Questions about MAC Vs. PC.

I was wondering… Mac seems to have there main selling point at it cant get virus’, My question is why is that(that they cant get virus')? Is it the fact there arent as many macs as there are pc’s and it wouldn’t be efficient enough to make a mac virus that would infect 1000 (numbers exaderated) people, opposed to a PC virus that could spread to millions? Or is it that macs have better code? If it is due to the fact that there are less macs than pc’s would it not make sence to have this as a selling point? Simply because as soon as there are more mac users people will start making mac virus’ and IF it is due to lack of macs (I have no idea, just guessing) then would mac computers not be ready for a virus outbreak aimed at them? Pc’s have been fighting virus’ since they came out so would this not criple mac who had to deal with little to none? (corect if worng).

Macs not being able to be effected by a virus is a lie.

They are less likely to be infected though, since, as you pointed out, there are fewer macs out there, and fewer coders who know how to write software for a mac.

It's the same fallacy people have about computers with linux on them.

The only way to keep a computer virus free, whether it's a mac, a pc with windows, or a pc with linux, is to never connect it to the net, and not allow anyone else to physically access it.

So what your saying is every computer user in the world that is using a PC, a Mac or a Linux box is so lame, they cant keep their computer safe enough to avoid getting infected while on the net.

Ya i dont think so. Where you go, what you click on, what you and how much you run in the background to keep you safe will determine that. Sadly enough the majority of users will be infected, but dont lump everyone in the same boat.

Silver

That "virus writers don't make viruses because there are fewer Macs than PCs" is a lie first perpetrated by Microsoft, and picked up by ignorant people.

Mac is based on the BSD kernel, which is a sibling of Linux. MOST SERVERS ON THE INTERNET RUN LINUX. Therefore, most computers on the internet run the functional equivalent of what the Macs run.

The fact is this: Unless you take serious steps to lock down a PC running windows, EVERYONE has administrative rights on the machine. What this means is that if one account on there gets a virus, the whole machine (and every account on it) is affected. That's not to mention that, even with a locked down machine, it is still EXTREMELY LIKELY to be compromised if hooked directly to the internet, without being behind a firewall.

Macs do not work like that. By default, every account is limited, so if you catch a virus, it only affects that account. Unless you run the virus using the "root" account, it's not going to affect the whole machine. It is an inherent difference in architecture that keeps macs from getting anywhere near the viruses, NOT that fact that there "are less Macs".

Please note that I am not claiming that Macs don't get viruses, but that the chance to get a virus if you have a Mac is very, very much less than on a Windows machine. And if you do happen to get a virus on the Mac, the chances of an easy cleanup are much, much greater. Usually (but not always) just rebooting the machine, logging in as root, delete the offending files, and you are good to go. Unless, of course, it was the root account that was compromised.

There is also the simple fact that most software (unless it is acting as a "server"), does not run in privileged space, but in the user space. When you open Word, for example, EVEN ON A LIMITED ACCOUNT, on a PC running Windows, it runs in system (i.e., privileged) space. When you open a word processor on a Linux/Mac system, in runs in user space. So, if a document is opened that has a virus on a PC, it will infect the whole machine. If it happens on a Mac/Linux machine, it will only affect that user's account. The same with web browsers. Suppose your browser gets hijacked on a windows machine, the entire machine will be infected. If the same happens on a Mac/Linux machine, you go in on the root account, delete the infected files located in the user's HOME directory, and they will be good to go. Only the user was infected, not the whole machine.

Most software that connects to the internet on Mac/Linux machines runs under a separate account that gives it access to only that program. So, even if that particular software does get a virus, it will (generally speaking) only infect that particular piece of software.

The "Macs only get less viruses because there are less of them" has been debunked so many times, by so many geeks, that is beyond debate at this point. Remember, there is a good chance that this web site runs on Linux.



[edit on 13-6-2008 by sir_chancealot]

reply to post by sir_chancealot



Correct. Also, there are NO viruses in the wild aimed at Macs. None. There have been test viruses but none in the wild. Macs would just as secure even if they had the same number of PCs on the planet as Winblows.

It's not really based on the BSD kernel. More like when they were developing MacOSX the Apple guys and the BSD guys went out for coffee and the Apple guys took notes.

Usually you see trojans and worms on unix and unix-type machines, but few viruses. There's plenty of these that can infect Macs, but they are usually installed by a hacker.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by apc]

Mac,as well as Linux,is more safe than microsoft windows.Windows has so many defects so that it gets so many attacks from crackers all over the world.Mac is designed more stable,less defectable and gets increasing supportors.

What is your purpose for a computer? That would be able to tell us what would be better, although I will say that in most instances a Mac is better. The only instance you would want to use a PC is because it's cheaper (unless that's also a lie).

Linux is, IMO, by far the best bang for the buck. Macs are expensive, whereas PCs are fairly cheap.

A PC with some version of Windows means you spend X number of dollars per year for this or that to protect you. You spend a lot of time fooling with it, waiting for patches to install, runing a bunch of sweeps, all kinds of crap. And in the end, you can't trust the thing anyway.

I run Linux and will never go back to the "other side". If, by some chance I do catch something runing Linux, with nothing but a basic firewall, then correcting the problem is simple, there is only limited damage, and I sleep easy.

So far, I have had Linux running for a year, I've never had anything I couldn't correct in just a couple of minutes, and it cost me less than $20.00 for my OS and zero for all that other crap Windows and their parasites want.

Sorry, Windows sucks, Mac is too expensive, and I like being free to make it my machine, working my way, running what I want.

Power to the penguin!

Just to add my two drachmas.
From what I understand some of the people who develop the most aggressive viruses point them at microsoft simply because they detest everything that microsoft stands for and they just want to %&*$ with them as much as possible. Those same hackers usually are indifferent to Apple.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Unless you take serious steps to lock down a PC running windows, EVERYONE has administrative rights on the machine.

But that's not true for all windows, vista for example has fixed that particular flaw. Really to run a virus or trojan on vista you'd have to authorise it first

Ps. I'm not a M$ fanboy...

Originally posted by apc
It's not really based on the BSD kernel. More like when they were developing MacOSX the Apple guys and the BSD guys went out for coffee and the Apple guys took notes.

Usually you see trojans and worms on unix and unix-type machines, but few viruses. There's plenty of these that can infect Macs, but they are usually installed by a hacker.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by apc]

No, OSX is based on the old NeXT version of Unix, which Apple bought a couple years before the made the change to basically Unix. Their version of unix was in fact based on BSD, as are many versions of it.

Dont ask what's better, cause you will only get the same basic responses. Mac users will say macs, PC users will say windows, old 'pros' will say linux. I've used all 3, I've supported all 3, and I use Windows on my home machines. Typically with redhat linux floating around on a partition or extra box.

and Sirchancealot... BSD... a SIBLING of Linux? Come now... more like it's rich old grandfather that it's never had the pleasure to meet before.

Macs can get the virii just like the rest of em, the small market share along with the more secure OS means the chances are lesser and the results much quieter.

Originally posted by NGC2736
Linux is, IMO, by far the best bang for the buck. Macs are expensive, whereas PCs are fairly cheap.

A PC with some version of Windows means you spend X number of dollars per year for this or that to protect you. You spend a lot of time fooling with it, waiting for patches to install, runing a bunch of sweeps, all kinds of crap. And in the end, you can't trust the thing anyway.

I run Linux and will never go back to the "other side". If, by some chance I do catch something runing Linux, with nothing but a basic firewall, then correcting the problem is simple, there is only limited damage, and I sleep easy.

So far, I have had Linux running for a year, I've never had anything I couldn't correct in just a couple of minutes, and it cost me less than $20.00 for my OS and zero for all that other crap Windows and their parasites want.

Sorry, Windows sucks, Mac is too expensive, and I like being free to make it my machine, working my way, running what I want.

Power to the penguin!

Meh... linux is ok.. unfortunately you spend 20 mins fixing something way more frequently than i'd like to, fortunately you can usually leave the machine up while doing so. Application support is still horrid, and it's still not something that every joe noone can toss on and run well. I honestly couldn't tell you the last time i've had to spend 20 mins fixing either windows machine that wasn't hardware related. I'm also never sure what people are talking about when the refer to the thousands of security programs to keep windows safe. I run an antivirus, AVG right now, and my firewall. I've never had a virus or spyware that wasn't a tracking cookie from an online shopping site. Those are two programs that you should be running anyway. Of course i dont open mail with subject lines written in crazy letters or promising penis enlargement either. Nor do i download tons of hacked torrents and porn. A fact that many virii recipients always seem to 'forget' to convey.

I've never been a mac fan, of course all a mac is now is an intel box running unix with an Apple window manager, of course it's locked down rather harshly compared to a more 'normal' unix build. The extra price for basically what's now an intel PC running something i can download for free, window manager included, just seems silly.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by sp00ner]

[edit on 14-6-2008 by sp00ner]

Originally posted by sp00ner
No, OSX is based on the old NeXT version of Unix, which Apple bought a couple years before the made the change to basically Unix.

Ewwww really? I read in Wired or SysAdmin or something when MacOSX came out that it was built with FBSD guys as consultants but not using any original code. I remember being handed a couple NeXT machines once. I must have been thoroughly traumatized as all I can recall clearly is the headaches.

Originally posted by apc
It's not really based on the BSD kernel. More like when they were developing MacOSX the Apple guys and the BSD guys went out for coffee and the Apple guys took notes.

Usually you see trojans and worms on unix and unix-type machines, but few viruses. There's plenty of these that can infect Macs, but they are usually installed by a hacker.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by apc]

You know, I hate when people argue with me about computers, especially when 1/2 second of research would show that they are wrong. :shk:

Mac OSX was BASED on the BSD Kernel. Do you know why they chose the BSD kernel? Because of the licensing. The BSD license allows you to KEEP THE CHANGES YOU MAKE TO THE KERNEL PRIVATE. Linux does not allow that. If you change the kernel, you have to give the changes back to the community.

Here it is straight from Apple's mouth: developer.apple.com...

Edit to clarify: They took the BSD kernel, made changes to it, then called it the "Mach Kernel". The BSD licensing allowed them to keep those changes to themselves, and copyright it. However, whatever they want to call it, the kernel is still BSD, with changes to allow it to run on the Mac architecture. Why do you think it was so easy for them to go to Intel processors?



[edit on 14-6-2008 by sir_chancealot]

[edit on 14-6-2008 by sir_chancealot]

Originally posted by Bonzaii
What is your purpose for a computer? That would be able to tell us what would be better, although I will say that in most instances a Mac is better. The only instance you would want to use a PC is because it's cheaper (unless that's also a lie).

Yep, the "PC is cheaper" is sort of a lie. Macs are usually created with all the latest bells and whistles. In other words, there's no such thing as a "basic" Mac. If you compare, say, a Dell desktop that contains the exact same thing hardware-wise as a Mac, you will find their prices quite competitive. The same goes with notebooks.

What people usually do to make the Mac look more expensive is that they compare a no-frills PC with a Mac, instead of a loaded PC with the (always loaded) Mac.

Originally posted by sp00ner
...and Sirchancealot... BSD... a SIBLING of Linux? Come now... more like it's rich old grandfather that it's never had the pleasure to meet before.
...

Very true! It was a little easier to explain it that way, than to say "BSD was brought about because of a rewrite of the Unix code, when AT&T changed the licensing to be WAY more expensive for universities than it used to be. So, hackers (in the old sense of the word) got pissed off at AT&T and created BSD. AT&T fought it, and was on the verge of losing all the copyrights to Unix, when they came to an agreement with Berkeley University that allowed them to distribute BSD as they saw fit."

If you are going to compare it to a "rich old grandfather", make sure you say that the grandfather has the body of a 20 year old athlete, and is still dating young hot chicks.

Originally posted by NGC2736
A PC with some version of Windows means you spend X number of dollars per year for this or that to protect you. You spend a lot of time fooling with it, waiting for patches to install, runing a bunch of sweeps, all kinds of crap. And in the end, you can't trust the thing anyway.
So far, I have had Linux running for a year, I've never had anything I couldn't correct in just a couple of minutes, and it cost me less than $20.00 for my OS and zero for all that other crap Windows and their parasites want.
Sorry, Windows sucks, Mac is too expensive, and I like being free to make it my machine, working my way, running what I want.

And the greatest thing is you can just install a few extra packages, download the source code, and do what you want. Edit it, improve it and hell distribute it or give it to the main developers, and your add on is in trunk and everyone can get it. Some will say a virus could be made like that, but how? Anyone can download the source, check it and chances are someone will see it and delete it.

Which has the effect of making viruses difficult to introduce, because the above holds true for the entire system, not just individual programs. With Windows, or even Macs, it's closed source and you have to tell someone else to do it, and we all know how long M$ takes to do something.

mmmm, I love my mac. Its so funky and it just does what I want it to.
The only real problem that I have with Linux over Mac OSx and Windows is the UI..... it could be so much better.... the concepts are great (gnome and KDE) but I think they need a lot more work before I start liking them lots.

reply to post by tebyen



you can get a virus offline too by installing something with a virus. it used to happen in the early 90s but not so much anymore