Im trying to figure out what your upset about. The PC (read Windows) platform has more viri that has been written against it. From that level the Mac claim is real. Of course, if the penetration numbers were reversed so would the virus activity.
Im trying to figure out what your upset about. The PC (read Windows) platform has more viri that has been written against it. From that level the Mac claim is real. Of course, if the penetration numbers were reversed so would the virus activity.
Yep, as I said before people in the country of China get more viruses than people in the country of Monaco. It's a fact.
The Chinese certainly shouldn't be offended by this.
kamper
Diamond Member
- Mar 18, 2003
- 5,513
- 0
- 0
Oh, and as a mac user, I'll add my opinion that, in those commercials, I think PC is pretty funny as a parody and the mac guy is fsking retard. If I cared, I'd be ashamed. I do tell friends and family that macs are a good thing to buy (not just for security issues) and if the commercials ever come up, I have to denounce them.
But in the end, I suppose they're doing apple a lot of good, even if people don't like them. It generates buzz and with the amount of market share available to apple (read: with the tiny market share they currently have) simply having macs present in people's mind when they buy a pc is going to make a world of difference.
But in the end, I suppose they're doing apple a lot of good, even if people don't like them. It generates buzz and with the amount of market share available to apple (read: with the tiny market share they currently have) simply having macs present in people's mind when they buy a pc is going to make a world of difference.
That's not the reason why I have Macs or my personal attitude. I was just pointing out the truth in the message of this advertisement.
Personally I think the Mac vs. PC ads are mediocre, quite far from the Think Different and the Switcher campaign. A bit me-too-ish (Hey, I can do MS Office! And Windows! - And the latter is still in the beta stage...) but not lies.
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Freak.
<- Mac user, Linux user, OpenBSD user, Windows user
<- PPC user, Sparc user, Sparc64 user, AMD64 user, i386 user
Wow! You just need to be an Alpha user and your collection will be complete.
ROFL your upper level IT executives actually fell for that crap. HAHAHA Oh man, IBM finds a new sucker every day. Those guys are scary salesmen I tell ya. Those Windows/Linux boxes on a card are the worst POS hardware I've ever had to work with. "But they save so much money!!!" the sales guys say...then neglect to compare the price of DASD with a traditional RAID array. "But they are so stable" with their duct taped HALs and drivers.
Sorry spike, nothing personal man. I'm sure you weren't involved. I had forgotten all about those things and how rotten they are.
I get your original point though. They are being a bit loose with the term PC especially since a Mac is actually a "personal computer" as well.
Apple is VERY good at marketting.
They have people beleiving their OS runs a Microkernel.
They have people beleiving that Mac OS is very secure.
They had people beleiving that PowerPC proccessors were much faster then x86.
They had people beleiving that 'Altivec' was something super.
They have people beleiving that Apple was the ones that started the 'PC' revolution.
But non of that is paticularly true. It's somewhat, but only sorta.
They're security is OK. They do a decent job of seperating administrative stuff from normal user stuff, which is what still plagues Windows. But they've also been known to sit on vunerabilities at times. They are average when you considure things like the *BSDs and various Linux distros (some of which are better, others are worse), etc etc.
PowerPC was fast clock for clock, but not dollar for dollar. Sometimes x86 was faster, other times PowerPC. x86 won for the most part.
Altivec meet MMX, SSE2, etc
The Commodore 64 did a hell of a lot more to bring PC's into people's homes then anything Apple ever did. Outsold Apple computers by a considurable margin when it was around. (company management kinda went to hell after that)
etc etc
Apple is king if the reality distortion feild.
They have people beleiving their OS runs a Microkernel.
They have people beleiving that Mac OS is very secure.
They had people beleiving that PowerPC proccessors were much faster then x86.
They had people beleiving that 'Altivec' was something super.
They have people beleiving that Apple was the ones that started the 'PC' revolution.
But non of that is paticularly true. It's somewhat, but only sorta.
They're security is OK. They do a decent job of seperating administrative stuff from normal user stuff, which is what still plagues Windows. But they've also been known to sit on vunerabilities at times. They are average when you considure things like the *BSDs and various Linux distros (some of which are better, others are worse), etc etc.
PowerPC was fast clock for clock, but not dollar for dollar. Sometimes x86 was faster, other times PowerPC. x86 won for the most part.
Altivec meet MMX, SSE2, etc
The Commodore 64 did a hell of a lot more to bring PC's into people's homes then anything Apple ever did. Outsold Apple computers by a considurable margin when it was around. (company management kinda went to hell after that)
etc etc
Apple is king if the reality distortion feild.
"PC's get more virus's than Macs'"
If you pit 50 average PCs (would have to be 85%+ Windows to match market share) against 50 average Macs (Mac OS9 or OSX) that's probably right. The OP is the only one in denial grasping for straws and making ridiculous/devil's advocate statements.
If you pit 50 average PCs (would have to be 85%+ Windows to match market share) against 50 average Macs (Mac OS9 or OSX) that's probably right. The OP is the only one in denial grasping for straws and making ridiculous/devil's advocate statements.
well. i never could really understand all this virus stuff. i'm a windows user, and i wouldnt say i am conservative when it comes to what i do on the internet, so i thought i would be getting viruses. but, for the last 5 years, any time i run a virus scan, (kaspersky recently) i never have a virus on my computer. these people that get all these viruses must be literally just downloading them purposefully. I dont understand. Like, my mom, she gets viruses all the time. the people at her office get them all the time. its just really confusing to me.
The people in the office are clicking on links they get in emails, and the people at home are surfing: a) porn; b) lithuanian free screen saver sites.
It's been said many times before in this thread, in several different ways, but Windows does get more viruses than Mac. This is beacause of several things.
1) There are a lot more Windows computers to infect
2) Beacuse of number 1, many viruses are written specifically to infect Windows
3) Many people are stupid. Many stupid people use Windows. Many stupid people get viruses. Many stupid people use Windows to get viruses.
1) There are a lot more Windows computers to infect
2) Beacuse of number 1, many viruses are written specifically to infect Windows
3) Many people are stupid. Many stupid people use Windows. Many stupid people get viruses. Many stupid people use Windows to get viruses.
don't be obtuse Don't be stupid windows has 2.mk installs + Apple has how many?
edited cause I didn't want to come off as an a*ole, there's just a lot more of MS than anything else
edited cause I didn't want to come off as an a*ole, there's just a lot more of MS than anything else
People keep saying this, but then, if Apache has like 70% of the webserver share, how come IIS is the one that keeps getting more viruses and exploits found?
Well in terms of exploits found Apache out paces IIS 6 by a wide margin.
This is probably partially why Apache is down closer to 60% market share instead of closer to 70% market share (Other things are that MS is cutting sweetheart deals with domain registers to move parked websites off of Apache and onto IIS and the rise in popularity if Microsoft's 'Live' service.)
Times change. MS did a pretty good job.
The reason you still see a lot worms is because IIS5 (w2k) was one of the most insecure peices of software ever created and many administrators are morons.
But ya the theory that MS Windows is subject to viruses (adware and spyware are pretty much the same thing in my book if installed without consent of owners) becuase it is popular is mostly BS. Not entirely, but mostly.
There was only realy one time that operating system vunerabilities caused windows-like worms and viruses to be found in the wild for Linux operating systems.. and that was because in a effort to make Linux easier to use Redhat used default installs that were insecure and had everything running by default. So as a result they had viruses and worms for Redhat, which is what most people used. This was around Redhat 6.0 and Redhat 7.0 days. That's about the time Redhat and friends learned that OSS != secure.
Since then they started concentrating on security more and people used secure default installs. We have had developments like static analysis tools, people doing audits for important and common software. Smash-stack protection and other things to counteract programmer mistakes like buffer overflows, etc etc.
Now Linux is much more popular, much more widely used, and is used by people much less technically able then the average Linux user back in 2000. Now there is hasn't been any viruses or any like that since then.
So that throws a big wrench in the popularity == vunerabilities/viruses theory.
(although there have been worms attacking insecure installations of PHP-based websites.. which generally run on Linux, but not always)
As for Macs... We will find out about those also. Apple sales have been past 10% of the desktop sales market for a while now. I think last time they sold 16% of new laptops or whatever.. which is the most popular segment of the market nowadays.
FUD Alert!
Why is it that people bashing MS on secuity get a free pass and are never required to back it up? All you have to do is say "ABC from so and so is more secure than XYZ for Microsoft", provide no facts and it's automatically true. Try the opposite and everyone wants proof.
It takes all of 5 seconds to disprove that whole IIS vs Apache statement. Here's a pre-canned google search to get you started:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iis+versus+apache+exploits
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter