What are your thoughts on Vista?

....
An infection is an infection. Macs don't need AV/spyware software
because there is nothing to protect the computer from.
....
And as a Mac user, I have *NOTHING* to fear in terms of viruses and
spyware - because none exists in the real world.

My first virus experience was on a Mac, years ago when the Mac had a larger
market share than it does now - so it can happen. As the Mac again regains,
hopefully, more market share it will become more of a target.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

On 1/14/07 3:47 AM, in article
, "Mike Russell"
-MOVE wrote:

...

An infection is an infection. Macs don't need AV/spyware software
because there is nothing to protect the computer from.
...

And as a Mac user, I have *NOTHING* to fear in terms of viruses and
spyware - because none exists in the real world.

My first virus experience was on a Mac, years ago when the Mac had a larger
market share than it does now - so it can happen. As the Mac again regains,
hopefully, more market share it will become more of a target.
Are you nuts?!? "Years ago, with a larger market share than now". You need
to get your head out of the ground. Sure, System 7 did have some viri, BUT
OS-X is a different story. AND your last statement indicates you simple
jealousy.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article , Mike
Russell -MOVE wrote:

My first virus experience was on a Mac, years ago when the Mac had a larger
market share than it does now - so it can happen. As the Mac again regains,
hopefully, more market share it will become more of a target.

How many times do we have to go through this? It has nothing to do with
market share and everything to do with how the operating system is
designed.

On 2006-12-16 08:50:04 -0500, "mark_digital�" said:

It may seem off topic but considering how much we depend on our
computers for digital imaging, a review I read says pretty much
Microsoft itself will become the tenant landlord over our machines.
I wish I could say if you aren't doing anything wrong then there's
nothing to worry about. But my gut feeling says otherwise.

Yawn. Most of the underpinnings have been in Mac OS X for a year or
more now. Most of the kernel underpinnings have been in Linux and
Solaris for a couple of years. Then there are the backward
compatibility issues. I suppose if you are firmly committed to the
Windows world or have no choice, then it makes sense. But many older
machines will not run it, and like most of what has come out of
Redmond, it will require some real horsepower just to run.

My Windows machine will stay at Windows 2000. Does everything I need
it to. Meanwhile I enjoy the plug and play and mature OS of my Mac's


--
Jim

[re virii on OSX - I've removed individual references for obvious reasons]

"Are you nuts?!? "Years ago, with a larger market share than now". You
need
to get your head out of the ground. Sure, System 7 did have some viri, BUT
OS-X is a different story. AND your last statement indicates you simple
jealousy. "

Jealous - LOL. I've had a Mac of some sort on my desk for the last 15
years, including a G4 right now. No OS is intrinsically safe. I've spent
some time, years ago, working on Unix kernel mods at Berkeley. I was also a
Mac Developer for many years, and some of my co-workers were in on the
initial design and launch of OSX at NeXT and Apple. I know what I'm talking
about. Believe me v6, though better than most, was full of holes as it
came out of Bell Labs. BSD, being based on v6, shared many of the
vulnerabilities. Many of these holes were exploited by ambitious students -
I know because I worked with others to plug them.

"How many times do we have to go through this? It has nothing to do with
market share and everything to do with how the operating system is
designed."

OSX, though based on BSD, is much more complex than BSD, and has a
proportional number of vulnerabilities - whether these are in the kernel, or
the outlying OS support for network protocols, file system organization, or
important apps like Safari, each of them has vulnerabilities.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Mike Russell wrote:
[re virii on OSX - I've removed individual references for obvious reasons]

"Are you nuts?!? "Years ago, with a larger market share than now". You
need
to get your head out of the ground. Sure, System 7 did have some viri, BUT
OS-X is a different story. AND your last statement indicates you simple
jealousy. "

Jealous - LOL. I've had a Mac of some sort on my desk for the last 15
years, including a G4 right now. No OS is intrinsically safe. I've spent
some time, years ago, working on Unix kernel mods at Berkeley. I was also a
Mac Developer for many years, and some of my co-workers were in on the
initial design and launch of OSX at NeXT and Apple. I know what I'm talking
about. Believe me v6, though better than most, was full of holes as it
came out of Bell Labs. BSD, being based on v6, shared many of the
vulnerabilities. Many of these holes were exploited by ambitious students -
I know because I worked with others to plug them.

"How many times do we have to go through this? It has nothing to do with
market share and everything to do with how the operating system is
designed."

OSX, though based on BSD, is much more complex than BSD, and has a
proportional number of vulnerabilities - whether these are in the kernel, or
the outlying OS support for network protocols, file system organization, or
important apps like Safari, each of them has vulnerabilities.

Yes, I am sure there are vulnerabilities, but none have come to the fore
to do any damage on OSX. The reason MS has so many viruses (not virii
for me) is it's poorly written, and there are many more sheeple using
Doze than Macs. Exceptionally, of course, everyone on Doze reading this
is, well, an exception to the sheeple comment. (!)

--
john mcwilliams

What do you want to reinstall today? (Yeah, that's outdated.)

John McWilliams wrote:
[]
Yes, I am sure there are vulnerabilities, but none have come to the
fore to do any damage on OSX. The reason MS has so many viruses (not
virii for me) is it's poorly written, and there are many more sheeple
using Doze than Macs. Exceptionally, of course, everyone on Doze
reading this is, well, an exception to the sheeple comment. (!)

Windows 2000 and XP etc. are more vulnerable mainly because of the way
most people configure and use them - using Admin level access when it's
not required etc. The core OS can be tied down just as tightly, if you
wish, and you will find many Windows servers operated in exactly such a
manner.

David

In article , David J
Taylor
wrote:

Windows 2000 and XP etc. are more vulnerable mainly because of the way
most people configure and use them - using Admin level access when it's
not required etc. The core OS can be tied down just as tightly, if you
wish, and you will find many Windows servers operated in exactly such a
manner.

The default configuration of Windows leaves much to be desired from a
security standpoint. Most users don't have the understanding to
properly lock it down. They take what they get right out of the box.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , David J
Taylor
wrote:

Windows 2000 and XP etc. are more vulnerable mainly because of the way
most people configure and use them - using Admin level access when it's
not required etc. The core OS can be tied down just as tightly, if you
wish, and you will find many Windows servers operated in exactly such a
manner.

The default configuration of Windows leaves much to be desired from a
security standpoint. Most users don't have the understanding to
properly lock it down. They take what they get right out of the box.

It's like using a DSLR. People get one and think their pictures will be
better, but they don't understand how to get the most out of it with RAW
processing, manual exposures, off-camera flash, and so on.

Conversely, using a Mac is like using a point-and-shoot. People want to
take what's right out of the box, do things the way the camera wants
them to, can't change the settings, and are satisfied with the just-OK
results.

Or did I misunderstand your analogy?