(ot) stupid mac commercials

[Helmet_hair]

So, is it that no one bothers to write viruses for Apple computers or is it that they are not susceptible to virus attacks?

[/dev/null]

So, is it that no one bothers to write viruses for Apple computers or is it that they are not susceptible to virus attacks?

769957[/snapback]

Nobody really bothers to write them for Mac's. However if someone did try it would be harder than writing a Windows virus. The Mac OS is built on top of a Unix clone called FreeBSD which makes it much more secure than a Windows OS.

 

But every computer in the world is susceptible to virus attacks

 

The only way to truly securea computer is to remove any network adapters and any external media (floppy, CD, USB) drives

[EC-Bills]

No one who complains Windows ME is the "worst ever" really knows what they're talking about.  It's not even the worst Microsoft OS ever.  Clearly, you've never used Microsoft Bob. 

769808[/snapback]

 

Yeah but there is a distinction to be made here. Practicaly no one used Bob. People used ME.

[EC-Bills]

Nobody really bothers to write them for Mac's.  However if someone did try it would be harder than writing a Windows virus.  The Mac OS is built on top of a Unix clone called FreeBSD which makes it much more secure than a Windows OS.

 

But every computer in the world is susceptible to virus attacks

 

The only way to truly securea  computer is to remove any network adapters and any external media (floppy, CD, USB) drives

769969[/snapback]

 

You forgot to mentioned pulling the power cord

[/dev/null]

You forgot to mentioned pulling the power cord

770131[/snapback]

they already covered that in one of the mac commercials (the one with the windows guy in a wheel chair and casts)

[linksfiend]

For the most part they are accurate:

 

PCs get viruses, Macs don't.

PCs get spyware, Macs don't.

PCs require all kinds of setup once opened in order to do anything meaningul.

Macs have it all working coming out of the box.

PCs need drivers installed to use external devices.

Macs don't. It just works.

etc...

768794[/snapback]

Way off.

 

My parents iMac running OSX 10.1 locks up all the time.

 

The printer didn't "just work". I needed to download and install a driver. Not to mention that printer seemd to stop working almost weekly requiring the driver needing to be reinstalled.

 

Furthermore, setting up DSL was a nightmare.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Nobody really bothers to write them for Mac's.  However if someone did try it would be harder than writing a Windows virus.  The Mac OS is built on top of a Unix clone called FreeBSD which makes it much more secure than a Windows OS.

 

But every computer in the world is susceptible to virus attacks

 

The only way to truly securea  computer is to remove any network adapters and any external media (floppy, CD, USB) drives

769969[/snapback]

 

If Mac OS were as ubiquitous as Windows, it would get attacked just as much and just as effectively. MS OS's are in large part victims of their own success: virus creators aren't going to target the 10% or so of computers running Mac OS when they can bring down 90%+ of desktop computers running Windows. Mac OS may be harder to write viruses for...but if it were on 90% of the desktops being run by your average mouth-breathing computer illiterate pez-head, there'd be plenty of viruses targeting it...

[mcjeff215]

I get a kick out of the religious war that computers bring about. As always, the truth is in the middle.

 

There really is something to Apple's argument that their product is easier to use. It's always seemed to me that pro-PC people like to point out every bad Macintosh experience they've ever had to try and level the playing field. When all of the hardware that most people will ever use comes in one package, all built by the same manufacturer, you're going to have a better end-user experience. Look at the old Sun gear.

 

To someone else's point, buying a Dell (should) provides the same benefit. They've already screwed with compatibility and drivers. It should *just work*. If it doesn't work out of the box, then in my opinion, your vendor has failed you, be it Apple or Dell.

 

There also is truth to the fewer viruses argument, too. The counter is always "well there's only two percent of the market using Apple gear, of course there are fewer viruses!" that's a dismissal of Apple's claim that they are more secure followed by a market-share driven insult, all in one comment.

 

As bit-bucket said, all computers are susceptible to viruses and worms. That's just a computing fact. If not the Mac OS, then some third party application will be chock full of holes. The improved separation of privileges and the Unix base do give OS X an advantage, though. It's not immune by any stretch of the imagination, but it does have an advantage due to it's architecture (Mach-O/BSD).

 

Personally, I use a PowerBook for work and I've got a PC at home for zapping space aliens when I've got some free time. I find that I'm more productive on the Macintosh than I could ever be on a PC. I've got Vim, GCC, SSH, Python, Ruby, Objective-C, and a Terminal, for work.... right next to Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Exchange Client, and iChat. It really really is a very happy medium for me. I couldn't imagine using anything else and being nearly as productive.

 

I *really* want to pick up one of those 24" iMacs and run Windows and Mac OS X. That's a nice machine, Intel driven, best of both worlds in one package.

 

-Jeff

[mcjeff215]

I get a kick out of the religious war that computers bring about.   As always, the truth is in the middle. 

 

There really is something to Apple's argument that their product is easier to use. It's always seemed to me that pro-PC people like to point out every bad Macintosh experience they've ever had to try and level the playing field. When all of the hardware that most people will ever use comes in one package, all built by the same manufacturer, you're going to have a better end-user experience.  Look at the old Sun gear. 

 

To someone else's point, buying a Dell (should) provides the same benefit. They've already screwed with compatibility and drivers. It should *just work*.  If it doesn't work out of the box, then in my opinion, your vendor has failed you, be it Apple or Dell.

 

There also is truth to the fewer viruses argument, too.  The counter is always "well there's only two percent of the market using Apple gear, of course there are fewer viruses!"  that's a dismissal of Apple's claim that they are more secure followed by a market-share driven insult, all in one comment.

 

As bit-bucket said, all computers are susceptible to viruses and worms. That's just a computing fact.  If not the Mac OS, then some third party application will be chock full of holes.  The improved separation of privileges and the Unix base do give OS X an advantage, though.  It's not immune by any stretch of the imagination, but it does have an advantage due to it's architecture (Mach-O/BSD).

 

Personally, I use a PowerBook for work and I've got a PC at home for zapping space aliens when I've got some free time.   I find that I'm more productive on the Macintosh than I could ever be on a PC. I've got Vim, GCC, SSH, Python, Ruby, Objective-C, and a Terminal, for work.... right next to Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Exchange Client, and iChat.  It really really is a very happy medium for me.  I couldn't imagine using anything else and being nearly as productive. 

 

I *really* want to pick up one of those 24" iMacs and run Windows and Mac OS X.  That's a nice machine, Intel driven, best of both worlds in one package.

 

-Jeff

770162[/snapback]

 

Also, note that even though OS X *is* based on Unix, there are some anti-unix stupids in there, too. For example:

 

jeff-power-mac-g4:~ jeff$ ls -ald /
drwxrwxr-t   30 root  admin  1122 Sep  1 20:59 /
jeff-power-mac-g4:~ jeff$ id
uid=501(jeff) gid=501(jeff) groups=501(jeff), 81(appserveradm), 79(appserverusr), 80(admin)
jeff-power-mac-g4:~ jeff$ 

 

I am the default user on the machine, and I'm in group 'admin.' Note permissions on '/.' So you'll see that it is still possible to do some dumb stuff as the default user without realizing it (malware, etc...).

 

My wife's user, however:

 

jeff-power-mac-g4:~ jeff$ id julie
uid=502(julie) gid=502(julie) groups=502(julie)
jeff-power-mac-g4:~ jeff$ 

 

So by default, the first user on the system has elevated rights. It's still not possible to edit system files without 'sudo-ing' up to root, though:

 

jeff-power-mac-g4:~ jeff$ cd /etc/ && touch my_file
touch: my_file: Permission denied
jeff-power-mac-g4:/etc jeff$ 

 

Lastly, the default directory set that the admin user can access without requiring a root authentication is small. Basically, you can install Applications, create directories under /, and move user files around. Anything else requires you to authenticate against the system.

 

jeff-power-mac-g4:/ jeff$ ls -al
total 10019
drwxrwxr-t   30 root  admin     1122 Sep  1 20:59 .
drwxrwxr-t   30 root  admin     1122 Sep  1 20:59 ..
-rw-rw-r--    1 jeff  admin     6148 Sep 10 13:05 .DS_Store
drw-------    7 root  admin      238 Apr 14 23:40 .Spotlight-V100
d-wx-wx-wt    2 root  admin       68 Apr 14 23:15 .Trashes
-rw-------    1 root  wheel   131072 Aug 16 21:01 .hotfiles.btree
dr-xr-xr-x    2 root  wheel      128 Aug 22 22:16 .vol
drwxrwxr-x   46 root  admin     1564 Sep 10 15:16 Applications
-rw-r--r--    1 root  admin     4096 Aug 23 00:20 Desktop DB
-rw-r--r--    1 root  admin     3842 Sep 11 20:56 Desktop DF
drwxrwxr-x   15 root  admin      510 Aug 20 17:03 Developer
drwxrwxr-t   45 root  admin     1530 Mar 30  2005 Library
-rwxrwxrwx    1 root  admin    12466 Apr 15 10:29 MAU 1.1.2 Update Log
drwxr-xr-x    1 root  wheel      512 Sep 10 19:56 Network
drwxr-xr-x    4 root  wheel      136 Mar 30  2005 System
drwxrwxr-t    6 root  admin      204 Sep 11 20:56 Users
drwxrwxrwt    5 root  admin      170 Sep 10 15:17 Volumes
drwxr-xr-x    4 root  admin      136 Apr 14 23:39 automount
drwxr-xr-x   40 root  wheel     1360 Aug 20 19:04 bin
drwxrwxr-t    2 root  admin       68 Mar 22  2005 cores
dr-xr-xr-x    2 root  wheel      512 Aug 22 22:16 dev
lrwxr-xr-x    1 root  admin       11 Apr 14 23:24 etc -> private/etc
lrwxr-xr-x    1 root  admin        9 Dec 31  1969 mach -> /mach.sym
-r--r--r--    1 root  admin   603108 Dec 31  1969 mach.sym
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel  4338660 Jun 23 00:56 mach_kernel
drwxr-xr-x    6 root  wheel      204 Dec 31  1969 private
drwxr-xr-x   63 root  wheel     2142 Aug 20 19:04 sbin
lrwxr-xr-x    1 root  admin       11 Apr 14 23:26 tmp -> private/tmp
drwxr-xr-x   11 root  wheel      374 Apr 14 23:48 usr
lrwxr-xr-x    1 root  admin       11 Apr 14 23:27 var -> private/var

 

 

-Jeff

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

There also is truth to the fewer viruses argument, too.  The counter is always "well there's only two percent of the market using Apple gear, of course there are fewer viruses!"  that's a dismissal of Apple's claim that they are more secure followed by a market-share driven insult, all in one comment.

770162[/snapback]

 

No, that's a simple observation: why would anyone expend the time and effort to write viruses for an uncommon platform? There's no viruses for my Atari 800XL, either...doesn't mean my Atari's more secure than a Mac, it just means there's no upside to anyone in writing a virus for a machine that only I still run.

 

And then there's the simple fact that the people who write viruses tend to be superuser-types that absolutely loathe the "accessible to every drooling idiot on the planet" approach Microsoft takes to software development (the !@#$ing dancing paper clip in MS Office, for example...I hate that thing. Most of the non-technical users I know love it. MS targets them, not me) and have their own evangelical reasons for targeting Windows.

 

And then there's every competent sysadmin I've ever talked to who's worked with Windows boxes, and secured them perfectly. Again, Windows' "bad" security is due in no small part not to the technology but to the user base they target, who don't know the first thing about security. Generally, IT security is incompatible with Microsoft's traditional marketing goal of making software accessible to the public, so MS software tends to be less secure out of the box...because it sells better that way. Microsoft, by their own admission, isn't a tech company, they're a marketing company. And they are VERY good at it. They didn't get 90%+ of the desktop market because Windows is good, they got it because it's more accessible to the average user.

 

Personally, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I have to use Windows for work (clients run Windows servers. Even my Java- and Oracle-based clients run Windows servers, which is idiotic). I've hated every Mac I've ever used...and if I want to use FreeBSD, I've got three different flavors of Linux at my fingertips right here at my desk. But pretending that Apple's market share has nothing to do with their lack of virus attacks is silly...any half-decent security expert can tell you that security is far less technical than it is psychological, and that basic psychology dictates not wasting your time attacking an uncommon platform rather than the ubiquitous one.

[mcjeff215]

No, that's a simple observation: why would anyone expend the time and effort to write viruses for an uncommon platform?  There's no viruses for my Atari 800XL, either...doesn't mean my Atari's more secure than a Mac, it just means there's no upside to anyone in writing a virus for a machine that only I still run. 

 

And then there's the simple fact that the people who write viruses tend to be superuser-types that absolutely loathe the "accessible to every drooling idiot on the planet" approach Microsoft takes to software development (the !@#$ing dancing paper clip in MS Office, for example...I hate that thing.  Most of the non-technical users I know love it.  MS targets them, not me) and have their own evangelical reasons for targeting Windows.

 

And then there's every competent sysadmin I've ever talked to who's worked with Windows boxes, and secured them perfectly.  Again, Windows' "bad" security is due in no small part not to the technology but to the user base they target, who don't know the first thing about security.  Generally, IT security is incompatible with Microsoft's traditional marketing goal of making software accessible to the public, so MS software tends to be less secure out of the box...because it sells better that way.  Microsoft, by their own admission, isn't a tech company, they're a marketing company.  And they are VERY good at it.  They didn't get 90%+ of the desktop market because Windows is good, they got it because it's more accessible to the average user. 

 

Personally, I don't have a dog in this hunt.  I have to use Windows for work (clients run Windows servers.  Even my Java- and Oracle-based clients run Windows servers, which is idiotic).  I've hated every Mac I've ever used...and if I want to use FreeBSD, I've got three different flavors of Linux at my fingertips right here at my desk.  But pretending that Apple's market share has nothing to do with their lack of virus attacks is silly...any half-decent security expert can tell you that security is far less technical than it is psychological, and that basic psychology dictates not wasting your time attacking an uncommon platform rather than the ubiquitous one.

770185[/snapback]

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. You're correct in saying that the relatively small user base is a deterrent in itself. It would be pointless to try and argue that! The pond isn't big enough. There's a distinct difference between quantity of attacks and the security each architecture inherently provides, though.

 

While I prefer the Macintosh, I'm in no way an anti-Microsoft OS bigot. I'm a firm believer in the best tool for the job. My opinion doesn't stem from some deep-seeded Gates loathing. It's an opinion I've formed based on my technical knowledge of both platforms.

 

Of course it's possible to secure Windows. I'm not arguing that, either. This is stuff I deal with on a daily basis. Firewalls, network separation, removal of unwanted services, proper trust management, frequent patching; it's all good IT practice and all systems administrators should be well versed in security.

 

My point is simply that the architecture of the Macintosh lends it self to more secure operation. I'd say the same thing about virtually any Unix derivative, personal preference aside.

 

Realize that I'm not calling it a "secure platform", I'm saying that the design just gives it a head start in a sense. I've got a pending security update in 'Software Update' now that I've been putting off because I don't want to reboot!

 

-Jeff

[yall]

I've use my Mac as little as possible. For Video and Audio editing, it's great, but as others have mentioned, OSX crashes a lot. It's hella unstable, and as far as I'm concerned the environment is about as non-intuitive as it gets.

 

Since I've been running PC's with XP, the opposite has been true. Not a single crash or driver issue. Ggranted I build them myself for the most part, so I am able to troubleshoot things before they become issues, but it's just easier to use my PC than it is my Mac.

 

For a while I thought it was because I'm so conditioned to use MS operating systems. Most of my programming experience has been on PC's or on IBM (Mainframe/Midrange) systems. But I realized that my computer illiterate girlfriend prefers the PC to the Mac any day of the week.

 

The other thing that kills me about Mac's (and all apple products) is that smarmy, hollier than thou attitude that seems to be rampant amongst Mac fanboys.

 

I loathe going into the Apple store to pick up an iPod accessory or RAM for my Mac. Those people are downright haughty, as though they've discovered some new element, the properties of which have the inate ability to save mankind from itself.

 

Once, at the checkout counter (I can't recall how the topic came up), an associate was berating internet explorer, saying how she couldn't believe anyone would put it on their computer, and MS was the devil(or something like that). When i asked her "If IE was so terrible, how come it is the default browser on every machine in this store, preloaded at the apple factory?", she had no idea how to respond. It was like the man came out from behind the curtain.

[MattyT]

The other thing that kills me about Mac's (and all apple products) is that smarmy, hollier than thou attitude that seems to be rampant amongst Mac fanboys.

 

This sentiment, shared by TONS of people, is why I wonder why more people haven't tried to create a nasty virus for the Mac. Just to get the satisfaction of "shutting everyone up."

 

 

Once, at the checkout counter (I can't recall how the topic came up), an associate was berating internet explorer, saying how she couldn't believe anyone would put it on their computer, and MS was the devil(or something like that). When i asked her "If IE was so terrible, how come it is the default browser on every machine in this store, preloaded at the apple factory?", she had no idea how to respond. It was like the man came out from behind the curtain.

 

This must have been 3 or 4 years ago?.... before Safari was released. I think IE may still be loaded at the factory, but it's not the default browser any more.

 

IE 5 for the Mac is much slower for surfing than either Safari and Firefox/Mozilla, but it was actually the first completely standards-compliant browser on the market (for any OS). It's odd that Microsoft's best browser was created for a Mac. It hasn't been updated since 2000, but IIRC, it's still more compliant than current versions of IE 6 for Windows. Not sure about IE 7.

[mcjeff215]

I've use my Mac as little as possible. For Video and Audio editing, it's great, but as others have mentioned, OSX crashes a lot. It's hella unstable, and as far as I'm concerned the environment is about as non-intuitive as it gets.

 

Since I've been running PC's with XP, the opposite has been true. Not a single crash or driver issue. Ggranted I build them myself for the most part, so I am able to troubleshoot things before they become issues, but it's just easier to use my PC than it is my Mac.

 

For a while I thought it was because I'm so conditioned to use MS operating systems. Most of my programming experience has been on PC's or on IBM (Mainframe/Midrange) systems. But I realized that my computer illiterate girlfriend prefers the PC to the Mac any day of the week.

 

The other thing that kills me about Mac's (and all apple products) is that smarmy, hollier than thou attitude that seems to be rampant amongst Mac fanboys.

 

I loathe going into the Apple store to pick up an iPod accessory or RAM for my Mac. Those people are downright haughty, as though they've discovered some new element, the properties of which have the inate ability to save mankind from itself.

 

Once, at the checkout counter (I can't recall how the topic came up), an associate was berating internet explorer, saying how she couldn't believe anyone would put it on their computer, and MS was the devil(or something like that). When i asked her "If IE was so terrible, how come it is the default browser on every machine in this store, preloaded at the apple factory?", she had no idea how to respond. It was like the man came out from behind the curtain.

770714[/snapback]

 

Ha, I found this on one of the blogs I read this morning. I found it fitting...

 

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000675.html

 

I've been using Macintosh boxes since 10.0 as that's when they started shipping the Unix-base. It wasn't a fan-boy thing, more of a way to finally get rid of the Windows machine and the Linux machine. No more need to dual-boot or run emulation of sorts. I didn't switch because I wanted to be part of some fruity black turtleneck wearing club. It wasn't a question of Mac vs. Windows for me at all, it was "this makes more sense based on the work I do." Hell, I don't even like using the word "switch" because that implies that I jumped on due to the "switch" campaign.

 

The bottom line is you should use whatever you feel more comfortable with. I've honestly never had a Macintosh crash. I've had third party junk die on me, but I've never gotten the machine to actually crash. I also firmly believe that anything Unix based, when used properly, is inherently more secure. Again, that doesn't mean "bad thing proof."

 

For every "mac that crashed" story, I can tell an "${arch} that crashed" story. Your girlfriend didn't like the OS X interface at all, but my wife swears by it now. That is purely subjective.

 

I'm not even sure I have a point any more. Perhaps it's just that technical zealotry in any fashion is a negative as there's always a better way to do something.

 

-Jeff

[mcjeff215]

This sentiment, shared by TONS of people, is why I wonder why more people haven't tried to create a nasty virus for the Mac. Just to get the satisfaction of "shutting everyone up."

This must have been 3 or 4 years ago?.... before Safari was released. I think IE may still be loaded at the factory, but it's not the default browser any more.

 

IE 5 for the Mac is much slower for surfing than either Safari and Firefox/Mozilla, but it was actually the first completely standards-compliant browser on the market (for any OS). It's odd that Microsoft's best browser was created for a Mac. It hasn't been updated since 2000, but IIRC, it's still more compliant than current versions of IE 6 for Windows. Not sure about IE 7.

770736[/snapback]

 

They're not even developing I.E. for the Macintosh any longer. M.S. EOL'd it a year back or so. I can't blame them, the were giving away software for a platform that they're not making any money on. I would have EOL'd it, too. I don't think it shipped with Tiger.

 

-Jeff

[Wacka]

Way off. 

 

My parents iMac running OSX 10.1 locks up all the time.

 

The printer didn't "just work".  I needed to download and install a driver.  Not to mention that printer seemd to stop working almost weekly requiring the driver needing to be reinstalled.

 

Furthermore, setting up DSL was a nightmare.

770146[/snapback]

 

10.1 is from about 2001, It's ancient! It's like using Windows ME. 10.1 was the frirst full version of the new system and had lots of bugs still and was lacking most features that are in the system today.

 

I had a 5 year old mac that was crashing, but that wsa because the motherboard was going. I've had my mini with 10.3.9 for 1.5 years and no crashes. Some stuff like Acrobat or Virtual PC (a MS product) crashed, but not the system.

[/dev/null]

I loathe going into the Apple store to pick up an iPod accessory or RAM for my Mac. Those people are downright haughty, as though they've discovered some new element, the properties of which have the inate ability to save mankind from itself.

 

Once, at the checkout counter (I can't recall how the topic came up), an associate was berating internet explorer, saying how she couldn't believe anyone would put it on their computer, and MS was the devil(or something like that). When i asked her "If IE was so terrible, how come it is the default browser on every machine in this store, preloaded at the apple factory?", she had no idea how to respond. It was like the man came out from behind the curtain.

770714[/snapback]

 

how could you even breathe in there? i would have been choking on the smug cloud

[mcjeff215]

how could you even breathe in there?  i would have been choking on the smug cloud

771083[/snapback]

 

Classic South Park Reference.