Everyone's Switching to Mac's

[Sjokkel]

the problem is, with this discussion were running in circles. everytime its being started again. over and over and noone will be converted or say "okay, you are right, i was wrong" because noone is right.

I think the general problem is that people tend to react in black and white and even if your personal opinion is grey you still get bashed in a pool of b/w opinions. This is one of the reasons i hardly post on a forum nowadays. It's a relief that are still some people out there that can have a civil discussion, so thanks for that!

But a still like my car better ;) j/k haha

[Cormier6083]

Thanks for the input. If anything, I'd prob get an internet macintosh.

[hotdog666al]

People who say Mac OS X has barely any viruses because it is not as popular as Windows are utterly blind.

Do you really think hackers just ignore all the fanboys who claim their OSX is rock solid, No, I'm sure they want to prove all the Mactards* wrong.

*I myself am a Mactard, btw.

[whocares78]

People who say Mac OS X has barely any viruses because it is not as popular as Windows are utterly blind.

Do you really think hackers just ignore all the fanboys who claim their OSX is rock solid, No, I'm sure they want to prove all the Mactards* wrong.

*I myself am a Mactard, btw.

not blind just realistic!

put it this way, act as if you are a haker, not a joe blow script kiddie, someone that writes the virus (considering most viruses nowdays are designed to in some way steal info to make money!!!) you want to hit as many machines as possible, to increase your chances of gettign what you want. why woudl you go for macs?? it just makes no sense to go for a small fish in a huge pond, when the big fish are so much easier to catch, because there are so many more of them.

Not to mention, if your a hacker you most likley DON't have a MAC. so how do you write and test vulnerability exploits, and how do you even find them in the first place??

There are countless more reasons why you wouldn't go for a MAC, i am sure if it was the dominant player, it would have been exploited by now.

the only reason there is to hack a mac is to get a name for yourself, not to prove fanboys wrong, as any hacker knows the fanboys are wron anyway , they don't have to prove anythign to themselves :)

and yes i KNOW hackers ignore the fanboys, becasue they know they are just fanboys, who obviously are biased and especially the mac has no viruses fanboys as clearly they don't understadn how it all works :).

[Damian]

not blind just realistic!

put it this way, act as if you are a haker, not a joe blow script kiddie, someone that writes the virus (considering most viruses nowdays are designed to in some way steal info to make money!!!) you want to hit as many machines as possible, to increase your chances of gettign what you want. why woudl you go for macs?? it just makes no sense to go for a small fish in a huge pond, when the big fish are so much easier to catch, because there are so many more of them.

Not to mention, if your a hacker you most likley DON't have a MAC. so how do you write and test vulnerability exploits, and how do you even find them in the first place??

There are countless more reasons why you wouldn't go for a MAC, i am sure if it was the dominant player, it would have been exploited by now.

the only reason there is to hack a mac is to get a name for yourself, not to prove fanboys wrong, as any hacker knows the fanboys are wron anyway , they don't have to prove anythign to themselves :)

and yes i KNOW hackers ignore the fanboys, becasue they know they are just fanboys, who obviously are biased and especially the mac has no viruses fanboys as clearly they don't understadn how it all works :).

Why should hackers ignore fanboys? isn't it better to prove the fanboys something instead of doing nothing for six years? :)

[toadeater]

There are countless more reasons why you wouldn't go for a MAC, i am sure if it was the dominant player, it would have been exploited by now.

Unlikely, since OS X uses a hybrid BSD-XNU (Mach) kernel, which has been surviving hacking attempts since the 1980s. Yes, that's right, the technology in OS X has been in development since before even Win95. Perhaps some modern Mac apps may have vulnerabilities, easily patched, but you will never see rampant exploits like in Windows on either OS X, Linux, or BSD Unix.

Windows has been plagued by greed-oriented design decisions from the start. Much of the design of Windows was intended to promote other Microsoft software and services rather than as the best option for an OS implementation. The design of Windows was dishonest and now Microsoft is paying the price.

MinWin, if it is to be Windows 7, is basically what Unix has been doing all along. If Microsoft truly doesn't compromise quality for marketing again, then it could finally be a secure OS. But that would mean no more hidden services, or spyware, no control over what users can install--tough choice for an evil company like MS who's expansionist business strategy relies on keeping its customers locked-in MS software and services. No other OS tries to manipulate users this way, so no other OS has to deal with the kinds of vulnerabilities created by integrating insecure applications into the OS, or supporting insecure protocols and data types.

[whocares78]

Why should hackers ignore fanboys? isn't it better to prove the fanboys something instead of doing nothing for six years? :)

because they are just fanboys, who have no idea about security. If i loved X and told you x would never break, would you go buy x just to break it for the sole reason that i said it couldn't be broken.

in the case of a fanboy(especially the mac ones so it seems) even if you broke it i woudl tell you, well thats just you, i weakened it by throwoing it on the ground a million times and if you throw it on the ground enough then of course it's gonna break, but that doesn't count because i weakened it for you adn it was really old.

there have been numerous proof of concept viruses for mac, and in reality a proff of concept is PROOF that a vulnerability exists and can therefore be exploited

what i am saying is hackers do what they want, they don't care what people say, and fanboys are by definition the least knowledgable to comment on anythign like security because they are so biased. nomatter what they will always say their platform is more secure.

Unlikely, since OS X uses a hybrid BSD-XNU (Mach) kernel, which has been surviving hacking attempts since the 1980s. Yes, that's right, the technology in OS X has been in development since before even Win95. Perhaps some modern Mac apps may have vulnerabilities, easily patched, but you will never see rampant exploits like in Windows on either OS X, Linux, or BSD Unix.

Windows has been plagued by greed-oriented design decisions from the start. Much of the design of Windows was intended to promote other Microsoft software and services rather than as the best option for an OS implementation. The design of Windows was dishonest and now Microsoft is paying the price.

MinWin, if it is to be Windows 7, is basically what Unix has been doing all along. If Microsoft truly doesn't compromise quality for marketing again, then it could finally be a secure OS. But that would mean no more hidden services, or spyware, no control over what users can install--tough choice for an evil company like MS who's expansionist business strategy relies on keeping its customers locked-in MS software and services. No other OS tries to manipulate users this way, so no other OS has to deal with the kinds of vulnerabilities created by integrating insecure applications into the OS, or supporting insecure protocols and data types.

nothing is unhackable NOTHING! hell it took them 20 odd years to find some of the vulnerabilities in tcp

p.s. i find it hard to believe MAC doesn't manipulate it's users, if you are willing to pay the prices they charge then you have been manipulated :)

[hotdog666al]

The fact the platform hasn't got the largest user base is just one factor that leads to the reduction of viruses/malware.

I'd say the main factor is the security of the OS :)

[the evn show]

p.s. i find it hard to believe MAC doesn't manipulate it's users, if you are willing to pay the prices they charge then you have been manipulated :)

sed s/MAC/Microsoft/

sed s/MAC/Linux/

sed s/MAC/Levis

This sentence is true for all people who purchase any thing.

[BajiRav]

Unlikely, since OS X uses a hybrid BSD-XNU (Mach) kernel, which has been surviving hacking attempts since the 1980s. Yes, that's right, the technology in OS X has been in development since before even Win95. Perhaps some modern Mac apps may have vulnerabilities, easily patched, but you will never see rampant exploits like in Windows on either OS X, Linux, or BSD Unix.

Windows has been plagued by greed-oriented design decisions from the start. Much of the design of Windows was intended to promote other Microsoft software and services rather than as the best option for an OS implementation. The design of Windows was dishonest and now Microsoft is paying the price.

MinWin, if it is to be Windows 7, is basically what Unix has been doing all along. If Microsoft truly doesn't compromise quality for marketing again, then it could finally be a secure OS. But that would mean no more hidden services, or spyware, no control over what users can install--tough choice for an evil company like MS who's expansionist business strategy relies on keeping its customers locked-in MS software and services. No other OS tries to manipulate users this way, so no other OS has to deal with the kinds of vulnerabilities created by integrating insecure applications into the OS, or supporting insecure protocols and data types.

Somehow I feel you don't know **** about what you wrote there. :rofl:

[se7en.hu]

p.s. i find it hard to believe MAC doesn't manipulate it's users, if you are willing to pay the prices they charge then you have been manipulated :)

i thought i got a rather good deal, my macbook cost me about AU$1500 with an edu discount, not bad at all

i just saw that even os10.5 will only cost me like 160$AU maybe even less with edu discount i didnt check yet.

[angrybrit]

p.s. i find it hard to believe MAC doesn't manipulate it's users, if you are willing to pay the prices they charge then you have been manipulated :)

That and the lack of choice of hardware. It's why I sold my Mac and went back to Windows.

The 7300 NVIDIA video card in their workstation range is shameful. Outdated hardware being sold at yesterday's price.

With Apple it's "Can't Have It Your Way."

[Quillz]

Windows has been plagued by greed-oriented design decisions from the start. Much of the design of Windows was intended to promote other Microsoft software and services rather than as the best option for an OS implementation. The design of Windows was dishonest and now Microsoft is paying the price.

You're letting your inner fanboy get the best of you. Windows was originally conceived in 1985 as a graphical layer that ran on top of MS-DOS. It really wasn't until Windows 3 in 1990 that it was successful, and still, it really took until Windows 95 to really get everyone and their mother onboard.