[BGG001]

All OS's have patches. OS X 10.5.6? Hell, OS X 10.5 was really a large patch for OS X 10.4 with some added features.
Message was edited by: smax013

[WinTard]

I'd suggest everyone to stop responding to stupid trolling attempts. With some, this isn't discussion, but just a pointless and futile argument. Why waste our time?

Remember, Do Not Feed The Trollers! B-)

~~~~~~~~~~
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument an exchange of ignorance.
~ Robert Quillen

Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.
~ Dalai Lama

Education may be the answer.
~ Michael Thiessen

There is no wise response to a foolish remark.
{Romanian Proverb}

[BGG001]

Real security? Real safety? Honestly? And Windows hasn't put time at all into security? That's a steaming pile of FUD and BS if I've ever seen it. IE8 BETA was hacked after Safari 3 STABLE. IE8 is invulnerable at the time, get your facts straight, only system vulnerable with IE8 is Windows 7 BETA because it can only run IE8 BETA. In 2007, Macs were much worse off that Windows with exploits.

Sorry Wintard but I had to,
last time though; all the proof anyone should need.

http://www.indowebse...AC-security.nws
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758

[waldojim]

HA! Guys I have the ultimate answer!

Screw MAC or Windows! for your business use Green Hills Integrity 178B OS

http://infosecurity.us/?p=3663

When OSX gets to that point, they can lay claim to all the security they want to. Until then....

[BGG001]

Can't argue with you, it is the most secure...but theres a point when security (strapping automatic laser-guided minature missles onto the roof of your house) is too much for a consumer user.

I'm happy with all OS's securities right now, safe, but not restrictive either.

[waldojim]

To be fair, I was trying to be a smart ass...

though I would point out that redhat did achieve EAL4, thought to be the best a consumer grade OS can hit...
http://www.infoworld...rity-rating-745

[BGG001]

Oh I know you were, no way an average consumer would want to actually use that other than for curiosity's sake (that includes me).

[jregooden]

Wow! It just occured to me that all OS's need to be patched... I'm
a genius.

[jregooden]

IE8 is invulnerable? Not on XP or on Intranets running Vista and IE8. If the Intranet is exploited then it affects all OSes on that Intranet. I'll concur that OS X needs patches and has security issue and is not perfect. But it's issues are inconsequential when compared to Windows. Windows can run smoothly, but it takes constant vigilence to keep it trouble free. Windows biggest problem is its creator, MS. They put in time and money and make big promises, but they don't deliver. And do you honestly think IE8 or Windows will ever be invulnerable? Don't answer aloud. Just really think about it.

[danield]

The great waldo says "Malware is a problem for any OS"

OK, please tell me or point to me the malware problem Mac OS X has compared to the beloved Windows OS? No, don't tell me of the botnet created by the dorks (probably windows switchers) that decided to install pirated software on their systems and had to put in their passwords to install it. Please point out how malware on the Mac that installs itself without user interaction. Please, please, point me to some news of massive malware exploits on the scale of conficker. Please, I'm waiting with baited breath.


ROTFLMAO!

[WinTard]

Hey my good friend BGG001, never apologize to me! I'm your friend! I understand.

I'd much rather have my friends as free as I try to be... No limits! :)

Please always do what you think is right.

Since I've realized, no matter what is said, these trollers will twist it... So it is a waste of time to even discuss with them. I wouldn't refrain myself to communicate with the rest of Communty at PCWorld.

Heck, I may even reply from time to time to set the record straight.

[MarioJP]

danield said:

The great waldo says "Malware is a problem for any OS"

OK, please tell me or point to me the malware problem Mac OS X has compared to the beloved Windows OS? No, don't tell me of the botnet created by the dorks (probably windows switchers) that decided to install pirated software on their systems and had to put in their passwords to install it. Please point out how malware on the Mac that installs itself without user interaction. Please, please, point me to some news of massive malware exploits on the scale of conficker. Please, I'm waiting with baited breath.

ROTFLMAO!

one word. They don't give %$# about small marketshare. But don't get your hopes up because of mac "superior security" because reality is its been hacked to run on pc's. Its just seems there is not enough attention to hacking a mac but it is hackable just not a target yet. You could say the same thing for linux and yet it runs on pc's. But does it makes linux immune to viruses??. I think not. And not because "its super secure", its because again all comes back to marketshare.

These people are in it for the money and attack big corporates. Wouldn't be surprised it makes Norton or Macafee happy as this keeps them in business. These companies will make business out of anything even if it means creating viruses. But apparently that plan is starting to backfire since there are free anti virus software out there. So what do these crooks do next. Flood your email with crud spam to lure victims in.

[waldojim]

You know, I never got Conflicker on any machine, nor did I ever get one (Malware) that installed itself on my machine...
Oh, and the definition of Malware INCLUDES trojans... You cannot just dismiss 1/3 of the definition of Malware because you choose too.

[BGG001]

jregooden said:

IE8 is invulnerable? Not on XP or on Intranets running Vista and IE8. If the Intranet is exploited then it affects all OSes on that Intranet. I'll concur that OS X needs patches and has security issue and is not perfect. But it's issues are inconsequential when compared to Windows. Windows can run smoothly, but it takes constant vigilence to keep it trouble free. Windows biggest problem is its creator, MS. They put in time and money and make big promises, but they don't deliver. And do you honestly think IE8 or Windows will ever be invulnerable? Don't answer aloud. Just really think about it.

Continue to take my words out of their context. "IE8 is invulnerable at the time"...and again, "IE8 is invulnerable at the time" meaning, it does have some flaw that can be exploited, or security hole, just as every browser does, it's just yet to be found. No, I don't think Windows or IE8 or any other system will be invulnerable forever (oh, I wasn't supposed to answer out loud, oh that's because you knew I'd point out that the rule also applies to OS X, oops I did it again). Windows takes constant vigilence? Really? I rarely do anything to keep it running smoothly, XP was a different story, but Vista onward has been pretty capable. I defrag and do my usual checks once a month, which every user of every OS should do at least one time a month.
Message was edited by: smax013

[BGG001]

The fact that you're even suggesting that most malware installs itself is outright hilarious. The user needs to give permission for trojans, spyware, and other viruses and malware to be installed; clicking on an executable labeled "virus" is permission; opening a website with malware is giving permission. Permission knowingly? no, but nonetheless it requires user interaction.

[jregooden]

You should have taken my advice and just not say anything at all. You wrote, "IE8 is invulnerable at the time" meaning, it does have some flaw that can be exploited, or security hole, just as every browser does, it's just yet to be found." Are you sure about this? Or didn't you realize that, in addition to XP, IE8 run on Vista SP2, can be exploited. And why would you even say it's invulnerable when XP is at risk? XP still has a large user base and...nevermind. That's like nailing down the front of the house during a hurricane and leaving the back door and windows open. Don't use the word invulnerable. It implies something that IE8 isn't. Trust me on this one.

You said, "I rarely do anything to keep it running smoothly, XP was a different story, but Vista onward has been pretty capable." Good for Vista, but you still have to be vigilent. In other words, your AV software and other defenses have to be kept current. Either manually through you or automatically through the software. I don't get much into name calling, so forgive if I don't respond in like. By the way, the Mac OS doesn't need defragging.

Please think carefully before you respond. I mean, really think man!

[BGG001]

You continue to say that IE8 has an exploit/security hole but have nothing to substantiate your claims other than "Trust me on this one." http://www.itproport...already-hacked/ - this website is the PWN2OWN competition. IE8 was hacked on Windows 7 Beta which comes preloaded with IE8 Beta. Microsoft fixed this problem before the final release. (2 out of the 4 hacks were on Safari, one on Firefox). (Honestly, I don't trust any of these browsers, I use Opera, fastest and most secure anyways)

On an Apple, running without up-to-date AV software and firewall is just plain ignorant. Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. And honestly, how hard is it to install an AV program, set it to auto update, and leave it? I know it doesn't take any time out of my day. By the way, Mac OS X isn't any different from any other operating system: fragments are still there; OS X should be defragged; I could argue Windows doesn't need to be defregged either.

I'm just done arguing with someone who is blinded...Mac OS X doesn't need defragging, really?

[jregooden]

Look man, don't take it too personal. It's only a lively exchange. No harm intended. I thought you were aware of the issues that still exists with IE8 and were being evasive and that's why I didn't provide a link to back up my claims. http://www.computerw...icleId=9130683. Read the article and let me know what you think. In my household there are Macs and PCs and I administer them. We have a Dell Dimensions desktop, a Linovo Think Pad, a 17" iMac , a Mac Pro and an old G3 that I use to run Mac OS 9. Additionally, I run VMWare on my iMac with XP loaded and Bootcamp running Windows 7 RC1. I have a lot of PC experience dating back to DOS. I use the Mac because you can get work done without the OS getting in your way.

Okay, this is bit long, but it will explain why defragging is not needed on the Mac.

You probably won't need to optimize at all if you use Mac OS X. Here's why:
Hard disk capacity is generally much greater now than a few years ago. With more free space available, the file system doesn't need to fill up every "nook and cranny." Mac OS Extended formatting (HFS Plus) avoids reusing space from deleted files as much as possible, to avoid prematurely filling small areas of recently-freed space. Mac OS X 10.2 and later includes delayed allocation for Mac OS X Extended-formatted volumes. This allows a number of small allocations to be combined into a single large allocation in one area of the disk.
Fragmentation was often caused by continually appending data to existing files, especially with resource forks. With faster hard drives and better caching, as well as the new application packaging format, many applications simply rewrite the entire file each time. Mac OS X 10.3 Panther can also automatically defragment such slow-growing files. This process is sometimes known as "Hot-File-Adaptive-Clustering."
Aggressive read-ahead and write-behind caching means that minor fragmentation has less effect on perceived system performance.
For these reasons, there is little benefit to defragmenting.

Like I said, don't take this personal.

[WinTard]

Don't take this personal either, just reporting FACTS here:

I think you are full of it! And here's the proof:

Excerpt from: http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html

Macintosh Myth #3: Most folks with an opinion will probably tell you that Mac's running OS X never need to have their hard drives defragmented.
Here is a quote from a MicroMat technician, that I think is very insightful:
The claim that installations of Mac OS X on HFS+ volumes do not fragment is a myth believed by people who do not have disk optimizers that allow them to see how much fragmentation their disks have. It is an example of ignorance that is not able to be removed by any amount of evidence. I think theologians call that "invincible ignorance". It is now a widespread form of the pollution of information space.
http://www.macfixitf...ite_id/1#import
or
http://tinyurl.com/yuqn4

Actually, Some Macs running OS X can benefit quite a bit from defragmenting their hard drive. But not for the reason that you might expect There is often little in the way of performance to be gained by defragmenting your hard drive. But defragmenting your drive can stave off some very flaky behavior, out of memory errors, and possibly even data loss.


{Snipped}

Oh, when NT4.0 came out, Microsoft was touting the exact same with NTFS as you are with OS X HFS. That was back in 1998! Old news! History has proven otherwise however, and look at the plethora of NTFS defrag tools 11 years later...

OS X is but just another mere Operating System, and suffers all the afflictions of ALL Operating Systems. PERIOD. Nothing superior or brilliant in how OS X does things. Actually, more like backwards and less advanced.

For instance OS X 10.5.6 (I don't know what's in 10.5.7) contains no DEP or ASLR functionality. Snow Leopard, I'll believe when I see it.

Good software is always one step ahead of malware...

Or else nothing would work.

And unsophisticated platforms will see a giant rise in malware, sooner than later, since Windows is now using DEP and ASLR, properly implemented. If nothing else because Vista and Windows 7 are becoming too hard to hack when compared to OS X...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataExecutionPrevention
Data Execution Prevention (DEP) is a security feature included in modern Microsoft Windows operating systems that is intended to prevent an application or service from executing code from a non-executable memory region. This helps prevent certain exploits that store code via a buffer overflow, for example. DEP runs in two modes: hardware-enforced DEP for CPUs that can mark memory pages as nonexecutable, and software-enforced DEP with a limited prevention for CPUs that do not have hardware support. Software-enforced DEP does not protect from execution of code in data pages, but instead from another type of attack (SEH overwrite).

DEP was introduced in Windows XP Service Pack 2 and is included in Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 and later,1] Windows Vista, and Windows Server 2008, and all newer versions of Windows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addressspacelayout_randomization

Address space layout randomization (ASLR) is a computer security technique which involves randomly arranging the positions of key data areas, usually including the base of the executable and position of libraries, heap, and stack, in a process's address space.

These two reasons (DEP & ASLR) are precisely why OS X consistently keeps getting hacked FIRST within seconds at any hacking competition. Fully patched! Full control at the root level of OS X, remotely via Firefox and Safari, with no physical access either. Basically Mac users are poor innocent and naive sitting ducks, unless they protect themselves though awareness, not denial. The fact it does not happen often is a direct function of the 10% market current share. But it can and does happen.

Latest example? March 18th 2009: [Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 500,000 for pwn2own. (0.20 seconds)

OS X security and invulnerability my maximus gluteus!

Please only post a FEW sentences or paragraphs of content copied from other sites and the provide a link to the rest of the content. Please see item #5 of the Community Standards: http://www.pcworld.c.../community.html

Message was edited by: smax013

Message was edited by: WinTard
Sorry smax013, you and I interpret community standards differently. The standards are there to ensure a civil and smooth running forums. NOT TO SAVE SPACE. That is overzealous moderating YOU ARE IMPOSING onto us the members. So no, I shall continue to post whatever I consider within community standards, and will NOT abide by your interpretations. And continue like you do and you shall lose my membership to PCWorld on this simple principle: Freedom of speech. I will not be muzzeled by anybody and certainly not YOU. The more you do what you call moderating, the less pleasant this forums becomes for everybody. I am seriously getting annoyed by your little petty grievances and power trips.... Not only easy does it, back off!

[artzy65]

No need to apologize, but cool of you to do so nevertheless.

Yeah, I'll make a simple point and someone will post back a veritable 'white paper', flying off in all directions, and missing my point altogether. I really think a number of people here are just pontificating for its own sake. I try very hard to be as civil as possible here?it seems that even the most innocent remark will get taken the wrong way... like some people here are looking for a fight, rather than an actual exchange of information, knowledge and wisdom... and respect.