Silver Mac

This new version just scrolls like butter…

47 Responses to “Why there are no viruses for OS X”

1. Ken said: Sun, 20 July 2008 at 12:53

   I like AD%’s reply also:
   “Also ask this question. Why is there no “real” virus for Vista that has caused problems for lots of users? There hasnt even been any decent virus thats had an impact on even for XP in a long time. There hasnt been a Blaster type virus in recent years. In fact Vista has had fewer security issues in its first 12 months than Leopard did. Oh and OSX got hacked before Vista in the hacking contest.

   I think Mac and Windows are now both pretty secure.

   Operating systems are now far more secure and most users (especially Windwos users) are very security aware. Vendors also do a real good job of updating their operating systems these days. These systems are now more difficult to attack.

   A few years ago Windows systems didnt have automatic updates turned on, had no firewall and were using older browsers. That has all changed.

   Attackers are turning to new methods (e.g XSS, Phishing etc) for financial gain.”

2. Jonas Odencrants said: Sun, 20 July 2008 at 23:09

   Excellent answer, and it is and interesting mather but still the market share is a part of it aswell:) Since an attack gets more buzz if its launched and succesfull on several hosts, theres more to gain. But open souceness of unix is also part of it, if you find a bad bug you can always make a patching spray to kill it, which helps to secure a system and gains you recognition. But I would agree on Kens thoughts aswell, Im in on the idea that a system is no more secure than its user.

3. Tom said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 01:36

   There are not big viruses for Vista because those who used to write them now are sending spam, and doing some phising, things that help them pay their food, not just destroying systems.
   Torrents sites are something big too.

   Sorry for my englsih

4. peter said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 02:48

   Is it just maybe that very few people hate mac os so much to spend their valuable time writing viruses to make its users life so much more difficult, it;s quite the opposite with windows.

5. Clifford said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 04:50

   Windows servers only run about 30% of the web. The rest is Unix style Operating Systems. Market share is a factor, but has proven to be not an issue with *nix systems. If you wanted to take down Google, Yahoo, the NYSE, US Post Office, ect…, you would simply write a virus for Linux/Unix. It would do more damage, cause more chaos, and make you a legend.

   Ken, OSX did get hacked first, Windows second, but Linux never did. I believe the answer to why it wasn’t was that they didn’t want to put in the effort it would take.

   Microsoft has learned a lot over the years but that still doesn’t explain their slowly eroding market share. Quite simply they are old and bloated.

6. anonymous said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 04:54

   There aren’t any viruses with vista because none of them are compatible like 90% of software that worked on xp. There aren’t many viruses for OS X because all mac-haters aren’t smart enough to write a virus for mac. They’re too ignorant to even try it because its something different. Plus OS X has plenty of hidden security that doesn’t have to inform you every time something has been changed. Instead it takes care of the problem itself.

7. Rob said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 05:58

   Peter and anonymous,
   You should really read this post above before responding and making total fools of yourselves.

8. John Smith said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 07:11

   This post and the whole topic makes fool of itself so you don’t have to bother calling names…

9. Anonymous said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 07:21

   I felt I had to give a quick response to this, to give a more balanced account. The response is quick, I didn’t proof read it, it may not be entirely objective, but it should give some idea of the other side of the coin, and that’s my only intention.

   1. Historically inaccurate, pretty much a fallacious straw man. If you want to get pedantic, I think you’ll find Windows’ Group Police system is more robust than the generic UNIX user a group system, it just has usability issues. “security architecture built in” is a joke, I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. Security isn’t some magical singular design consideration you throw into the mix at conception, although there is a point here, only it’s repeated later, where I’ll deal with it.

   2. Define networking, a quick google shows UNICS was released in 1969, the first TCP/IP stack was released with Berkeley 4.2 in 1983. I don’t class over a decade as “from the beginning”. Windows had networking “bolted on” seems another straw man. If we want to get technical, Windows has had multiple different network stack implementations since conception, so I don’t know that the point is getting at. Assuming it was “bolted on”, how does that relate to security? If you can name some design flaws specific to the Windows network stack with is attributable to major security weaknesses, then fine. But I doubt anyone can, because that’s not the real issue, or an issue at all.

   3. Microsoft did screw up here, and decoupled Internet Explorer. Whereas it was directly responsible for at least some exploitation (ActiveX controls in IE6 and below, WMF etc), and indirectly responsible for more, I don’t see this being in any way related to viruses in themselves. Sure it may have caused more, that’s mainly historically, and not by that large a margin. All browsers are buggy, if you think Safari is safe you should read up on some of the arbitary code execution bugs found in previous versions, as well as the carpet bombing bug the developers failed to treat as a security concern when it was pointed out to them (very Microsoftesque, no?). The browser itself is just a tool, all of them have some security issues (notice how Firefox’s went up astronomically when it hit the 10% mark and people took notice), so the playing field in this department is pretty level. Most compromises are not the browser’s fault, as in they could happen in any browser, so history aside, in 2008 I don’t think you can feasibly look to Internet Explorer as a reason why there are “more viruses”.

   4. This is the real point, that 1) was getting at but failing to. The biggy is in most versions of Windows (not Vista), the user run with full privileges, and so if any malware did turn up, it could effectively turn into a rootkit or do any amount of damage. The solution is clearly to run with less privileges, so the maximum amount of damage is restricted to a user’s own personal files (e.g /home/user or C:\Users\user). Once Windows finally made this transition, the scope of damage was drastically reduced. Another consideration was the XP SP2 addition and enabling of a fully fledged Firewall, that had similar consequeces, but the original poster failed to mention this important aspect, so I’ll ignore it.

   5. APIs having holes seems a particularly vague and catch-all description of a problem. Whereas there might be some truth to it, I just don’t see where the hoard of vulnerabilities can come from via old APIs. Backwards compatibility wise, if there was something abusable, you’d just add extra checks and if a condition came up where you thought someone was trying to break into the system, throw an error, compatiblity be damned. For example message passing in Windows was a notorious bug among the security scene, as it allowed you to force other Windows (think high privileged ones such as Antivirus software UIs), to put large chunks of texts into fields causing a buffer overflow, and alike. Windows Vista blocked this by ensuring you could only pass messages to windows/processes of which you had privileges to. This was just an extra safeguard, no change of the API necessary, and so without more evidence, I have to conclude this point is too steeped in ignorance to be considered.

   6. So what? The registry has been permissions bound for as long as I can remember, if the user was running with full permissions, it falls under 4), so what’s the new point here? Whether applications store information in /etc/ or the registry makes on difference from a security standpoint if a permissions system is employed to stop unauthorised modification.

   7. This is just a reincarnation of 4). It asks for your password because the user doesn’t have permission to install programs to the main directory, just like in Vista a user can’t modify C:\Program Files\ without elevated permissions, à la UAC. Of course, because it’s Microsoft here, if they do it properly everyone says it’s annoying, and if they do it half arsed, everyone jumps to point out security weaknesses. It’s impossible for them to please everyone with a correct balance, because security wise, the correct balance is zero tolerance. Go figure.

   As for a virus, let’s expand the definition to malware, which is what people really mean when they say virus these days. The VX scene has dwindled to practically dead, nobody writes the historically defined virus any more, it’s not worth it. It’s perfectly possible to write malware for OS X, exploiting some of the many vulnerabilities that surely reside there for such things as privilege escalation, to override the permissions system, or if not just trashing your home directory. People don’t partly because it’s more work, although from a security standpoint, if you’re using the box as a server, you’re more likely to get hacked than if you’re using Windows Server, mainly because the vast majority of hackers use Linux.

   That aside, I think the reason Mac OS X isn’t abused as much as Windows is basically down to market share. Maybe it wasn’t always the case, and maybe if the market share was 40%, Windows would still be attacked proportionately more. But I bet it wouldn’t be by much. Just as Firefox came under fire when it hit the user boundry, and Safari is starting to come under fire now anyway because of OS X’s increased market share, sooner or later people are going to go for the OS itself. How successful they are isn’t the question, whether or not they’ll try is, and if you think the OS X security model is so strong as to avoid the attention of some dedicated hackers, you’re in for a shock.

10. Mark said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 10:00

    You missed some other important items. Where do viruses usually hang out in Windows:

    1. At the root.
    2. In the user’s local settings temp folder.
    3. In these folders: \windows, \system, \system32 — the most common places where I find viruses.
    4. As registry entries.

    None of those areas are exposed to the environment in OS X. You can’t see those folders. Virus writers can’t access them. Thus, viruses can’t exploit those areas. Vista’s UAC is MS’s attempt to prevent changes to those totally exposed folders without your being aware of the changes.

    Mac OS X was written in an entirely different way in the first place. Since those areas are essentially hidden away it is automatically a far more superior OS than Windows could ever hope to be. That is my professional opinion based on 20 years work with DOS, Windows (starting with Windows 1.0. Yes, 1.0), and 2.5 years work with OS X.

    The market share excuse is just that. An excuse. As an MCSE I love Windows because it’s such a crappy OS I will have a job until I retire!!

11. Kenny said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 10:21

    Look, I’m using windows right now but also have a MAC. On the PC, all sorts of bugs and viruses infect this computer constantly. The Mac doesn’t have that problem at all. Nothing seems to ever slow it down and I’ve had it since 2002. The PC is two years old and now a piece of crap. It seems like I can’t do anything to avoid reloading windows every few months. On the Apple, I can click any link on the internet without worry. Its great, you PC cheapskates can enjoy all of the nonsense that comes with a Windows-based operating system and I’ll enjoy my 6 year old, lightning-fast, problem-free MAC.

12. tc said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 11:14

    Anonymous: oh, the kids these days. TCP/IP (version 4) is the only kind of networking? Did you think we only had sneakernet in the 1970’s?

    TCP/IP may have been the first flexible, non-proprietary, well-specified protocol, but we had UDP (1980), UUCP (1979), DECnet: (1974-1975), X.25 (1976), NCP (1970), and others.

    The internet (nee ARPANET) didn’t always even run TCP/IP. FTP (1971) and telnet (1969) both ran on NCP (1970) originally, until ARPANET switched to IP in 1983.

13. pji said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 11:20

    Mark: That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. If you were one of my IT guys you would be fired on the spot.

    It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about since the /System folder is no more “hidden” than c:\windows or /usr/sbin. EVERY operating system can be exploited, there are no exceptions.

    The market share explanation: All of you may just be overlooking a simple fact or are just naive. Why would worm/phishing/virus writers waste their time on anything that doesn’t have at least 70% market share? If any other operating system was in the same position, regardless of perceived security, it would be the most vulnerable to attack. That market share includes everyone from experts to a few brain cells above vegetative state. Can you guess which side of the scale has the most issues?

    As an aside, did you ever ask yourself what operating system and database software is being used by Wachovia, Bank of America, etc. when they were hacked? Some were even hacked multiple times with entire databases of customer data being stolen.

    I’ll give you a hint: It wasn’t a Microsoft or Apple product.

    Kenny: I suggest you stop using a PC if you can’t stop going to sites that bypass Microsoft and third party security measures and compromise your machine. How else would malware get on your computer? It doesn’t magically appear without you doing something. If you have heard or believe different, that simply supports my first statement.

14. Anonymous said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 11:59

    Mark: the folders aren’t accessible in a non-privileged user. If you used a lower user account in XP, then nothing would be able to ordinarily write to those areas. The fact you commonly find viruses says quite a lot about you as a user, but
    I’m not going to go there. UAC is just a frontend to the privilege system (I’m oversimplifying in context, so sue me), and isn’t really related to any design issues allowing malware.

    If you have 20 years experience, I worry for the state of society, as you’re clearly not a power user given by your shoffy explanation of OS design and your laughable comparison of OS X and Windows. Saying Windows is a crappy OS is just an inane belittlement of something. It’s personal preference, as a standard user there’s really not that big a difference, and for my needs as a programmer I find Linux and Windows more than adequate.

    People were throwing these kinds of arguments out when Firefox came along, and as a user of it I know it’s susceptible to bugs and exploitation, just as everything else is. It has no magic protection, it’s just it took people awhile to bother probing
    and attacking it. The same will happen to OS X, it’s how well they can manage it that’s the real issue of security, not whether or not they’ll try.

    Kenny: the problem is no doubt your ignorance in security matters, you shouldn’t be expected to know how to take precautions. I regularly use Windows and Linux (not OS X, I like picking which hardware I can use), and I’ve never had any viruses or malware affect either of them. I don’t run an antivirus, I don’t need to, nor do I run spyware scanners or the sort. I don’t use software with a bad security track record (you pay point to Windows, but in the grand scale of security, every OS has a pretty bad track record), and I don’t run random software that hasn’t been vetted. It’s really not that hard. You experience shows you that you can take less precautions on your Mac than you can on a PC and get away with it, good for you.

    tc: thanks for the boring and patronising history of network protocols, although it’s completely irrelevant in the context of the article. I couldn’t care less what people used before anyone bothered building malware on any sort of scale. Anything
    before the internet isn’t really an issue imho, we’re talking about modern times, and I was just giving a simplistic answer to the false claim that UNIX was using modern networking by design since conception, and that it wasn’t refactored in at a
    later time. But thanks for your input, now back to your punch cards, old man.

    pji appears to be the only person who has read the article, and made the very obvious deductions regarding it. At least there’s some hope…

    Disclaimer: I’m oversimplifying all the time, anyone with an even rudimentary knowledge of security could tear apart my poor simplifications. I’m merely trying to get across a point, and correct gaping errors. I’m well aware that it’s a lot more complicated, but this isn’t a technical forum, so I’m keeping it simple.

15. DannyY said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 13:05

    I have read all of these posts with a great deal of interest. I am no “techno geek” and don’t know 25% of what many of the posters here know. So I can’t talk specs and historical data. However, I am a business owner who’s company survives by means of computers and internet and can only address these issues from a “laymen’s” point of view. My company deals with functionality, resources and cost, just as any other business. We have both Mac’s and PC’s in our plant. Quite frankly, I hate PC’s. We have more problems, downtime expenses and spend more money maintaining the PC’s then we ever have on the Mac’s.

    Viruses have been of major concern in our organization with the PC’s (never with the Mac’s). We have experimented with every virus protection software I know and have been shown by my IT people. Fortunately, we have not had any significant problems, but the costs involved in keeping the PC’s safe is ridiculous.

    It was mentioned here that market share is a major reason why hackers have not put much effort into attacking Mac’s. I do not fully agree with that philosophy, but i do believe that it is a minimal contributing factor. I do believe, with what little knowledge I have about operating systems, that the Mac seems much more difficult to crack. But, with the new surgence of the Mac in popularity, that is most likely to change in the near future.

    To put my thoughts into a “nutshell”…I love the Mac, I can get more things done faster…easier and quicker on a Mac than any of my personnel, who are experienced PC users, can do on their machines. And…I don’t have to worry about viruses and “meltdowns”. My only disappointment is in the fact that most software developers place their efforts into developing PC software. This is the ONLY reason I have PC’s in my offices. I would like to “light a little fire” under some of you developers who are reading this post: Mac’s are coming on strong. Historically, there was little chance of “big money” in software development for the Mac. WAKE UP GUYS!! There’s nothing that can be done on a PC that a Mac can’t do and more and more companies are beginning to see that. Start writing some powerful software for the MAC…it WILL sell! Trust me. My company has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on software, and believe me…if I could have purchased it for the MAC I would have!

16. Pete said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 16:00

    The market share argument is bogus for this reason: At best, it would account for why there is LESS malware on Mac OS. Instead, there is NO malware on Mac OS that’s even worth talking about. Market share does not explain this.

17. owen said: Mon, 21 July 2008 at 20:32

    this argument is ridiculous! its like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. the fact is that until there is like a 50/50 market share between osx and windows, theres no way to tell (well you could poll all sorts of hackers and virus writers and the like but…) if its market share or if its one of a billion other reasons, this whole “my os is better than yours” shit is old, annoying and childish! quit it! just use your os and dont judge others, what are you Catholics!?

18. thegnu said: Tue, 22 July 2008 at 00:37

    I like all your arguments. When clients ask me why, the answer is:
    a) not only is it inherently more secure, b) serious money-making hackers will spend all their time on the large demographic.

    Saying that market share isn’t a factor is crap. But saying that OS X isn’t a better thought-out operating system fails to take into account the half-century of thought that has gone into UNIX and its ilk.

19. nobody said: Tue, 22 July 2008 at 02:10

    Don’t you guys think the title, “Author of the First OS X Virus / Malware” would be enough to make at least a few good hackers or security experts to at least give it a try? I think it is… and they’ve all failed so far…

20. Connecting a Sony handycam to a mac said: Tue, 22 July 2008 at 04:28

    Excellent answer. I am always stumped when asked this question. To be honest - al I really care about is that I have never had a virus since I switched to macs :)

21. pji said: Tue, 22 July 2008 at 06:45

    thegnu is, just about, spot on… but the real kudos belongs to OS X’s BSD core.

    nobody: I remember reading of a hacking contest where some hacked a mac in a few minutes. I believe it was on engadget or techcrunch probably about a year ago.
    Google it…

    The real answer is to make sure your os has the latest patches and Windows users keep the 10 applications updated that stave off malware.

    As I said before, all operating systems can be exploited.

    DannyY: You have proven, to some degree, the market share argument. More mainstream applications will come when there is enough market share to start an OS X programming team. I eagerly await that day as it will hopefully bring ports for BSD and Linux of the same products.

22. Whatever works! said: Tue, 22 July 2008 at 09:41

    As a techie since 1965 (US Govt for 20+) I use what gets the job done with least resources expended.

    Linux works for me. I also have some Macs from 1992 thru 2001, on my network that run Linux just fine, thanks.

    Building 2,000 computer systems each year, the preferred install is Linux, in about 25 minutes total, verses the Microsoft loadsets that actually take over 2.5 hours each, to install A/V and ’security’ programs, proper ‘drivers’.

    Most of my clients don’t care about discussions of the relative merits of OSes, they simply want to get their tasks done with the most efficiency.

    The rest of my clients are school aged kids who get free systems, but, when we tried to give them ones loaded with Licensed MS OSes, many returned, fully crippled due to all the Microsoft Virus’!

    Shipping costs for ‘broken’ MS systems mandate Linux as the GREEN solution!.

23. Mystic said: Thu, 24 July 2008 at 07:48

    well well well, i acme across this site and i love the energy in here. so i decided to huddle a few buddies and start a project. Write a virus for MAC OS X. so far it’s not as easy to do as windows.

    thanks again for the boost. it might be called “iVirus”

24. Cassie said: Fri, 25 July 2008 at 03:51

    On another note. You can have your mac set to right click (:

25. Chris said: Fri, 25 July 2008 at 06:17

    Vista is the most secure version of windows ever. Period.

    But it still has many of these issues that plagued older versions. The difference is that the kernel and low-level functions were completely sealed off from the user and software, and this was going to make it virus proof.

    That is until Symantec and McAffee wouldn’t stop complaining to Microsoft that they couldn’t protect the kernel and low level functions if they had no access to them.

    Great thinking, right?

    So Microsoft opened it up.

26. Konraden said: Fri, 25 July 2008 at 08:26

    *cough*

    http://news.cnet.com/2100-7349_3-6178131.html

    OSX is just as open as any other computer. Try not to let your ego get in the way of rational thought. It isn’t that Mac’s are inherently designed safer, it’s that nobody gives a rats ass because they make up about 4% of all computer operating systems. What’s the point of making up a botnet of Macs? They have the same components as Windows (and now Linux) machines, except you pay more for them.

    Not to say I hate OSX, I just hate Apple. Who else can cram the same functional parts of a computer into a pretty white box, seal it so it can’t be upgraded\modified in anyway, and then sell it for TWICE the cost of a machine that has Windows * on it.

    Honestly, Job’s is a crook.

27. Konraden said: Fri, 25 July 2008 at 08:27

    P.S. I stumbled here. I like OSX, it’s just bull to call it “safer.” Obscurity is not security.

28. Mrshll said: Fri, 25 July 2008 at 08:36

    Although very valid points, the lack of market share is probably the predominant reason why msot malware isn;t tailored for OS X. I am a Linux user myself and as of now, am free of the threat of viruses etc, however I acknowledge the fact that ifthe more popular Linux distros become mainstream, that a substsantial amount of malware will be programmed for them. Which is a sad thing, but alas is one of the facts of computing.

29. akulavolk said: Fri, 25 July 2008 at 10:48

    RE: the Mac getting hacked, the “hacked” machine had been purposely set up with SSH access enabled, AND a guest account that hackers had access to on request. These are not standard OS X security settings.

    Contrast this with Windows’ recent history. In ‘05, a fresh (without virus protection) XP install would last connected to the net an average of 12 minutes before becoming infected by a virus (according to London-based security company Sophos). That’s a drop from 2004’s average time of 20 minutes. Vista may be somewhat better, but even Microsoft’s security center will flag a “problem” if you don’t have spyware sniffer & virus detection software enabled on a new install. That says something.

    Anecdotally, I was working at Microsoft and received a brand-new Dell desktop machine the company bought me from the factory. I connected it to the MS network, booted it up, and their corporate (net-based) virus software immediately flagged the machine as having a virus–imaged on the drive from the factory–on first boot. I’ve worked at other tech companies that had viruses slip through and end up on their product install CDs sent to customers.

    My small business runs both platforms. My Macs have never gotten a virus since OS 9. My PCs have ALL gotten viruses or malware, even with “protection” software.

30. Crunchynut said: Mon, 28 July 2008 at 21:20

    Hmm, a double edged sword, this switch to mac thing.
    As much as it’s nice to have users near you that know what you’re on about.
    Then, though, more users might mean more hackers.

    So, I still use common sense when on the internet, and make use of decent virus and malware protection, even on my Mac. There’s no reason why Mac users should be smug about their immunities, because there is probably a group of people (although small) who are trying to hack the Mac.

    Then again, I don’t know enough to comment on more intricate details that people mention here.

31. KoderKing said: Tue, 29 July 2008 at 18:18

    99% of these comments are bullshit.

    I’m a coder, you don’t need to know how many years as truth has NOTHING to do with authority despite what all the gerbils here think spouting numbers off like it means a shit.

    It really just comes down to this: OS X is built on BSD (*nixish) and therefore has over 20 years of *nix progress under the hood. OS 9 and previous and any version of Windows had viruses, and Macs have never had a decent market share, even when they GAVE AWAY the computers to every damn school in the country. So why where there viruses then?

    If you build a proprietary system of any kind from scratch rather then using open source you are wasting so much effort and opening the door to all kinds of unpleasantness.

    Same works when building any kind of software my friend. OSes are just software. I could write a library for binary tree manipulation from scratch, by why when there is existing libraries out there that are tested, mature, and open source?

32. Dale said: Wed, 30 July 2008 at 16:44

    I have had both a PC and as of recently a mac. I switched to mac 3 months ago. I am your average end user with some common sense when it comes to computers. My question would be, if mac’s aren’t inherently safer (virus or malware wise) then pc’s then why do all new vista computers come with norton automatically and mac’s come with no kind of anti virus protection. Why wouldn’t mac’s come with an anti virus package as well.

    The truth is at this point in time, mac’s are safer. I don’t give a shit whether it’s market share, operating systems, browsing capabilities or lack thereof, or whatever. I don’t have to worry about my mac the way I did with all my PC’s.

    In the small town i live in, I am pretty much the guru here. And believe me that isn’t saying much. However, 100% of the calls i get for helping some poor schmuck who doesn’t know shit about computers are from people who own PC’s. And i know people with mac’s, its just they don’t ever need my help. They never have problems. Are they more computer savvy than the PC owners? Course not, they just have an inherently safer computer. Again, I don’t care why its safer, I don’t need the reason although it is interesting to discuss. It could be all the above, but the fact remains it is.

    I mean hell just ask anyone with a mac, how many times they have had to call someone to format their hard drive.

33. Karin said: Thu, 31 July 2008 at 01:49

    i am a mac user, only a mac user, since the apple 2gs was out and the internet didn’t exist, i have never once gotten a virus on any of my macs and i have owned almost all of them. my father on the other hand has gotten a virus on every one of his windows computers, he works with electronics. he himself who is a windows user would rather run a mac. facts are facts. there is no arguement.

34. anon said: Thu, 31 July 2008 at 09:43

    despite the market share differences the online usage is considerably more even as the several websites I have seen server stats for from admining was giving 30% osx 10% linux distros and bsd 59% windows and 1% misc (dos, sun___ unidetifiable etc).
    @ Konraden (cnet guy)
    Read the article it is not a root hack still no root hacks I have seen on os x.

35. max said: Fri, 1 August 2008 at 07:24

    Macs can right click

36. Ham said: Sat, 2 August 2008 at 01:02

    I love your website and MACCCC!

37. Jayson44 said: Sat, 2 August 2008 at 01:31

    I agree with Dale. who cares why…macs are just safer. and all you windows guys know it. why do you get all upiddy about it? are you pissed? is this aggression because you realize your system gets attacked more? are you too prideful to just admit that for now, macs offer more security? I say get over it.

38. Rollo Jenkins said: Mon, 4 August 2008 at 03:35

    You geeks have to much free time! I’m going to run a virus scan while I bang my girlfriend! So long Poindexter’s!

39. Dave said: Mon, 4 August 2008 at 08:02

    The fact is, Macs don’t have viruese, so we can bang your girlfriend any time.

40. Ubuntu User said: Mon, 4 August 2008 at 14:00

    I agree that macs are set up with a strong security infrastructure. But a PC running a Unix based operating system has all of the same benefits. Pick a computer because you like what it offers you. I’m here because my girlfriend is having this problem with her mac. Does anyone know the beneficial reason for using this style of drive?

41. Bill said: Tue, 5 August 2008 at 03:48

    I have used PCs and MACs for years. Finally, I have shed all the PC dead weight and life is wonderful. If you hate Macs you have probably never tried one. Stick your head back in the sand and enjoy all those indecipherable error messages.

42. duncandisorderly said: Tue, 5 August 2008 at 23:08

    leaving aside malware, viruses & the other side-effects of a networked community of disaffected geeks, can someone explain to me why it is that I have to rebuild a non-networked windows box every time I try to install more than six different applications on it? while the mac (actually also running windows of various flavours under parallels) has never so much as blinked? empirically, after 20 years of using both sorts of machine, I’ve got to surmise that the weakness is in the way the PC addresses it’s hardware… DLLs, registry entries & so on. all of this is (somehow) abstracted from the windows running on the mactel under parallels, & so it has been stable for two years while I am accustomed to a 6-month life-span for the same sort of windows build on PC hardware. like I say, this is empirical, an observation. but it strikes me as no coincidence that the mac is also better-looking on the outside…

43. Ghirarda said: Wed, 6 August 2008 at 18:22

    I love Macccccc……………….

44. kjinx said: Fri, 8 August 2008 at 23:56

    I have worked on both Macs (since the first one in 84) and PCs (since 1988). That is a lot of experience on both platforms (even if I say so myself!). Not only have I worked on both platforms extensively but I have supported hundreds of people on both platforms. These people are real world people trying to accomplish real world kinds of things. They are not computer enthusiasts, programmers, sys admins, etc. They are trying to get a job done and using the computer as a tool. Since OSX, I have found, Macs are just simply a tool which is easier to use. Before OSX I would said, “toss up”. Both Macs and PC’s used to crash quite a bit in the old days. An operating system should be “transparent to the user”. Windows is anything but “transparent”. It has become this “whining baby” of an OS that constantly needs care (most Windows users, regardless of recent improvements, use their machines in constant paranoia EVEN WITH updated protection software running — which ALSO in a lot of cases is intrusive) and feeding, and tweaking, registry issues, driver issues, etc. Windows remain popular not because of the job it does but because it is entrenched. It is entrenched primarily because Apple made the mistake in the early days of not licensing their OS and letting other manufacturers install it on their hardware (although some would say that is also why Mac are so well integrated and have such a consistent user interface across apps) and because Mac cost more than PC’s in the beginning (the business community bought PCs), it is too painful for most people would started on PCs to switch to Macs. Take 100 machines on a Network. 100 Macs running OSX and 100 PC’s running XP or even VISTA if you like. Ask any sysadmin who has worked with both which network he wants to be responsible for and see what answer you get (unless as one of the writers mentioned above he is looking for job security). I’m not directly in IT, now but I am the only support person for 40 Macs at my current company, it amounts to about 10-20% of my total job activity. We never have issues with users getting in trouble on the web or email because there is not a single PC here connected to the internet … period. We have them, but they are used strictly to talk to other machines (industrial equipment/printers — read “parallel port required”). My 2 cents.

45. Don said: Wed, 13 August 2008 at 05:09

    Hi have used both systems as a user, programmer and I worked a support desk for several decades now and if you want my opinion (you’re still reading) Macs are more secure and handle more intense workloads with out hanging 1/10 as often (give a IBM a power cord and it’ll hang itself).

    IBM systems have improved vastly in the last 5 years - so have Macs!

    If I had to compare the number of times my IBM was compromised by some internet bug to how ofter something got into my Mac, I’d never want to touch the disease ridden IBM’s again.

    The latest improvements in Macs are truly impressive - the latest improvements in IMB’s are copies of old Mac stuff.

    Come on and admit it IBM guys:

    1: You are a bargain shopper and don’t want to spend the extra dollars for a good computer!
    2: You’ve never really tried to use a Mac and it seems different and you get confused too easily and scared you won’t be able to figure it out.
    3: You have a random piece of software that isn’t out for the Mac and you’ve never heard of a windows emulator. Oh, yes, Mac runs windows now so that’s an old excuse.

46. grumpytico said: Thu, 14 August 2008 at 18:16

    I think MS has a superior OS in terms of security than any of their predecessors, but they exchanged user experience in terms of security - how many f*7N clicks does it take to copy a file only to be told that I can’t?

    I think the virus story is old and outdated, there are more compelling reasons to use OS X over Vista, and the user experience is good enough reason for me never having to think to use Vista unless I am forced to for a software project or if someone puts a gun to my head.

    Peace.

47. OTiZ said: Sat, 16 August 2008 at 13:52

    I can not believe I actually sat here and read all this crap, but I find it so amusing that people love to brag about the OS that they have. There has been many valid points made throughout the duration of this, but what seems to humor me the most is that nobody cares what it takes to get the job done just as long as the job gets done. Everyone has an opinion and opinions are like your butt whole everyone has one and they stink when you let S#!? out of it.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email (will not be published) (required)

Website or Blog

Authentication code (required)

Cleaker 2.1 Theme created by Adam Walker Cleaveland   with Widget support added by Chris Webb    Modified by SilverMac       content rss