent advertisements. But Apple has always been good at that.
Macs and PC both have their problems. There is one Mac virus to date. Not much of a troublemaker though. I’ve been using a PC for 15+ years and have yet to have a virus or a security problem.
I work on the tech side – mostly with Mac although I prefer PCs. I’ll say this: Apple as released as many security updates (if not more) than Microsoft has since they moved to OS 10.
I’ll also make the prediction that with switching to an Intel chip they’ll be more vulnerable to attacks then they were before.
“…but the way Mac OS is written makes it much harder for a virus writer to cause much damage…” Why do you say that? Where is your proof? I would like to see it. Virus writer don’t limit themselves to what the vendor says – they find the holes, and believe me the wholes exist. Windows OS is just more vulnerable because it is more available. If 98% of the desktop computers were Macs they would have the same problems.
Geez. Get over the mac superiority soap-box.
bq. Macs and PC both have their problems. There is one Mac virus to date. Not much of a troublemaker though. I’ve been using a PC for 15+ years and have yet to have a virus or a security problem.
No, there are absolutely no _wild_ OS X virii to date. There is are several proof-of-concept. No wild ones.
bq. I work on the tech side – mostly with Mac although I prefer PCs. I’ll say this: Apple as released as many security updates (if not more) than Microsoft has since they moved to OS 10.
Mmmmhmmm. They’re doing something right.
bq. I’ll also make the prediction that with switching to an Intel chip they’ll be more vulnerable to attacks then they were before.
What would the chip have to do with making it more vulnerable? I would like to hear your reasoning behing this, it must have to do with something other than the operating system. Is intel’s chip security flawed? Hmmmm….intel? chip security? wtf?
bq. “…but the way Mac OS is written makes it much harder for a virus writer to cause much damage…†Why do you say that? Where is your proof? I would like to see it. Virus writer don’t limit themselves to what the vendor says – they find the holes, and believe me the wholes exist. Windows OS is just more vulnerable because it is more available. If 98% of the desktop computers were Macs they would have the same problems.
Spot on.
bq. Geez. Get over the mac superiority soap-box.
Oh. I’m way over it. Actually, I think i’ve moved on to an “I’m superior” soap-box.
Oh, and commenting systems without textile.
suckage.
Rob, in answer to your comment “Geez. Get over the mac superiority soap-box.”, not only don’t I think it’s wrong or unseemly to tell others about the Mac platform’s strengths, but it provides a service. When I was in school I used to provide tech support to our company of 100 employees all using Windows machines. The last Windows PC I bought with my own money was in late 1998. Since 1999 I’ve purchased all Macs because in my opinion they are better for what the home user or even small business owner wants to do. Check out what Paul Thurrot said about Apple’s iLife suite, for example, keeping in mind that these sorts of things the home user wants to do easily and well, and keeping in mind that few people know Windows better than Thurrot:
http://www.connectedhomemag.com/HomeOffice/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=49259
There are some things that Windows is “great” at because it is a monopoly and so nobody would argue that a Mac can do everything that a Windows PC can do, but if the Mac is not fundamentally superior to Microsoft’s 100 billion dollar company’s product then it is indeed one of the mysteries of life that Thurrot would say “Every year, Apple issues a new iLife upgrade, and every year, I stare in wonder at my Mac’s monitor, noting the improvements and wondering why Microsoft and the PC industry can’t create something as impressive as iLife for the Windows realm.” The answer is that there is true power in designing the hardware and the OS, which only Apple does. Microsoft could do it but they don’t want to, I can only imagine. I would guess that the reason is that they only want to make money and so why change a product that is a little inferior but runs as long as you’re making money?
Secondly you said to Jay, “Why do you say that? Where is your proof?” regarding how OS X was written in a more secure way from the ground up. Who has time to convince you of this, Rob?–you should do a little research because there is a lot of good info on this by using google. Start with this article from Network World and you can even skip down to the last paragraph to get the quick summary answer to to your question: http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2006/050106bradner.html?fsrc=rss-timgreene I’m thankful that a tech-saavy friend steered me to the Mac back in 1999. Big companies that need enterprise software need Windows, but home users really need Macs. A home user having a Windows PC is a lot like a home user buying a bull-dozer as their only vehicle because they can both drive it to the store and dig up their back yard if they happen to ever need to do so. (Jay, keep telling us why you prefer Macs periodically!)
Regarding my last comment to Rob:
When I said “Start with this article from Network World and you can even skip down to the last paragraph to get the quick summary answer to to your question” I hadn’t noticed that it is a 2-page article. What I meant was “skip down to the last paragraph on page _one_ ….” and not page 2’s last paragraph.
http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2006/050106bradner.html?fsrc=rss-timgreene
It was good for me to read this article again. Scott Bradner is certainly not saying OS X is problem free or invulnerable, but he is clearly saying OS X is superior to Windows in security due to it’s NATURE (i.e., not due to it’s small market share). Bradner is the Harvard University technology security officer, so perhaps you would accept him as a reputable source? Heehee. If not, how about that he “serves as the Secretary to the Board of Trustees of the Internet Society (ISOC).” He also writes the weekly column for Network World. I would say he knows a lot more about computer hardware, operating systems, and networking than you and I do, and those 3 things are the fundamentals of security wouldn’t you say? http://www.sobco.com/sob/sob.html I find it surprising that you work with primarily Macs and that you work in tech and don’t seem to grasp these things about Mac OS X. Read up and appreciate your Macs at your work more. The great thing is that appreciation of Macs and Mac OS X appears to be increasing in the tech industry — something that in 1998 just didn’t seem likely at all.
Rob:
Chip architecture doesn’t really impact things on the software side. Viruses (generally – there are exceptions) don’t exploit hardware faults, they exploit faults in software.
OS X is based on UNIX, and UNIX has a very robust and well-tested security model. For instance, Mac OS X doesn’t have you run as an administrator by default as Windows does – in order to change system files, you have to authenticate yourself with a password. Windows Vista will do the same, but the Windows permission model is just a royal pain to deal with.
That and Mac OS X is a near-complete rewrite – Microsoft can’t break its legacy software the way that Apple did, even though many of the problems in Windows are from legacy code. (For instance, some of the code for the recent WMF exploit was 14 years old.
No OS is impervious to attack, but starting from a sound architecture makes a huge difference.
Walker:
I haven’t used Textile in a while, although I should try enabling it again.
The Apple Mac may be more secure from viruses and other issues for the average user, but some of the engineers in my IT office are trying to set up Macs to run securely on military networks and it has been an endless run of headaches for them. They are falling short when it comes to meeting government security requirements.
I don’t know all of the specifics and its probably best I don’t mention them here if I did know.
I suspect that it’s just that Microsoft has had many more years of experience writing software to run in the kind of secure environments the government needs to operate in.
“I suspect that it’s just that Microsoft has had many more
years of experienceMCSE’s who would unemployed but are kept going by crappy software writing software to run in the kind ofsecureoverly firewalled, virus protected, adware, spyware and paranoid environments the governmentneeds to operate inhas gotten used to since they had to work with Microsoft Products.”Fixed that for you. 🙂
Macs are prettier. That’s all that really matters…
I have a Mac as well. I use it in my recording studio. It is a G5 dual processor 2.0Ghz machine with 1.5 Gig of ram. I do enjoy the user interface – Apple has always had more ingenuity when it comes to interfaces.
Unfortunately, I still use my PC for my day to day work. My single processor 2.0 GHz AMD and now my centrino 1.6 GHz are just more zippy to use. Applications popup a bit faster and my overall time seems to be better spent typing and working on things as opposed to waiting for applications to load.
Now, that still doesn’t mean much given that application writers and OS systems can cheat and preload things into memory and create speed illusions. I personally do not run Firewalls or Virus software on my local machines. I let my wireless router handle whatever filtering I want and I just try to be careful so maybe my PCs are free to fly a bit faster than the average persons. I really hate hate hate all the preinstalled software crap I recently found on my laptop. They should somehow make that all optional. I want my machine to run as fast as a calculator. Hit a button and get an immediate response.
One thing I’m not too keen on is the number of times MAC has completely altered its OS. That maybe a good thing … but I keep having to buy new versions of software. My OS 9 versions of Freehand, Photoshop and Quark are all but defunct. And just because no one has exploited the MAC or UNIX operating systems to the extent that the PC has been … doesn’t prove a safer OS one way or the other. One benefit of changing the OS so much is that hackers have a hard time learning how to hack your OS.
The only other problem I have (had) with Apple is their proprietary”ness”. The are not Mp3, they are IPOD. Imagine what Microsoft has been through regarding monopolistic practices. Now imagine if you had to purchase your Windows hardware through Microsoft. No more Dell. No more Compaq. Just Microsoft Computers. I’ve built a Gaming PC … is that even possible in the Apple world. I guess thats all changing and I’ll be happy to jump onboard to the new Intel platform … especially if I can run Linux and PC software as easily as OSX … but I do believe Apple has a ways to go before it proves it can run with the big dogs. They target a small, creative audience and they’ve captured it.
And if you feel more creative using and Apple … then by all means go for it. In the meantime, spend a little less money and strip away all the preinstalled PC software and you’ll have a blazing fast modern machine – it all depends on what makes you more productive. For me, in the end, its wait time between applications.
But there is no doubt Apples are a joy to use.
Cheers,
-Luther
“I’ve built a Gaming PC … is that even possible in the Apple world.”
It’s a common myth that you can’t game on a Mac, which is easily dispelled when you discover that pretty much all of the most popular PC titles are either immediately ported or ported within a year of release. Bioware, Blizzard and Microsoft generally port their titles immediately, and other popular makers often port their games later, after the bugs have been worked out (I’m still waiting for my Civ 4 for OS X, though… they keep pushing back the release date!). And the titles generally run as well or better than their PC counterparts on all but the most high-end hardware (Macs just can’t compete with Alienware).
As for sluggishness, I’ve never noticed it… my 2 Ghz G4 PowerBook runs circles around my 2 Ghz Pentium 4 Desktop, and then some…
A few points of clarity. I said I “BUILT a gaming PC.” I was not referring to a lack of software titles. The keyword was BUILT, not gaming.
I picked out the CPU and heatsink and motherboard for my PC. I just don’t have that flexibility with the Apple. How many different motherboards do you think will work with my 2.0G existing G5 processors? And what if I’d like to create my own liquid cooled dual Processor Apple machine? Can I buy a couple of PowerPC processors? Oh – and I’d also like to upgrade in a few months. I’d like to purchase a faster PowerPC chip and use it in the motherboard I bought last year. Is that a common, ubiquitous practice with a MAC? I’d like to push two Apple 3.0 GHz processors into my 2.0 Dual Core … where can I buy them?
And your comparison against your 2.0GHz Pentium is misleading you. That 2.0GHz Pentium is ancient. My Apple runs rings around my Nintendo Game Cube .. my Apple runs rings arond my 1.8GHz Pentium .. my Apple runs rings around my X. But those comparisons are irrelevant or fallacious (tending to mislead, deceptive).
My comparison of my single AMD 2.0GHz and a PowerPC Dual Core 2.0GHz were available at the same time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Athlon_64_microprocessors). You’re free to compare the Dual Core to available CELERONs as well, but again, such a comparison is misleading. My AMD with over 400 Gig of Harddrive space and 1G of Ram and soundproof case cost roughly $900 to build. Outfitted with 1.5 Gig of Ram, my Dual Core G5 was roughly $3300.
I just don’t think you’re going to win a comparison if you include price along with performance.
For $3300, the current G5 Dual Core comes with 512MB of RAM and runs at 2.5GHz (an upgrade from my Dual Core 2.0GHz machine). http://www.compusa.com/products/products.asp?N=200005+400990+502364+4294965167+4294966829&Ne=300818 sells for $3300 at CompUSA.
For around $1800, you can purchase the lastest Dell XPS. http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/xpsdt?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
My intuition tells me that for normal everyday tasks – starting and ending applications on a desktop, the Dell machine would be a bit snappier – but lets negate that. Lets say they are even.
Then for $3300 – your money, you choose. 2 modern Dell XPS boxes? or a single Dual Core 2.5Ghz machine from Apple. You may spend your money as you please, but I’m sure I’d prefer 2 DELL machines over one Apple.
Please don’t get me wrong – I’m not bantering Apple. I bought into their system. But ProTools slugs along sometimes – even with 2 processors. You can talk all you want, but for me, running both systems side-by-side in the recording studio … and that Apple costing what it did, there’s just no comparison. I would have saved a bit of money and be a bit more productive had I purchased a comparably priced PC … or 2.
And why is Apple so expensive? Well, a naive guess … they do have a monopoly on their hardware right? I still think that model breaks down in the larger picture. Apple loves proprietary. Imagine Microsoft building, pricing and selling their own hardware … and the Dells and Compaqs and HPs of this world gone. Competition is what helps the PC price undercut the MAC’s.
They are creative. They cater to the creative niche. And nothing wrong with that. Its a cool machine, a great development OS (I’m a developer) and its costs what it costs. But in the larger picture … its hard to justify when you’re looking at productivity and cost.
I’m excited about the Mac INTELs!!!! Best of both worlds … and possibly, some hardware flexibility. I’d love to be able to spend $200 and pick up the latest copy of OSX and run it on my comparatively inexpensive custom built PC.
(For some odd reason – I keep buying these Apple things. I’ve had two 68000 processor MACs. I have the last beige G3 MAC running both OS9 and OSX and now I’ve got the Dual Processor. I don’t use the old machines since modern Apple software isn’t backward compatible. I hate that word. It has been a dog in the PC world — but it sure is nice to be able to continue to install and use my 5 year old Adobe suite which I paid an arm and a leg for on each new PC I buy. I can’t seem to get my OS9 FreeHand Quark or Illustrator to fire up on my G5 🙂 and Adobe doesn’t really give me an easy way to upgrade (which I really shouldn’t have to do – I like the featuresset on my old version!) In the past, Apple was a steep and slipper slope. Pay more for the unit and can’t use the software in our next generation of boxes. I hope they change that … right after their next big switch to the INTEL chip.)
“The keyword was BUILT, not gaming.”
Okay, I was confused… I don’t even think about “building” a computer anymore; that’s something I leave to someone else. And it seems a given that you can’t build your own Mac, so it didn’t even cross my mind.
Unfortunately, that will never happen. The first rule one needs to understand about Apple is that Apple is a hardware company. They are not a software company, even though they happen to make some of the best software out there. Inasmuch as they make great software, it’s always as a way of getting people to buy Apple hardware – such as an iPod or a Mac.
Apple won’t release OS X for generic PCs because it would cut into Apple’s hardware sales, which is where they make their money. Furthermore, because Apple controls the hardware (mostly), they needn’t worry about the kind of legacy support for crap hardware that makes Windows so clunky.
I’ve build dozens of PCs in the last few years, from servers to gaming rigs. And while it would be nice to be able to build a custom Mac, it’s not in Apple’s interest to move into that market.