Mac vs. PC (PIC)

HeelyJoe · Jan 10, 2009

WalksWithLimp said:
Are you honestly telling me that it makes perfect sense to be required to run additional software like that on a brand-new device? The equivalent of having a special machine attached to your car at all times because "it's a specific kind of car" and it will otherwise crash into trees on its own if you don't?

You don't understand that at all? I hope you're being facetious, because it boggles the mind. It also shows how utterly screwed up things are when you (and millions of others) have been trained to think that's normal.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Now explain to me why exactly that is such a huge problem.

Do you understand that for that vast majority of users security programs are installed before they even get their computer? They come to the customer completely secured. So why is this a problem? Are you really going to cry because the antimalware programs are not native to Windows? Really? Does that even matter in the real world? No.

So please, unless you have an argument other than "I don't want to run software other than my OS in regards to security", then please drop this. Of course, if I'm mistaken, I would be delighted to hear from you.

WalksWithLimp · Jan 10, 2009

HeelyJoe said:
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Now explain to me why exactly that is such a huge problem.

You honestly think that's normal. That's the problem. It's like having to put on a full suit of armor in order to go shopping. It's not normal and it's ridiculous that there's so many folks for whom that has become normal.

HeelyJoe said:
Do you understand that for that vast majority of users security programs are installed before they even get their computer? They come to the customer completely secured. So why is this a problem? Are you really going to cry because the antimalware programs are not native to Windows? Really? Does that even matter in the real world? No.

The "vast majority" of PCs do not come with antimalware installed, and those that do can still get horribly infected. But for you, that's okay, because running an antivirus means you've mastered the computer!

HeelyJoe said:
So please, unless you have an argument other than "I don't want to run software other than my OS in regards to security", then please drop this. Of course, if I'm mistaken, I would be delighted to hear from you.

How much software should I have to run? SHould the OS be secure enough? Shouldn't it have been designed better? Why do you refuse to hold the manufacturer responsible for its security failures?

I guess when MS issues a security update, you don't install it, do you? No, because that would imply that SECURITY IS ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE OS.

I wish I could pat you on the head in real life. You know, because, as the Southerners say, bless your heart.

WalksWithLimp · Jan 10, 2009

TerraSin said:
Not because it's a problem with the OS. Because it's a problem with people who like to break it.

And the only way someone can get a virus is if they seek it out? I don't think you know the definition of 'virus' then.

Hardly a lie. It's pure fact. However, people such as yourself seem to refuse to acknowledge it as such because it makes you look small maybe? [/QUOTE]

Dude, it's a lie. I've gone over this twice now. Security through obscurity is a lie. A lie. A lie. I gave two examples of how that is: 1) IIS has a lesser market share than Apache and is more vulnerable and 2) Mac OS 8, which had a lesser market share than OS X does now, had viruses.

You have ignored each of these and pretended you were right about the STO lie. Either rebut it or shut up about it. Otherwise you look like a jerk.

TerraSin said:
I've used OSX and I don't like it,

Playing with OS X on a demo machine at Best Buy isn't the same thing as actually using it. When you have used a Mac with OS X on it for any serious length of time, then you're allowed to form an opinion. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.

TerraSin said:
which is why I stick with PC for the most part. If you do, that's fine and dandy. I personally don't care. What irritates me is the whole "I am better" war Mac likes to promote with these lies about every other OS on the planet. It's things like that which continue the stigma that Vista is a bad OS when it's really fantastic.

I never said anything bad about Vista. I, in fact, use Vista on my gaming machine at home. I have defended Vista to those who insist Vista sucks and XP is the best Windows ever made.You have some sort of complex that makes you think any criticism of your favorite product must mean other people can't stand to have their own criticized. Get over yourself.

You never asked my opinion about Windows Vista.

And when you stop "promoting lies" about security through obscurity, then you can moan and whine about "promoting lies."

TerraSin said:
Also, you might want to recheck your facts as Linux has over 30 million estimated users. I'm willing to bet that is more than OSX.

Okay. Prove it. Show me the numbers.

Until then, go back to your toys and stop stamping your wittle feets.

WalksWithChrist · Jan 10, 2009

HeelyJoe said:
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Now explain to me why exactly that is such a huge problem.

Do you understand that for that vast majority of users security programs are installed before they even get their computer? They come to the customer completely secured. So why is this a problem? Are you really going to cry because the antimalware programs are not native to Windows? Really? Does that even matter in the real world? No.

So please, unless you have an argument other than "I don't want to run software other than my OS in regards to security", then please drop this. Of course, if I'm mistaken, I would be delighted to hear from you.

What "security programs" are you talking about here?

WalksWithLimp · Jan 10, 2009

He's talking about the little annoying apps that HP and Dell love to include.

My contention is: if that worked, then why does Grandma still have viruses on her machine?

Because the OS isn't secure enough by design.

HeelyJoe · Jan 10, 2009

WalksWithLimp said:
You honestly think that's normal. That's the problem. It's like having to put on a full suit of armor in order to go shopping. It's not normal and it's ridiculous that there's so many folks for whom that has become normal.

What's ridiculous is that you just compared antimalware software to walking around in a suit of armor. And apparently with a straight face.

WalksWithLimp said:
The "vast majority" of PCs do not come with antimalware installed, and those that do can still get horribly infected. But for you, that's okay, because running an antivirus means you've mastered the computer!

Alright, I'll rephrase. The vast majority of PCs have the option of having antimalware installed. It still is not a huge deal.

WalksWithLimp said:
How much software should I have to run? SHould the OS be secure enough? Shouldn't it have been designed better? Why do you refuse to hold the manufacturer responsible for its security failures?

I run one program. That's enough.

Look, I agree that MS could be doing more to enhance the security of Windows. Do I care? Absolutely not. I mean seriously, in the end it does not matter in the slightest whether the protection comes from Microsoft or a third party software vendor, because the end result is the same: security.

Why is that a problem?

WalksWithLimp said:
I guess when MS issues a security update, you don't install it, do you? No, because that would imply that SECURITY IS ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE OS.

I would appreciate that you refrain from making ridiculous assumptions about my views on security.

Of course I install the updates, because unlike you, I honestly don't care where the security comes from. Do you really not see that your attitude is absurdly elitist in this regard?

WalksWithLimp said:
I wish I could pat you on the head in real life. You know, because, as the Southerners say, bless your heart.

Well thank you, I suppose. But really, drop the condescending attitude until you have made a legitimate point.

WalksWithLimp · Jan 10, 2009

HeelyJoe said:
What's ridiculous is that you just compared antimalware software to walking around in a suit of armor. And apparently with a straight face.

Uh, yeah. That's right, I did. If you don't understand the analogy, then pay attention to the topic at hand: security.

HeelyJoe said:
Alright, I'll rephrase. The vast majority of PCs have the option of having antimalware installed. It still is not a huge deal.

Sure, right. *sigh*

HeelyJoe said:
I run one program. That's enough.

And you are a better man for it! *sigh*

HeelyJoe said:
Look, I agree that MS could be doing more to enhance the security of Windows. Do I care? Absolutely not. I mean seriously, in the end it does not matter in the slightest whether the protection comes from Microsoft or a third party software vendor, because the end result is the same: security.

HeelyJoe said:
Why is that a problem?

You don't see that security should be the responsibility of the OS manufacturer? You think that "since the end result is the same, the details don't matter"? Really? And if you bought a car with no locks or keyed ignition system, you wouldn't think it weird to have to acquire the locks and keyed ignition system separately?

HeelyJoe said:
I would appreciate that you refrain from making ridiculous assumptions about my views on security.

You've given me your views on security: "whatever, man, as long it's there".

HeelyJoe said:
Of course I install the updates, because unlike you, I honestly don't care where the security comes from. Do you really not see that your attitude is absurdly elitist in this regard?

Not really, no. Mine is a view based on pragmatism. If the OS is insecure by design, then I expect the software company that released it to be held responsible for its fixes.

HeelyJoe said:
Well thank you, I suppose. But really, drop the condescending attitude until you have made a legitimate point.

I've made several. You've been dismissive and flippant.

HeelyJoe · Jan 10, 2009

WalksWithLimp said:
You don't see that security should be the responsibility of the OS manufacturer? You think that "since the end result is the same, the details don't matter"? Really? And if you bought a car with no locks or keyed ignition system, you wouldn't think it weird to have to acquire the locks and keyed ignition system separately?

That analogy doesn't really apply.

However, if the dealer were to install the locks before I bought the car, I would not care in the slightest, because the locks would be there. I would have to do no work to install them, and the end result would be the same.

WalksWithLimp said:
You've given me your views on security: "whatever, man, as long it's there".

Is that a problem?

WalksWithLimp said:
Not really, no. Mine is a view based on pragmatism. If the OS is insecure by design, then I expect the software company that released it to be held responsible for its fixes.

And they have been responsible in the form of security updates.

WalksWithLimp said:
I've made several. You've been dismissive and flippant.

Dismissive? I couldn't even respond to the first half of your post because you did nothing but dismiss my ideas.

WalksWithLimp · Jan 10, 2009

Yeah, okay. The OS developer has no responsibility. Whatever, as long as the end result is the same. Security isn't the developer's responsibility. Sorry to hurt your precious feelings.

HeelyJoe · Jan 10, 2009

WalksWithLimp said:
Yeah, okay. The OS developer has no responsibility. Whatever, as long as the end result is the same. Security isn't the developer's responsibility. Sorry to hurt your precious feelings.

Explain to me why anything other than the end result influences the actual performance/usabilty of a computer? I mean really, does it matter where everything comes from?

WalksWithLimp · Jan 10, 2009

No, obviously not. None of it matters. You got it. Sure. Mhm. You betcha.

Sketcher · Jan 10, 2009

WalksWithLimp said:
What security exploits are they prone to that affect Macs? Specifics, pls.

For Flash:

Adobe Flash exploit could log keystrokes according to three critical security updates released. Adobe Flash Players 9.0.45.0, 8.0.34.0 and 7.0.69.9 as well as earlier version running on ALL platforms are vulnerable and can be exploited by loading a malicious SWF file under these players.

Source: http://www.securemac.com. A little older, yes, but the fact remains that in security holes in the applications a Mac user will likely use can pose a threat.

WalksWithChrist said:
That's all well and good for us tech-heads who know a thing or two. But the average consumer doesn't care much to get behind a firewall, know which AV to chose, etc.
They just want to work.

That is Mac's strength. The power to go out of the box with little to no hassles or know-how.

Not too many people would leave their cars or houses unlocked at night, it's the same kind of deal with antiviruses and firewalls for their computers. The average consumer can understand this.

WalksWithLimp · Jan 10, 2009

Now, let's see. How has or could the Flash player do anything there? ANy ideas? Or are you just repeating "Macs are bad too" again?

Sketcher · Jan 10, 2009

WalksWithLimp said:
Now, let's see. How has or could the Flash player do anything there? ANy ideas? Or are you just repeating "Macs are bad too" again?

If somebody could log keystrokes, think of all the things they can do. What if you have to enter your administrator password. What if you're shopping or banking online.

WalksWithLimp · Jan 10, 2009

Good point. Lots of banks use Flash player for their user interface.

Ahem.

peanutbutter12 · Jan 10, 2009

WalksWithChrist said:
Just curious...what problems have you had with your studio Macs?

You mean besides the constant crashes and loss of data?

Mind you, these were newer Mac Pros.

WalksWithLimp · Jan 11, 2009

Crashes? You mean kernel panics?

Or not so much.

WalksWithChrist · Jan 11, 2009

HeelyJoe said:
Explain to me why anything other than the end result influences the actual performance/usabilty of a computer? I mean really, does it matter where everything comes from?

I say this with a straight face. No insult intended.

You're way over your head in this discussion.

I suggest doing some reading on basic security concepts. There's tons of good info out there for the picking.

twistedsketch said:
For Flash:

Source: http://www.securemac.com. A little older, yes, but the fact remains that in security holes in the applications a Mac user will likely use can pose a threat.

Not too many people would leave their cars or houses unlocked at night, it's the same kind of deal with antiviruses and firewalls for their computers. The average consumer can understand this.

Yes. They can...but they don't either by choice or by ignorance more often than they should.

That is the point I have been trying to make.

I'll share with you one thing I keep seeing over and over. Folks love to just download whatever AV or spyware app they see on an ad somewhere. I can't tell you how many times people have told me they do this. So what ends up happening is you have your Joe User out there running three different AV apps and God knows how many malware killers.
All fighting for dominance!!

My good friend WalksWithLimp had a business just a few years ago mostly helping people out in that situation. I know he has plenty of stories!!

Once again, the point is the average customer/consumer shouldn't have to know the "killer app" for security or know which techie to trust.
Apple understands this.

Now I will say this, MS has gotten better very recently in this regard. But they are still playing catchup to Apple. (mmm...not a nice flavor combination! )

And I have high hopes for Windows 7.

(so there...can't call me fanboy anymore! but some probably still will lol)

WalksWithChrist · Jan 11, 2009

HeelyJoe said:
Explain to me why anything other than the end result influences the actual performance/usabilty of a computer? I mean really, does it matter where everything comes from?

Yes, it matters.

First tell me your background in computers so I can tailor my answer for you.
Perspective is important.

Here's mine. Been working in IT in some form or the other for about 10 years now. I've been a PC repair tech and a tech support jockey of one stripe or another for a while. I'm no security expert by far, but I do try to keep up here and there.

I've been running a PowerBook G4 for about four years now. WalksWithLimp is my Mac mentor in fact!

peanutbutter12 · Jan 11, 2009

WalksWithLimp said:
Crashes? You mean kernel panics?

Or not so much.

No, freezes, complete system shutdowns, and otherwise annoying program crashes.

Mind you, this was going on with both Protools systems and (il)Logic systems. I eventually threw my hands in the air and went with PC based studios and have never had a problem since.

And before you ask, these were professional studios. Not home based. I now run a 64 channel digital board from my home and Sonar on my PC and works brilliantly. I've not looked back since.

Mac vs. PC (PIC)

HeelyJoe

Guest

Big Daddy Kane

Big Daddy Kane

Seeking God's Will

Big Daddy Kane

HeelyJoe

Guest

Big Daddy Kane

HeelyJoe

Guest

Big Daddy Kane

HeelyJoe

Guest

Big Daddy Kane

Born Imperishable

Big Daddy Kane

Born Imperishable

Big Daddy Kane

Senior Veteran

Big Daddy Kane

Seeking God's Will

Seeking God's Will

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency