ARGH! Badly Maintained PC Rant!

[mattyrigby00]

macs "cant get" viruses because when people write viruses they want to hit the biggest amount of people possible, and only something like 5% of computers are macs so no one bothers to write viruses for them.

also macs are slightly faster because there is barely any programs for them so the OS has all the cpu time rather than having to share it with programs.

 

[LordSplodge]

What are you saying, that you're annoyed as us because we proved that Windows Vista had less vulnerabilities in its first year than Mac OSX 10.4, and fixed a higher percentage of them? The only reason I can see for you to be mad about that is if you're some kind of fanboy and arguing from emotion instead of from logic.

OK I'll stay in the thread a bit longer for your entertainment.

Graph aside (I don't have the time to check and verify what the vunerabilties are and so on. I'll take it on face value at the moment showing that Windows Vista is less vulnerable than OS X 10.4) it is my personal opinion that an Apple and OS X is a better choice for the new or casual computer user.

It is my professional opinion that UNIX and therefore OS X and Linux is a more secure computing platform.

Sure I prefer Apple but I am old enough to remember OS x 10.0 and OS 9.

 

[LordSplodge]

You're the one who decided to get smug in your original post, don't get bitter because your high horse has dashed off. Just graciously accept that you were over-exaggerating how secure OSX is and move on.

Oh I am still smug about my original post for the reasons I stated.

 

[Darkwave]

Graph aside (I don't have the time to check and verify what the vunerabilties are and so on. I'll take it on face value at the moment showing that Windows Vista is less vulnerable than OS X 10.4) it is my personal opinion that an Apple and OS X is a better choice for the new or casual computer user.

That is not what I was debating, I was debating your original claim that it's a more secure OS than Windows. It was nothing but a mindless Windows bash and it backfired, and you know it.

It is my professional opinion that UNIX and therefore OS X and Linux is a more secure computing platform.

Your better make a professional analysis and graph then, because mr.sly's says otherwise

 

[LordSplodge]

That is not what I was debating, I was debating your original claim that it's a more secure OS than Windows. It was nothing but a mindless Windows bash and it backfired, and you know it.

Your better make a professional analysis and graph then, because mr.sly's says otherwise

I am going to stand by my original claim that OS X is more secure than Windows.

Comparing the number of patched and disclosed vulnerabilities is a controversial method of comparing the security between products. Different operating systems have different features, offering attackers diverse ways to hit the software

and

Microsoft Strategy Director Jeff Jones recently published a Vista 6-month vulnerability report. This report examined the state of Vista security in the first six months of the system's availability and answers one criticism about the first report: that it covered too short a timeframe to be relevant. But Jones' new report is controversial for other reasons. You see, the data he provided demonstrates that Vista is, in fact, more secure than competitors such as OS X and Linux.

The data for mr.sly's graph was provided by Microsoft so is bound to be spun in a way that would make Apple and Linux look bad as would any data from Apple be the other way round.

That's the great thing about statistics...you can make them say whatever you want...

...or should I stick to my Windows bashing, it is fun after all!

 

[mr.sly]

Feel free to read the PDF yourself and spin the facts whatever way you want...

http://blogs.technet.com/security/a...dows-vista-one-year-vulnerability-report.aspx

Q: You work for Microsoft, so why should we believe anything you say?
The other variation on this is “would you have still published if the results for bad for Microsoft?”

People may be surprised to learn that I always like it when I get this question. The real answer is that I was not really worried about getting bad results. A better question might be why I was confident enough in the results to initiate the project.

Think about it – Microsoft has been investing heavily in security improvements for products for about 6 years now. The commitment to security is real – I made myself as sure of that as I could before I joined the company. Others may believe that or not, but I’ve been here for five years and observed the executive commitment and hard work first hand. I’ve had the pleasure of working with some great security people like Mike Howard and David Cross. I was here as the team grew and we attracted great industry experts like James Whittaker and more recently, Vinny Gullotto.

Because of that, I can say what I always so. Be skeptical! Assume I’m “spinning” things if you wish and try to go find out for yourself. That is ultimately my goal – to get people to actively question and dig into why the results turn out the way they do. All of my sources are identified in Appendix B: Sources and Methodology, so anyone can work to duplicate the analysis in this report. I am happy to discuss findings with them.

 

[Darkwave]

I am going to stand by my original claim that OS X is more secure than Windows.

Show me the evidence.

The data for mr.sly's graph was provided by Microsoft so is bound to be spun in a way that would make Apple and Linux look bad as would any data from Apple be the other way round.

That's the great thing about statistics...you can make them say whatever you want...

I see mr.sly has already answered this one so I'll leave it.

...or should I stick to my Windows bashing, it is fun after all!

Dude if you're that bored just play some Crysis or something... "U see wut I did thar?" J/K lol.

Honestly though, I bet serious Mac users hate the ones who parade smugly like you did.