Apple more secure than Windows? Computer says no

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apple did develop fixes for most of the exploits that were developed. And there are now only about 7 viruses and Trojan Horse programs that can attack a Mac, compared to an unbelieveable number of viruses and other malware for Windows.

But you have to realize that Apple is a small part of the market. You should be able to find enough software for a Mac unless you are really into games. But as the Mac OS X operating system is updated sometimes it takes a while before hardware manufacturers of scanners and printers develop new software for the new Mac OSs. It is kind of a good idea to have Boot Camp on a Mac so that you can run Windows XP as an alternate OS. I have used Macs for many years. I would recommend a different firewall than the one included in the OS-like NetBarrier or Doorstop Firewall X. And a antivirus program like Norton Antivirus for the Macintosh or else VirusBarrier. Internet Cleanup is available as a antispyware program.

It can get frustrating owning a Mac when Apple upgrades the OS and it is a while before the software and hardware manufacturers catch up. Otherwise a Mac is a joy to use and you have much less concern going online. A good hardware router would still be a good idea.

I was never much into gaming so the relative lack of games for the Mac did not bother me.

With the Microsoft Office for the Macintosh you can do everything you want to the same as in Microsoft Office and a Windows computer. And with Boot Camp you can run Windows XP anyway (you would still need security for the Windows XP if you went online). The Apple computers seem expensive but really are not that much more expensive than a Windows computer. And it is a real breath of fresh air not having to worry about security so much. However, it may be possible that Windows Vista is more secure. We will see.
 
Major Vista disty here ran out of stock. Banks like Westpac moving 20,000 users to Vista ASAP. My clients in Defence are going to Vista right now. Buying everything with 4GB RAM by the way. It's huge!

s
 
Sprintman what I am hearing is that Vista is really coming through in regards to security so far-of course Vista has just barely come out. But there are layers of security in Vista and a lot of the stuff in it most people have never heard of. There are actual claims on the internet (such as a security report from Symantec) which basically say that Vista is MORE secure than Mac OS X! Of course a person still needs an antivirus.

I personally like the appearance of Vista very much. I have a Vista computer and almost all of my software and hardware so far has worked with Vista (sometimes needing a software update to work). I have been impressed with how even cookies are blocked depending on what preferences a person sets up in Internet Explorer. My internet security suite rarely finds anything but an occasional cookie that has managed to get through. And the OS is much more capable than XP-out of the box you can burn DVDs and not just CDs like Vista (as long as you have an optical drive that is capable of burning DVDs). I never thought I would say this but I like Windows Media Player in Vista better than iTunes. Heck, I might dump iTunes. Of course you still need QuickTime.

With Windows Vista Home Premium you get a lot of good applications. My computer is stock except for a lowend video graphics card so that I can run Aero. You need a computer that has a good hard drive with plenty of space, probably at least 1 GB of RAM and maybe 2 GB better, a graphics card, and a reasonably fast processor.

I am keeping my fingers crossed but so far the other shoe has not dropped with Vista when it comes to security. Heck, Symantec has had problems with Microsoft recently and I don't think Symantec and Microsoft are on the best of speaking terms right now, but Symantec seems to be saying that Vista has outstanding security.

You say a major bank is moving people to Vista? Do they encourage the people to buy Vista computers or do they require it? It is interesting that Defense is moving to Vista. This says something does it not?

To be very honest when Vista was under development (a development that seemed to take from here to eternity) I was not very optimistic about Vista, and I said so here. I thought Vista was going to be another Windows ME. Well, I was wrong. It looks like Vista will be a true alternative to Mac OS X. With much more software available and hardware more likely to be compatible. And Vista servers will likely improve the security of the internet.

We will have to see. There are a lot of very evil people out there trying to target Vista right now. 5 years from now maybe Vista will look like Windows XP when it comes to security. I simply do not know. For everybody's sake I hope Vista's security holds.

At this time fewer security updates are being required for Vista than Linux OSs and Mac OS X.
 
I have heard that Microsoft expects to sell 368 million copies of Vista in the first year. There are supposed to be some 1 billion desktop computers on the internet now and of course the number of computers in the world just keeps increasing. But if Microsoft really does sell 368 million copies of Vista in its first year it is pretty easy to see that even in the first year Vista should make up a considerable percentage of desktop computer operating systems. In 2 years my guess is that Vista will make up at least 50% of computer desktop operating systems. 2 years from now Microsoft is supposed to have another new operating system code named 'Vienna' or something like that.

It certainly looks like Vista is a winner and I have to admit that at first I did not think it would be. Apple Computer has sold 22 million total copies of Mac OS X according to what I have found out. That is over about a 6 year period of time. I like the Mac OS (although I think I liked the Classic Mac OSs more) but it is clear that the Mac is a sideshow. Vista in 2 months has sold almost as many copies as all of the Mac OS X copies together. Anybody not developing software and hardware for Vista is crazy-they will be left in the dust if they do not develop for Vista.

Windows XP and probably even Windows 2000 will be around for a while. But the Sun will set for these OSs fairly soon.

Linux is always 'next year.' In the computer industry everything is 'now.' I have heard for so long how 'next year' Linux would amount to something that I have become tired of hearing it. Linux is big only in the case of servers and from the looks of things it might be a good idea to get a Windows Vista server.

The Mac will probably never be more then about 10% of the market or so. It is 5% now.

So we now see the next 2 years anyway of the most important OS-Vista. Soon enough it will be the dominant OS. At least until 'Vienna' perhaps takes its place.

And if Vista's security is for real there will be a lot of Vista servers. Linux, Mac OS X, etc., better get their act together very, very soon. Nobody has been able to compete with Microsoft for a long time now. I think at one time Apple was 30% of the market and that is ancient history.

Microsoft pulled it off after all-even when some of their top supporters had abandoned them and said Vista was a 'train wreck.'
 
Actually, I think I will start using Windows Vista exclusively and sell my iMac. I have been using 2 OSs but I really need to decide on 1. I still have a few items I need to check out and see if they are compatible with Windows Vista. Even if they are not I can continue running an old Windows XP computer in addition to the Windows Vista computer. The main reason I keep using the Mac was for security, but if Windows Vista has a reasonable level of security the Mac becomes kind of pointless.

During most of the past several years I have been using Macintosh computers. Occasionally I have used both Mac and Windows. Actually since Apple went to Mac OS X I have not really been happy. Without question Apple has some great software and applications but the main things I need to do (like photo editing) I can do in Windows as well. The last Apple OS I really liked was the Classic OS 9.1. Mac OS 10.0 was a complete joke and it was really until Apple released 10.3 that Mac OS X really became good. Using the Mac you always have the problem that the Mac is a sideshow with a small market.

Windows 2000 was fairly good, Windows XP was pretty good but bad security, and Windows Vista so far looks pretty great. Unless the other shoe drops when it comes to security Vista, in all frankness, looks superior to Mac OS X. Vista looks good (a few rough edges), is apparently secure, and there will be a lot of compatible software and hardware. Mac OS X is very smooth and polished but it appears that if anybody really wanted to go after the Mac with exploits and malware they could probably do so fairly easily.

I have never seriously considered Linux-it is always 'wait until next year it will be great.' Yeah right. If I was using a Linux computer I would have to research that every part of that computer was compatible, and I would have to make sure that any scanner or printer or other hardware I wanted to use with it was definitely 100% compatible. And I will forever remember how a anti-Trojan program I had discovered a possible backdoor in Firefox. I have never had faith in open source software since that time. Open source software can come from anywhere, inclduing countries not exactly friendly with my country, and anything can happen when open source software is distributed.

It is kind of sad that Microsoft has such dominance in the market place and it would be nice if Apple was 30%, Microsoft 30%, Linux 30%, so that there was competition. But we live in an imperfect world.

My feeling is that even when it comes to servers if Vista proves to be reasonably secure Microsoft will even become dominant in the server world. After all a Microsoft Vista server is much easier to setup than a Linux or BSD server.

Windows is simply a real good desktop computer OS and there is no reason why Microsoft will not continue to dominate in desktop computer OSs for the forseeable future.
 
I made a mistake in one of the replies I made for this posting. Actually, Microsoft sold 20 million copies of Windows Vista in a single month and not 2 months. So they sold almost as many copies of Windows Vista as Apple Computer has apparently sold copies of Mac OS X in about 6 years.

At a rate of 20 million copies of Vista a month there would be 240 million copies of Vista sold the first year. Vista in its first year will easily be one of the major operating systems.
 
Mystic, A Windows server is NOT easier to setup than Linux. I've setup many Windows boxes over the years. The average DVD to fully-patched setup for Linux (I use SLES 10) is about 1 hour. Windows 2003? 90 minutes minimum.

I've been quite surprised at how silky-smooth the Linux distros (SuSE in my case) have become for install/config. While 2003 is 'easy', SuSE is a whole bunch easier. Setting up file shares for Windows networking is as simple as copying a single text file from one Linux server to another, changing the server name in that file (if needed ) and setting the Samba service to load a boot time. That's it. No configuring anything with adding-in ABE, WGA, WIndows Update, etc. It just works and works well.

I suggest you stay with your Mac. But you guessed I'd say that, right?
smile.gif


There's also a recent post of how vendors aren't all that 'sold' on Vista. My own experience of recent PC purchases is that people do NOT want Vista. Why? When the average consumer buys a 'computer', that 'computer' has the familiar XP look & feel. Anything else isn't a 'computer'. Microsoft is caught in their own juggernaut, save for the forced-Vista (or any new Microsoft O.S.) on the new PC you purchase.
 
Don't get me wrong ToytoaNSaturn. I like the Mac OS. But I think the cat is out of the bag when it comes to Mac OS X security. It is highly likely that if the people who attack computers wanted to attack Mac OS X they could do so and could easily take over computers. Possible exploits have been found. Apple would probably have to do some major work to insure a higher level of security.

The likely reasons why Apple continues to not be attacked is that most major businesses do not use much in the way of Macs usually unless you are talking about a graphics design business, and the Mac is simply too little of a target.

It is a very sad day when Microsoft, so well known for poor security, actually advances past the Mac with advanced security features that should have been put into the Mac OS a long time ago in my opinion.

The Mac continues to be a very polished well designed combination of outstanding computers and excellent OS. But better security is required.

As for Linux, I am not a great fan of open source software even though that is the 'in' thing. I still remember very well finding a possible backdoor in Firefox on a Windows computer using an anti-Trojan program. Open source software can be developed anywhere, and nothing is stopping somebody somewhere deliberately putting a backdoor in the software they develop. And even if they do not do so, as open source software is being distributed somebody somewhere along the line can add some junk.

Linux is fine for a server, although OpenBSD at least and maybe Mac OS X and Vistas servers are better. But Linux for a desktop? Maybe, if all you want to do is use an office program and print to a printer that is actually compatible with Linux. A computer graphics company better stick to Macs or Windows! It becomes a nightmare real quickly when you have to make sure every component on your computer, and every scanner, and every program, and every printer is compatible. Personally, I am sick and tired of the usual Linux statement-'Wait until next year; Linux will be great!' Too many next years.

To top everything else security holes are being found in increasing numbers in various Linux OSs! In comparison, 2 security holes found in OpenBSD in 10 years!

Macs and Windows computers on the desktops behind OpenBSD servers is a better idea. Of course, you have to be ready to setup an OpenBSD server or two. Not exactly the most enjoyable thing to do.

If all of the servers on the internet were OpenBSD servers we would have far better security today.

But the worse problem? People who download email attachments, don't keep their security software updated, download all kinds of unknown software programs and 'cute' butterfly screensavers, and visit X-rated websites where you are just asking for trouble. Peer-to-peer networks, file sharing, pirated software sites-all bad news. Those are the people whose computers are taken over and used as 'bots to attack websites and launch denial of service attacks, sent mass spam, and other computer crime.
 
I am afraid Apple Computer has also had to issue some major security updates recently. And a very major flaw was discovered recently that would allow somebody to take over a Mac and do whatever they wanted to.

I think it would be very wise for Apple Computer to take a really good look at their OS security and also the security of applications used on the Mac. It is beginning to look like the security of Mac OS X was an illusion-it just looked good because hardly anybody with evil intent was really taking a look at the OS. Now that some are looking holes are being found.

I think Apple Computer has a little bit of time to develop some better security before things may start to begin to happen. If they spend this time wisely the Mac will continue to have a good security record. Do nothing or do little in the time that is available would be very unwise in my opinion. The Mac is now apparently about 6% of the market in the USA. If it reaches 10% of the market there will be a lot more evil people taking a good look at the OS.
 
Of course, Apple Computer will never listen to us. We are not important. But they better listen to somebody. A major attack on the Mac OS X might actually be a blessing in disguise.

I have used Macs for many years and let me tell you there are a lot of people who use Macs who run their computers with no security whatsoever other than maybe turning on the firewall. Some of them might be running their computers without even turning on the firewalls, and firewalls in Mac OS X MUST be turned on by the owners. The firewall is not on by default. I know a lot fo people who use Macs without any antivirus protection. They laugh at the insecurity of OSs like Windows XP.

There are people using Macs who probably do not even know how to turn on the firewall. Considering the behavior of many Mac owners the Mac is a target just waiting to be exploited. Coming from a Windows background to start (my first computer was a Windows 95 computer) I always used a firewall and I always had an antivirus program on my Macs. I even had antispyware protection oftentimes. Maybe all those years I could have run with no protection and maybe I was too paranoid. But I always wanted to run safe.

With so many people who own Macs not even using an antivirus the Mac is just a target waiting to happen. And if the bad people ever discover that target the will come running because there are a lot of wealthy people and major computer graphics companies that use the Mac. Heck, a lot of those rich Hollywood types use Macs. The Mac may be a small market but there ARE 22 million Mac OS X users.

It should be apparent to anybody that the Mac faces fewer threats than Windows because people do hook Macs up to the internet with no antivirus program and maybe the firewall not even turned on and they get away with it. A Windows computer hooked up to the internet with no firewall and no antivirus will have problems likely to happen within minutes. But the happy days are likely over.

There is technology that can be employed that would make the Mac and applications used on the Mac much safer. Some of that technology is already being used in BSD OSs to some extent. For the sake of the Mac I hope the Mac OS X OS has some of that security pretty soon. And I think the day has come for people who use Macs to learn how to turn on their firewalls and install an antivirus program. And learn a few common sense rules for exploring the internet and downloading email.
 
To be fair I have to point out that some of the exploits that have been discovered that can affect the Mac OS X are either highly unlikely or probably would not affect a lot of people. One really serious exploit requires people to go to a website where a lethal Applescript is installed on a person's computer. The people would have to be encouraged somehow to go to that website, maybe with alleged pictures of a new Apple OS. And a Applescript is not a virus and cannot spread. The website probably could not stay up very long and maybe only a few thousand people whould visit the site before it was taken down. In order for a lot of Apple Computers to be affected some kind of a worm that can reproduce would have to be created.

So although I think Apple needs to do some work on security Mac OS X is still pretty secure. There are still only something like 7 malware programs that can affect Mac OS X, compared to many thousands of stuff that can affect Windows.

However, it is possible for somebody to possibly gain control of an Apple Computer remotely using an exploit and then do something-send SPAM, attack websites, whatever. That is the kind of stuff they do nowadays anyway rather than trying to get a virus on a computer. The cypercriminals want to make money so they will usually not try to destroy a computer. But there are of course still anti-socials who want to destroy a computer or are trying to impress their friends.
 
Last edited:
Only thing I know is that an anti-Trojan program I was using indicated a possible backdoor in Firefox. And take a good look how open source software is distributed. If some open source software happens to be developed in, say China, what is to stop the developers from putting a backdoor in their software? Is the open source software really being checked out that well? We are talking about an awful lot of lines of code! Who is checking it? And if the developers do not put anything bad in it-take a real good look how the software is distributed. What is stopping some evil person or group from adding something?

Now of course Microsoft or Apple or Sun Microsystems or whoever or whatever can put stuff in their software too. Companies that develop applications can put stuff in their software. I owned a defragmenting program that would try to call headquarters everytime I turned the computer on! Can you say spyware? Some of the people who spread adware are actually large corporations! Sony put something in their software to try to prevent illegal copying of DVDs-ever hear of the Sony rootkit?

But it is a myth that nothing bad can be put into open source software. I think I would check the open source software coming out of Iran extra close. And who is checking the stuff? It is free. Who is checking out all those lines of code? Anybody? Exactly how easy is it to check thousands of lines of computer code-computer code that is free and what is the motivation of the person working hard doing all of that code checking? Is there really all that much code checking of open source software? The programmers at Microsoft and Apple get good paychecks to develop and check computer code and they still miss stuff-there are still mistakes and so forth that get missed. So who is doing this bang up job checking the open source stuff?

Don't think anything can be included that should not be there? I have used Macs for many years. A computer magazine accidentally released a virus on a CD that was included with their magazine. They did not do it on purpose and their antivirus checking missed it. So we are to believe that something cannot be put into open source software?

And take a look at the number of exploits that are being discovered in various Linux OSs. I can remember the Linux people saying how secure Linux OSs are. That Linux software is often open source software and is being checked out all the time. I would like to know who these super people are checking out all of those line sof code when Microsoft and Apple with paid programmers can miss mistakes in software. Would you be willing to check all of those thousands of line sof code in open source software-for free?

Now that Firefox is reaching something like 10% of the market or more look at the problems that are being found in it.
 
The average person's Window's computer is choked with adware and spyware. There are thousands of freeware and shareware programs that potentially can include adware or spyware. Somewhere in the 5 million word agreement you have to sign before downloading that cute butterfly screensaver they probably even tell you in confusing lanuage that you are about to download some adware. The people trying to put spyware on your computer do not even care if you agree or not. I don't think Microsoft programmers wrote that adware and spyware code. And I don't think Apple or Sun Microsystems programmers wrote it either. Now I am not saying that all freeware and shareware is bad. But you have to be careful. Those nice people making that butterfly screensaver available for free may not have your best interests to heart. And somebody developing open source software in Iran may not have your best interests to heart either.

There can be 8 million lines of code in a Linux OS. Who is checking all of that code-for free? And there can be a lot of code in applications for Linux. Who is checking all of those lines of code-for free? I want a paycheck if they want me to check the code.
 
Quote:


Who is checking all of that code-for free?


Click to expand...

The kernel developers. The first link I supplied answers all your questions. Yes, people are looking at the code. No, the code is not perfect. Errors are caught because ANYONE can look at the code and submit a bug report. Projects are developed by COMMUNITIES of people who have reputations; code is subjected to PEER REVIEW prior to being incorporated into releases. Releases have SOURCE code ANYONE can look at.

Open source code is not freeware or shareware. Your butterfly screensaver did not come with source code; had it, others could have warned you of possible REGISTRY modifications unrelated to saving your screen.
 
millions of people look at the linux source code, including big corporations like IBM and Sun and Novell and even Microsoft.

if some terrorist got some malicious code into the kernel EVERYONE would know, m$ would be all over the news touting their os as superior etc blah blah blah..
 
More updates for Vista today:

vista2.jpg



Note the "restart now" button...It's 2007. You'd think that MS could make patches without having to reboot the flippin' system nearly every time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

OVERKILL
Ivanti VPN appliance breach hits critical mass
Replies
5
Views
611
PandaBear
OVERKILL
The Dragon who sold his Camaro: Analyzing custom router implant
2
Replies
23
Views
869
Rand
1 SX
Apple MacBook Pro M1 vs i7/i9 15" or 16"
Replies
5
Views
827
NO2
OVERKILL
old Mac adventures!
Replies
8
Views
920
bunnspecial
ZeeOSix
Adobe Flashplayer EOL Info
Replies
9
Views
875
spackard
Back
Top