What the heck is the deal with iphone users Vs Android users

[IOWA]

I think every misunderstands my distaste for apple.

First and foremost, are their business ethics, and how they love to lock stuff down.

I've heard this referenced a number of times in this thread, but I have to say, I don't really see it. Part of Apple's marketing strategy is to say that their stuff is approachable by non-tech-heads because it "just works," and part of the way that they insure it stays that way is by having what is in essence a closed system. It's a trade off -- you lose some flexibility and your software options are somewhat limited, but in return you get a system that is by and large easy to use without a lot of hassle. I think people understand that trade-off when they buy an Apple product -- and I'm positive that anyone tech-savvy enough to care about the fact that it's not as flexible as other options understands that -- so I'm not sure I understand how what they are doing raises ethical issues.

That "not a lot of hassle" is only a percieved thing though.

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.

 

[toasty]

That "not a lot of hassle" is only a percieved thing though.

First and foremost, who cares if it's just "perception?" That perception has resulted in Apple steadily gaining market share and developing a fiercely loyal following. Other tech companies should be so lucky.

Moreover, however, I don't think there could possibly be a serious argument that for your average user who just needs a computer to do word processing, surfing the internet, etc., Apple's products are extremely intuitive, easy for people to use and stable. In my home, I've got two Windows desktops, a Windows laptop, a Windows netbook, and a MacBook. In my experience, the MacBook has been the most trouble free of the bunch, and it's not a close call. Each of those other computers has probably crashed 10 times for each crash that MacBook has had -- I've gone months without even needing to restart it. Soooo, for me, Windows hassle > mac hassle.

 

[vbetts]

That's because Os X is Unix. Unix ftw.

Although, I haven't had any issues with Windows 7. It's been the best Windows OS I've used.

And everyone gives Apple so much shit, but Apple knows how to make a market out of nothing. Tablets like the Ipad or other competitors didn't start to rise up so fast until like I said the Ipad came. Smartphones wouldn't be so used by the public if it weren't for Apple. Them and RIM.

 

[toasty]

First and foremost, who cares if it's just "perception?" That perception has resulted in Apple steadily gaining market share and developing a fiercely loyal following. Other tech companies should be so lucky.

Moreover, however, I don't think there could possibly be a serious argument that for your average user who just needs a computer to do word processing, surfing the internet, etc., Apple's products are extremely intuitive, easy for people to use and stable. In my home, I've got two Windows desktops, a Windows laptop, a Windows netbook, and a MacBook. In my experience, the MacBook has been the most trouble free of the bunch, and it's not a close call. Each of those other computers has probably crashed 10 times for each crash that MacBook has had -- I've gone months without even needing to restart it. Soooo, for me, Windows hassle > mac hassle.

I should point out, too, "hassle" in this context is a relative term, and I don't mean to suggest that I spend all day and night toiling over my Windows machines while the MacBook gives me a neck massage. By and large, the Windows machines work fine, and they're cheap, and that's why we have a number of them. They do give me more trouble than the MacBook, though, without question.

 

[darreno1]

First and foremost, who cares if it's just "perception?" That perception has resulted in Apple steadily gaining market share and developing a fiercely loyal following. Other tech companies should be so lucky.

Moreover, however, I don't think there could possibly be a serious argument that for your average user who just needs a computer to do word processing, surfing the internet, etc., Apple's products are extremely intuitive, easy for people to use and stable. In my home, I've got two Windows desktops, a Windows laptop, a Windows netbook, and a MacBook. In my experience, the MacBook has been the most trouble free of the bunch, and it's not a close call. Each of those other computers has probably crashed 10 times for each crash that MacBook has had -- I've gone months without even needing to restart it. Soooo, for me, Windows hassle > mac hassle.

A well maintained, clean, virus/malware/spyware free PC hardly ever crashes (assuming of course, no malfunctioning hardware or app). And by clean I don't mean 10,000 apps/utilities booting up with the computer so the system tray reaches halfway across the screen which seems to be the norm in cases similar to yours. The startup should be relatively clean with only the apps and utilities needed. And by well maintained I mean at least bi-weekly removal of temp user and internet files and an occasional chkdsk to maintain the integrity of the file system. Yes that sounds like a lot of stuff to do but there are utilities that automate a lot of this and yes it is needed to keep a Windows box in top shape. Because, face it, the average PC is doing a lot more at one time than the average Mac, even right off the factory floor. If it's not obvious as open windows, it's happening in the background. And for the casual user a Windows box will do just as well as a Mac. In fact because it has better compatibility and more choices in terms of the hardware and software that's available, I'll usually recommend a PC first unless the user insists or has some exposure to OSX.

Just a couple weeks ago I helped a client cleanup her HP desktop because she was complaining about it being slow, freezing, crashing etc. She was convinced her new iMac was the best thing since sliced bread. Someone convinced her to convert so she converted everything over to Apple hardware (got a Macbook Pro, Time Machine and the iMac). She kept the HP only for Quicken because she was not going to pay for a Mac compatible version. So long story short, after cleaning up the HP and removing all the garbage that was booting up with it, it was at least twice as fast and she was in disbelief as to the difference. It didn't crash not once and booted up in half the time.
All it took was a little knowhow and some basic maintenance. Nothing crazy.


I have 2 Windows desktops and a laptop at home and I can't remember the last time one of them 'crashed'. Same with my work PC. My main desktop at home runs Windows 7 and it's over clocked to the max yet it is extremely stable.

Now some might look at this and point to the Mac as being more secure or better because it is less prone to Viruses/Malware, or so it seems. However, from my experience, the only reason Macs aren't getting viruses, spyware or malware is simply because they are such a small target. That's it. It has very little to do with security because it has been demonstrated on several occasions that hacking OSX is a piece of cake. And in any system be it Windows or Unix based, the weakest link will always be the user.

Windows is a victim of its market share and yes I'd be the first to say the early versions weren't the most secure but the criticism it has taken over the years has made it into a much more solid product.

 

[toasty]

A well maintained, clean, virus/malware/spyware free PC hardly ever crashes (assuming of course, no malfunctioning hardware or app). And by clean I don't mean 10,000 apps/utilities booting up with the computer so the system tray reaches halfway across the screen which seems to be the norm in cases similar to yours.

Well, you're actually not right about this, but that's neither here nor there.

And by well maintained I mean at least bi-weekly removal of temp user and internet files and an occasional chkdsk to maintain the integrity of the file system. Yes that sounds like a lot of stuff to do but there are utilities that automate a lot of this and yes it is needed to keep a Windows box in top shape.

I assert that computers running Windows are more hassle than Macs, and THIS is your rebuttal? Uh, good point?

Because, face it, the average PC is doing a lot more at one time than the average Mac, even right off the factory floor. If it's not obvious as open windows, it's happening in the background.

Again, you're kinda making my point here. As a user, I don't really care what it takes for my computer to do what it does, whether it's running 20 processes or a 100, it just makes no difference to me. Am I supposed to be impressed that it takes more processes to keep a Windows machine going than a mac? More processes = more things that can go wrong and more processes that can conflict with one another, IMO.

And for the casual user a Windows box will do just as well as a Mac. In fact because it has better compatibility and more choices in terms of the hardware and software that's available, I'll usually recommend a PC first unless the user insists or has some exposure to OSX.

The "better compatibility" argument remains puzzling to me. I can boot into Windows from Boot Camp or run Windows via emulation using Parallels when I need to. A PC user, however, can't boot into OSX. I have Windows programs that I run regularly on my Mac. Which one has more compatibility and software options again?

 

[darreno1]

Well, you're actually not right about this, but that's neither here nor there.

Well since you didn't elaborate, I'll leave you to wallow in your own ignorance.

I assert that computers running Windows are more hassle than Macs, and THIS is your rebuttal? Uh, good point?

If maintaining a Windows box is a 'hassle' for you then you're destined for problems. I guess changing the oil in your car is a 'hassle' too? Anyway people like you are the reason I have a job so I really shouldn't complain too much.

Again, you're kinda making my point here. As a user, I don't really care what it takes for my computer to do what it does, whether it's running 20 processes or a 100, it just makes no difference to me. Am I supposed to be impressed that it takes more processes to keep a Windows machine going than a mac? More processes = more things that can go wrong and more processes that can conflict with one another, IMO.

I know you don't care, that's why you have issues. Nobody's asking you to learn the ins and outs of Windows. Just maintain it. And I wasn't merely referring to processes either.

The "better compatibility" argument remains puzzling to me. I can boot into Windows from Boot Camp or run Windows via emulation using Parallels when I need to. A PC user, however, can't boot into OSX. I have Windows programs that I run regularly on my Mac. Which one has more compatibility and software options again?

The majority of PC users do not need OSX plain and simple. The same can't necessarily be said about Mac users. Parallels and Boot Camp exists because OSX is deficient. Windows is more versatile, no question. I have never ever once even remotely felt that I needed to use OSX for anything. Windows does everything and then some. However a good portion of Mac users I know have at least one PC or need to run Parallels or boot camp.

 

[toasty]

Well, you're actually not right about this, but that's neither here nor there.

Well since you didn't elaborate, I'll leave you to wallow in your own ignorance.

Wallow in my own ignorance? With one exception, they are home computers, used for home purposes, without a lot of bells and whistles. Two of them are essentially stock, out of the box, because they are just used for websurfing (netbook) and/or as a media center (desktop). Do you want me to go through a detailed list of all of the things I haven't added to my Windows systems?

If maintaining a Windows box is a 'hassle' for you then you're destined for problems. I guess changing the oil in your car is a 'hassle' too? Anyway people like you are the reason I have a job so I really shouldn't complain too much.

"People like me," eh? Way to keep it classy.

As a matter of fact, as compared to doing nothing at all, yes, it is a hassle. Clearly you didn't see my follow up post on this where I clarified that I didn't mean to imply that it was a prohibitive hassle and actually sent some love to my Windows systems, but by any standard, doing something is, by definition, more of a hassle than doing nothing -- and in the 3 years I've had my mac, I've not had to take time out of my schedule to do any of those things you described.

My time is valuable to me, and if paying a little more for a computer means I don't have to worry about setting aside time to maintain the damn thing to avoid a progressive decline in performance, I'll do it. In answer to your related question about changing the oil, I already buy the synthetic 5K oil for my car so I don't have to change the oil as frequently, and if they were to come out with a car that didn't require me to change the oil at all, I'd probably be willing to pay a premium for the convenience. So yeah, changing the oil in my car is a hassle, too. I do it, of course, but no one changes their oil because it's such a good time, they change it because it needs to be done -- no one changes the oil on prom night, I'm just sayin'. If maintaining your Windows machines is your idea of a good time, then you, my friend, need to get out more.

edit: As an aside, the tenor of your post is incredibly holier-than-thou. I thought Mac people were supposed to be the arrogant ones?

 

[IOWA]

This thread is getting heated. Lol.



Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.

 

[hakr100]

If maintaining a Windows box is a 'hassle' for you then you're destined for problems. I guess changing the oil in your car is a 'hassle' too? Anyway people like you are the reason I have a job so I really shouldn't complain too much.

It wasn't a hassle for me. I was a beta tester for windoze from the first edition through windoze 7. I stated with test windozes iterations on floppies. I simply got weary of fixing up windoze on my workaday machine, what with programs conflicting with each other, blue screens of death, peripheral hardware sudden deaths, and the damned reinstalls. I could do it all, but it just seemed so unnecessary to me.

The majority of PC users do not need OSX plain and simple. The same can't necessarily be said about Mac users. Parallels and Boot Camp exists because OSX is deficient.

I run VMWare to run Win 7 for one app and one app only for which there is no Mac equivalent.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

Because, face it, the average PC is doing a lot more at one time than the average Mac, even right off the factory floor. If it's not obvious as open windows, it's happening in the background.

It's not obvious because it runs in the background? Good grief.
That is called a daemon process. Every modern OS has daemon process. If you go into the shell and type in "top", I'd bet you will probably see 30-40 process running in the background on any macs.

Also, a proper journaled filesystem doesn't need chdisk or defragmentation. Wasn't that the whole purpose of NTFS. It sure was billed that way in 1997 when they touted NT4.0's advantages over Win95. That was what MS was pitching to me at the time.

However, from my experience, the only reason Macs aren't getting viruses, spyware or malware is simply because they are such a small target. That's it. It has very little to do with security because it has been demonstrated on several occasions that hacking OSX is a piece of cake. And in any system be it Windows or Unix based, the weakest link will always be the user.
.

I agree about the user part.

I'd like someone to show how a mac a can be rooted thru the network. All the hacks I've seen required console access or was at the app level. The Safari hack required the user to download an executable and grant admin passwd. What if I don't run Safari and what if I don't give my wife ANY admin privileges? In fact, I don't even give myself admin priv. I usually have to sudo or log-out.

About those mac hacks in 30 minutes.

Mac OS X hacked under 30 minutes - Security - News

Participants were given local client access to the target computer and invited to try their luck.

Yeah, give me console access of any pc, I can hack them too. I have a USB boot stick that can boot any PC and run a passwd cracker and get Admin access of any Windoze box.

On mac, I can set up a firewall rule that is very, very hardened. I cannot do this with a PC w/out buying software.

I challenge you to do this on your pc:
1) Set up a rule that checks all network traffic. Any 3 attempts to port 22, the offending IP will be blacklisted, all ports would be immediately closed off. Then send BIG ASS whooping back to the offending IP? Can you do this on a PC? I can't but I sure can do it on a mac easy.

I tail my system log. I check 3 occurrences of failed access or ANY access not on my host.grant, it immediately adds that to my host.deny file. In addition, I run a ipfw deny rule on my built in firewall. You know, the one that runs in the background that comes pre-built in any BSD Unix style OSX.
My ipfw rules also triggers shell script that runs, CURL, again, a free built in shell tool on ANY unix OS. Curl launches a soap request to my farm of PCs. those PCs run Linux so they get the commands via php like this: /nuke.php?do=nuke&offending_ip=192.2121.211.xxx
With those instructions, I now have an army of pcs that constantly barrages my hacker.

I can do this for FREE and it is available to ME on OSX.
No 3rd party app, no shareware. Not bad for a 'easy to use' newbie OS.

About PCs and hacks. The rooting of computers aren't a big threat in a hardened network. Mac/PC because you can set up sophisticated routes/rules to kill them. The bitchy thing are those pesky vbscript attachments that goes thru your address book and sends spam messages.

 

[byteware]

About those mac hacks in 30 minutes.

Mac OS X hacked under 30 minutes - Security - News



Yeah, give me console access of any pc, I can hack them too. I have a USB boot stick that can boot any PC and run a passwd cracker and get Admin access of any Windoze box.

You may want to read up a bit further, and a bit more recently.

Safari, IPhone Hacked on First Day of Pwn2Own Contest - PCWorld Business Center

This years Pwn2Own. Visit the wrong website, and you give the website's owner complete command line access to your MAC.

It's not 30 minutes... it takes seconds to load up a webpage.

Welcome to the world of really secure Macs... as long as you don't visit the wrong website...

and before you claim that you should only visit trusted websites... CNN and Yahoo have both been hacked, in the past, with malicious code. No website is safe, and no website can be trusted.

 

[darreno1]

It wasn't a hassle for me. I was a beta tester for windoze from the first edition through windoze 7. I stated with test windozes iterations on floppies. I simply got weary of fixing up windoze on my workaday machine, what with programs conflicting with each other, blue screens of death, peripheral hardware sudden deaths, and the damned reinstalls. I could do it all, but it just seemed so unnecessary to me.

And I'm supposed to assume you know what you're doing? Please.
Peripheral hardware sudden deaths??? Yeah right, lol.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

You may want to read up a bit further, and a bit more recently.
Welcome to the world of really secure Macs... as long as you don't visit the wrong website...

Again, you just proved my point. There has been no cases of a remote root. It is all at the app-level. He needed the users to use Safari. I guess you aren't good at reading comprehension.

I'll re-quote what I wrote:

I'd like someone to show how a mac a can be rooted thru the network. All the hacks I've seen required console access or was at the app level

Safari, IPhone Hacked on First Day of Pwn2Own Contest - PCWorld Business Center
Hackers offered $100,000 for browser and phone exploits | Security | Macworld
iPhone, Safari, IE 8, Firefox hacked in CanSecWest contest | InSecurity Complex - CNET News
And there is more, I've read, re-read, re-read all the security implications of these reent 'hacks'


Charlie Miller, Jake Honoroff, and Mark Daniel all use holes at the app-level. We are discussing OS security.

If I had a mac server in a honeypot configuration, that guy still can't hack it unless the user at the console lets him; by surfing the web in the conditions he set forth - using Safari.

Remote rooting is the holy grail. All these hacks require user intervention, a user surfing the web; using an application (at the app-level). The OS, by itself, is still very secure.

Some more info on Charlie Miller's hacks.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9905095-37.html

But on the second day, the rules changed to allow attacks delivered by tricking someone to visit a maliciously crafted Web site, or open an e-mail. Hackers were also allowed to target "default installed client-side applications," such as browsers.
.... and was able to gain access to the MacBook Air and retrieve a file after judges were "tricked" into visiting the site.



The holes I am more worried about are the ones where you have buffer over-flows to a certain port and gain root access.
An example is this:

http://www.h-online.com/security/ne...-Vista-and-7-allows-remote-reboot-743295.html

If you put two boxes in a honeypot configuration (outside a firewall) and let hackers attack and gain root, then that is what you need to be afraid of.

If you've been reading the news,Google is moving their entire company away from Windows to OSX or Linux (at the choice of their employees). The reasoning behind this is the recent attacks from China.

http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Goo...lly+Due+to+Security+Concerns/article18574.htm
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2f3f04e-6ccf-11df-91c8-00144feab49a.html

"We’re not doing any more Windows. It is a security effort.* Many people have been moved away from [Windows] PCs, mostly towards Mac OS, following the China hacking attacks."

An IT administrater can and will prevent app-level exploits. The one he is afraid of are the remote root type scenarios.

 

[Snow_Fox]

.

Fast forward to today. Now computers and smartphones are becoming easier an easier. And since business's are in it for the money, I don't blame them for trying to capitalize sales. So, us geeks who invested our time learning simple things like drag and drop, copy and paste, file extensions and command prompts, manually assigning properities and configuring things to our liking. Well now it can all be done with the click of a button. And to us, the old way isn't hard at all. It comes natural to us. And we will aways be one step ahead of the crowd. They can click to sync, well we can sync wirelessly through wifi and tether. They can tether you say? Well we can install custom roms, program kernels etc. We are always one step ahead, and we just have to take solace in the fact we will stay one step ahead of the crowd.

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.

Even now.. with very limited knowledge of dos and basics in html at best..


I sometimes sit back and wonder how much we have been crippled in many ways because of gui's...

I would definitely say I'm not lacking in knowledge but, i'm by no means any sort of guru..

However, the way I see it is even though site builder stupid proof it or get the job done for average Jo.. If they don't understand what they are working with.. they will always trail behind..

Lets face it.. the easier it gets for the end user.. the higher the bar gets for the rest of us.. and the more potential profit there is to be had..

With that said, even basic use of dos has helped me in some ways understand more about how computers work..

However, it does bother me that now its apparently easier and easier to get the title "geek" and it seems more based around the products you own than the knowledge of them..

I don't believe in entitlement nor do I believe in a single way of doing things. The Internet is all about the sharing/getting of info. How you use it is of no relevance to me.
So what if someone can't google the answer or know how to use a search engine. Same thing with phones. If someone wants an phone w/iPod functionality and a photo gallery,let them have it. Because it didn't support MMS at first, it is deemed inferior.

While I do understand and agree with your point about getting things done in different ways..

I still think we should all look down on people who can't perform basic task in life.. Unless they happen to have been in a horrible accident.

If someone wants an iphone/ipod to use as a picture frame it is their money and they have every right to use it as such.

If someone wants to argue the quality of ipods music compared to cowon s9 or sony walkman x that is a bit of a different story...

I've heard this referenced a number of times in this thread, but I have to say, I don't really see it. Part of Apple's marketing strategy is to say that their stuff is approachable by non-tech-heads because it "just works," and part of the way that they insure it stays that way is by having what is in essence a closed system. It's a trade off -- you lose some flexibility and your software options are somewhat limited, but in return you get a system that is by and large easy to use without a lot of hassle. I think people understand that trade-off when they buy an Apple product -- and I'm positive that anyone tech-savvy enough to care about the fact that it's not as flexible as other options understands that -- so I'm not sure I understand how what they are doing raises ethical issues.

Apple's marketing strategy is also to make its customers think they are superior just for using the mac product.

Example one: from back in the day the original Mac commerical.

A girl who is the only one not brainwashed by the voice on the television running and throwing a hammer, freeing everyone from their "prision" if you will. Implying Mac users will be superior, more untillegent and free thinkers.

Example two: Another commerical from a while ago..

Apple shows a plethora of historical figures saying very little.. but, still implying that it has something in common with these revolutionary history altering figures... Sadly.. Implying that these are the kind of people who would vouch for apple or buy apple products and that buying them means your different.. just like ghandi.

Example Three: the more recent.. more blatantly annoying "Mac Vs PC" commericals.. where Mac pretty much openly insults Pc users.. And lets not forget a while back when ipods shipped with a virus and apple said "sorry windows sucks".. When lets face it.. in reality if more people were looking to crack mac.. there would be more people doing.. Right now no one is too seriously concerned with cracking or hurting mac.. not enough users..

The law of the internet is you build it, we will break it, and you will build it better. It is a never ending competition and I assure you that if mac had 98% market shares.. we would have that "holy grail" of hacking figured out..( not me per se but, hackers in general).

I'm not defending windows.. its got its ups and its downs and I'm by no means any sort of huge fan.. However, lets face it.. apple wants its customers to feel superior to users of other products.. Its brilliant marketing.. but, come one.. really... that just seems low in so many ways..

 

[byteware]

Again, you just proved my point. There has been no cases of a remote root. It is all at the app-level. He needed the users to use Safari. I guess you aren't good at reading comprehension.

I'll re-quote what I wrote:


Safari, IPhone Hacked on First Day of Pwn2Own Contest - PCWorld Business Center
Hackers offered $100,000 for browser and phone exploits | Security | Macworld
iPhone, Safari, IE 8, Firefox hacked in CanSecWest contest | InSecurity Complex - CNET News
And there is more, I've read, re-read, re-read all the security implications of these reent 'hacks'

Color me confused, but what difference does it make? It's Apple software and it ships with OS X. So, unless you install a different browser (which Apple let's you do on Macs) or you just don't use the web... then you are vulnerable.


And for the record.. It's an OS security flaw that gives Safari command line access.

Charlie Miller, Jake Honoroff, and Mark Daniel all use holes at the app-level. We are discussing OS security.

This IS an OS Security flaw. This is one that Windows closed Years ago. Why? Because they had to. Apple didn't close it, because nobody cared.

If I had a mac server in a honeypot configuration, that guy still can't hack it unless the user at the console lets him; by surfing the web in the conditions he set forth - using Safari.

Remote rooting is the holy grail. All these hacks require user intervention, a user surfing the web; using an application (at the app-level). The OS, by itself, is still very secure.

Well, Aren't you glad that you are surfing the web on a browser other than Safari? Because, if you were using Safari, and you visited any site... someone else might already have command line access to your Mac.... Scary thought.

And FYI, this security hole... is on the OS level.

MacBook Air hacked in security contest | Apple - CNET News

But on the second day, the rules changed to allow attacks delivered by tricking someone to visit a maliciously crafted Web site, or open an e-mail. Hackers were also allowed to target "default installed client-side applications," such as browsers.
.... and was able to gain access to the MacBook Air and retrieve a file after judges were "tricked" into visiting the site.

Why are you quoting competitions from 2 years ago? Why don't you look into THIS years Pwn2Own?

The holes I am more worried about are the ones where you have buffer over-flows to a certain port and gain root access.
An example is this:

Hole in Windows Vista and 7 allows remote reboot - The H Security: News and Features

Might I ask you... which browser do you use on your Mac Machines?

I'm going to assume you use Chrome, the only browser that will not allow hackers access to your machine. Is that so?

An IT administrater can and will prevent app-level exploits. The one he is afraid of are the remote root type scenarios.

There is no way to prevent Safari exploits, other than NOT use it to view the web.

You aren't using it... are you?

 

[mrspeedmaster]

Byteware,


The difference between an app-level vs remote root is the severity and how you handle the hack.
As someone mentioned, Chrome is the only browser that currently doesn't have any vulnerabilities.
This may be the reason why Google, as a corporation is allowing their employees to use Macs or Linux. They can lock down the apps. E.G. Mandate (super secure) Chrome over Safari. Problem w/ app-level hack solved.

App-level hacks, you can mitigate the damage. You can block off the firewall/close ports and that machine is isolated from any damage.

A remote root is far nefarious. These are the types that plague IT for years. A user downloads an attachment, it scans their addressbook, it scans their network block and attempts to attach to other machines on their network.
Machines internally get infected and cause havocs. You may have a firewall to prevent the spread to the outside world but the internal havoc causes a variety of problems - physical destruction to machines, increase network noise. The spread is usually a multiplier effect that grows exponentially.

For app-level hacks, An infected machie with Safari (as cited) can't go out an infect other macs. It has to trick those other users to get hacked. You can probably do some damage with the Safari hacks like send spam emails. A firewall can detect unusual activity and you act accordingly.
A remote root, well, it is all over the place. The spread of the infection means, you now have to shut of all out-going email access because you don't how many machines or which machine got infected.

Having a corpooration close off all ports on all their internal lans on EACH and every machine can be the solution but few rarely do. It causes more IT headache to lock down each and every port which will get hacked anyways.
You can close off SAMBA/File Sharing but a hacker can get thru the printer LPD port.

 

[darreno1]

Wallow in my own ignorance? With one exception, they are home computers, used for home purposes, without a lot of bells and whistles. Two of them are essentially stock, out of the box, because they are just used for websurfing (netbook) and/or as a media center (desktop). Do you want me to go through a detailed list of all of the things I haven't added to my Windows systems?

Home computers are usually the worst when it comes to infections from my experience. And web surfing is where most of the crud comes from. I can guarantee a scan with malwarebytes or superantispyware will come up positive for trojans/spyware. Also many manufacturers are now pre-loading trialware and other useless garbage that can all be removed.

As a matter of fact, as compared to doing nothing at all, yes, it is a hassle. Clearly you didn't see my follow up post on this where I clarified that I didn't mean to imply that it was a prohibitive hassle and actually sent some love to my Windows systems, but by any standard, doing something is, by definition, more of a hassle than doing nothing -- and in the 3 years I've had my mac, I've not had to take time out of my schedule to do any of those things you described.

My time is valuable to me, and if paying a little more for a computer means I don't have to worry about setting aside time to maintain the damn thing to avoid a progressive decline in performance, I'll do it. In answer to your related question about changing the oil, I already buy the synthetic 5K oil for my car so I don't have to change the oil as frequently, and if they were to come out with a car that didn't require me to change the oil at all, I'd probably be willing to pay a premium for the convenience. So yeah, changing the oil in my car is a hassle, too. I do it, of course, but no one changes their oil because it's such a good time, they change it because it needs to be done -- no one changes the oil on prom night, I'm just sayin'. If maintaining your Windows machines is your idea of a good time, then you, my friend, need to get out more.

I never said anything about enjoying it. If you don't want to have issues then you have to do what needs to be done, simple. Why buy Windows PCs to begin with then? Just stick with Macs if you're that lazy. Because that's what it really boils down to, laziness. Don't get me wrong, we're all guilty of it to some degree but the difference is, I don't go around bitching when things don't work because of it.

Besides, as mentioned before there are free utilities readily available to take care of most of this automatically and Vista and Win7 have a lot of built in automation.

edit: As an aside, the tenor of your post is incredibly holier-than-thou. I thought Mac people were supposed to be the arrogant ones?

If that's the way you interpret my posts, then so be it.

 

[darreno1]

It's not obvious because it runs in the background? Good grief.
That is called a daemon process. Every modern OS has daemon process. If you go into the shell and type in "top", I'd bet you will probably see 30-40 process running in the background on any macs.

You know what they say when you assume things right? Who's talking about processes only? How about spyware, viruses, utilities, trialware, etc? More often than not you have to dig under the skin to find them. That was my point. Don't assume because it's not visible, it's not running.

Also, a proper journaled filesystem doesn't need chdisk or defragmentation. Wasn't that the whole purpose of NTFS. It sure was billed that way in 1997 when they touted NT4.0's advantages over Win95. That was what MS was pitching to me at the time.

The whole purpose of NTFS was a lot more than just that:
NTFS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree about the user part.

I'd like someone to show how a mac a can be rooted thru the network. All the hacks I've seen required console access or was at the app level. The Safari hack required the user to download an executable and grant admin passwd. What if I don't run Safari and what if I don't give my wife ANY admin privileges? In fact, I don't even give myself admin priv. I usually have to sudo or log-out.

About those mac hacks in 30 minutes.

Mac OS X hacked under 30 minutes - Security - News



Yeah, give me console access of any pc, I can hack them too. I have a USB boot stick that can boot any PC and run a passwd cracker and get Admin access of any Windoze box.

On mac, I can set up a firewall rule that is very, very hardened. I cannot do this with a PC w/out buying software.

I challenge you to do this on your pc:
1) Set up a rule that checks all network traffic. Any 3 attempts to port 22, the offending IP will be blacklisted, all ports would be immediately closed off. Then send BIG ASS whooping back to the offending IP? Can you do this on a PC? I can't but I sure can do it on a mac easy.

I tail my system log. I check 3 occurrences of failed access or ANY access not on my host.grant, it immediately adds that to my host.deny file. In addition, I run a ipfw deny rule on my built in firewall. You know, the one that runs in the background that comes pre-built in any BSD Unix style OSX.
My ipfw rules also triggers shell script that runs, CURL, again, a free built in shell tool on ANY unix OS. Curl launches a soap request to my farm of PCs. those PCs run Linux so they get the commands via php like this: /nuke.php?do=nuke&offending_ip=192.2121.211.xxx
With those instructions, I now have an army of pcs that constantly barrages my hacker.

I can do this for FREE and it is available to ME on OSX.
No 3rd party app, no shareware. Not bad for a 'easy to use' newbie OS.

About PCs and hacks. The rooting of computers aren't a big threat in a hardened network. Mac/PC because you can set up sophisticated routes/rules to kill them. The bitchy thing are those pesky vbscript attachments that goes thru your address book and sends spam messages.

???Why would I want to do any of that? My hardware firewall and built-in Win7 software firewall are just fine for me and most users. If I wanted to setup a counter attack I would do so with the appropriate software or build a Linux box to do so if I'm not able to easily with Windows. I still fail to see how this gives OSX an advantage. You agreed the weakest link is always the user right? So do you think it's at all difficult to get a Mac user to run malicious code? I don't.

Anyway I think some of other members have addressed the Mac security question quite well.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

You know what they say when you assume things right? Who's talking about processes only? How about spyware, viruses, utilities, trialware, etc? More often than not you have to dig under the skin to find them. That was my point. Don't assume because it's not visible, it's not running.

The whole purpose of NTFS was a lot more than just that:
NTFS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lets go over what you said again...

"Pcs are doing a lot more.... it is happening in the background" You make it sound like this is a unique advantage. My response. "Every modern OS does this" It is not unique to any OS. It is called a Daemon process most of the time.

Utilities,apps can and always run in the background on ANY OS. I run ffmpeg as a background cron job. I run rysnc to do my backups, you never see it either. Hidden apps (none console/non gui) are not unique. Your reply, again,"Don't assume because it is not visible, it's not running"
I never said it wasn't running. I said, every modern OS does this. Big deal if you think it is a feature of your set-up. It is not unique.



NTFS. You say you do all these chkdisk/maintenance on your pc to make it run effectively. My argument is.. The filesystem is advertised to do this. It was advertised to do this since 1997.
I guess you don't understand my retort: you shouldn't be doing these maintenance/optimization if the OS's files system is suppose to be robust to already do this for you.
What is your point of the wiki link? I know what NTFS does. You didn't get my under-handed snide remark.

 

[byteware]

Byteware,


The difference between an app-level vs remote root is the severity and how you handle the hack.
As someone mentioned, Chrome is the only browser that currently doesn't have any vulnerabilities.
This may be the reason why Google, as a corporation is allowing their employees to use Macs or Linux. They can lock down the apps. E.G. Mandate (super secure) Chrome over Safari. Problem w/ app-level hack solved.

App-level hacks, you can mitigate the damage. You can block off the firewall/close ports and that machine is isolated from any damage.

A remote root is far nefarious. These are the types that plague IT for years. A user downloads an attachment, it scans their addressbook, it scans their network block and attempts to attach to other machines on their network.
Machines internally get infected and cause havocs. You may have a firewall to prevent the spread to the outside world but the internal havoc causes a variety of problems - physical destruction to machines, increase network noise. The spread is usually a multiplier effect that grows exponentially.

For app-level hacks, An infected machie with Safari (as cited) can't go out an infect other macs. It has to trick those other users to get hacked. You can probably do some damage with the Safari hacks like send spam emails. A firewall can detect unusual activity and you act accordingly.
A remote root, well, it is all over the place. The spread of the infection means, you now have to shut of all out-going email access because you don't how many machines or which machine got infected.

Having a corpooration close off all ports on all their internal lans on EACH and every machine can be the solution but few rarely do. It causes more IT headache to lock down each and every port which will get hacked anyways.
You can close off SAMBA/File Sharing but a hacker can get thru the printer LPD port.

Ok, we can settle this with 1 easy question.

Does Apple release OS security updates?

The answer is Yes.

So, therefore there are absolutely OS level security problems with Mac OS X.

The fact that no one exploits them, is currently a blessing to Mac users. It's not a luxury afforded to Windows Users. With the way things are going... it's not going to be a luxury Max OS X users have for much longer either.

Apple is notoriously bad at fixing security problems in Mac OS X.

Every security conscious person in the world knows this. (And I mean truly security conscious, not the I own a Mac because it's more secure type people)


I'm no big fan of Microsoft either, but I will tell you something that impressed me. They brought in hackers to crack open Windows 7 before it was ever released. They brought in a group of people who often found flaws in Windows Security to find those flaws PRIOR to release.

This is something that Apple has never done. They barely fix them when they are notified of them. They certainly aren't going to try to find them first.

 

[byteware]

Byteware,


The difference between an app-level vs remote root is the severity and how you handle the hack.
As someone mentioned, Chrome is the only browser that currently doesn't have any vulnerabilities.
This may be the reason why Google, as a corporation is allowing their employees to use Macs or Linux. They can lock down the apps. E.G. Mandate (super secure) Chrome over Safari. Problem w/ app-level hack solved.

App-level hacks, you can mitigate the damage. You can block off the firewall/close ports and that machine is isolated from any damage.

A remote root is far nefarious. These are the types that plague IT for years. A user downloads an attachment, it scans their addressbook, it scans their network block and attempts to attach to other machines on their network.
Machines internally get infected and cause havocs. You may have a firewall to prevent the spread to the outside world but the internal havoc causes a variety of problems - physical destruction to machines, increase network noise. The spread is usually a multiplier effect that grows exponentially.

For app-level hacks, An infected machie with Safari (as cited) can't go out an infect other macs. It has to trick those other users to get hacked. You can probably do some damage with the Safari hacks like send spam emails. A firewall can detect unusual activity and you act accordingly.
A remote root, well, it is all over the place. The spread of the infection means, you now have to shut of all out-going email access because you don't how many machines or which machine got infected.

Having a corpooration close off all ports on all their internal lans on EACH and every machine can be the solution but few rarely do. It causes more IT headache to lock down each and every port which will get hacked anyways.
You can close off SAMBA/File Sharing but a hacker can get thru the printer LPD port.

You still haven't answered the question of whether or not you use Safari...

 

[mrspeedmaster]

You still haven't answered the question of whether or not you use Safari...

I'm not dismissing those hacks. I am not dismissing the idea of software updates. All OSes are vulnerable.

I have more confidence in UNIX style OSes over NT style OSes. Maybe it is bad habit but I've been burned way too many times. With Unix, I know what I am up against. I know how to prepare. The permission/domain model is extremely granular to even the process & kernel level. You can do things as a cron job to lock out the root when it has been hijacked. You can definitely tango with a hacker who has compromised your system. E.G. you can have a process that checks for irregular activity. If a process isn't suppose to go out of your defined sandbox, you can shut down the computer and force a single-user login to fix it. A Hacker may know an unknown unpublished exploit, but he sure doesn't know what safeguards you have in place. It is like a fire-alarm. Any process that opens port 25 to send mail by the hacker can be counter-attacked on the same machine and force a shutdown.
The hacker would have to know all your lock-down methdologies. Pretty much, he would have to know you.

NT has failed me time and time again. I am glad Win7 has taken security seriously. The difference is with NT (Win7), a script-kiddie can easily find an intrusion method. I fear remote root more than anything else. Time, and time again, Windows is more prone to it.

I've never, in my career, see any Unix style OS have self-multiplying zombies. I'm not saying it can't be done. It takes more than script-kiddie level skillz and awareness to get into thru a memory space vulnerability than it is just to go thru a port. When it happens in Win, it can spread all over the globe in less than 2 days. It has precedence in Windows. I doubt there are millions of stupid WIndows IT sysadmins because even the most talented ones I know can't prevent many of the nefarious worms.

When there is an easy remote root on the Mac, I'll be first person to wake up and take notice.

As for your question to Safari, yes, I do use it. However, I've been switching to Chrome and with the recent news, I've been more aware. I don't use Safari or even OSX when I go to unknown sites. I use Chrome OS. It takes 2 seconds to boot in Parallels. If anything happens, it happens in a virtual sandbox.

I also validate my websites by doing a quick NS reverse lookup, again, with tools built into my OS.

I am a typical mac user.

 

[tazziedevil]

and in the 3 years I've had my mac, I've not had to take time out of my schedule to do any of those things you described.

You can automate most, if not all, the processes that take up so much of your time.

I do.

 

[toasty]

You can automate most, if not all, the processes that take up so much of your time.

I do.

Of course you can, no one is disputing that. Another option is a buy a computer that doesn't require that sort of thing in the first place.

My point is that owning a PC requires more effort and attention to keep it running smoothly than a Mac. It just does, and I can't believe this is a controversial proposition. You may say that it really isn't that much more effort, and you'd be right, but the idea that Macs require less effort, generally speaking, shouldn't really be beyond serious dispute. That's the whole reason people buy them to begin with -- they're largely idiot proof.