Windows 7 tops Vista software sales, lags behind in hardware - Page 6

I was reading estremeskater post about Pre syncing with iTunes as security breach and thought more BS from this person, glad you set him straight Solipsism.

He suppose to be in IT industry and says he reads all up to date Apple issues going on, obviously not!

I never been on MS web site to discuss their products, since I do not like them, I use MS products for work and always frustrated, so made a decision, not to be cheap and buy a quality computer system (software and hardware) that give me less issues and I go to ONE computer company to resolve any issues.

Ever though I do not like MS, I would not troll on their web site, just childish and honestly and would show I am jealous, which is not the case.
MS does have 1-2 potentially good products, but the pain and frustration outweighs the good of the products.

One of those products could be Windows 7, but I wait for it to mature more before taking the plunge, since I still have bitter taste from Vista.

Very good points made. However, as I have stated in an earlier post, Windows 7 might be a fun for the consumer, but my bet is that most businesses will view Windows 7 as Vista, service pack 3 and therefore not adopt it. Windows XP will continue to dominate the enterprise. Imagine all of the new enterprise PC orders that ship with Seven home edition, only to be wiped and replaced with XP. It is happening now.

What kills Apple adoption in the enterprise is MS Exchange/Outlook. Kill Exchange with a superior and cheaper mail server product that a CIO cannot refuse, and then there will be no reason to buy a Mac and then be forced to run parallels/boot camp just to run Outlook. (Entourage is a crappier product than Outlook). If you need to run boot camp/parallels to run Outlook, then why buy a mac in the first place?

If you still have a bitter taste from Vista hate to see how bad of a taste you had if you used Leopard. No on has set me straight on anything because you guys like to pass by all the other issue and play word games with one issue.

You focus on the mild issue because you cant address the iPhones issues raised and the issues with hacking OSX.

Here is the definition of a security breach.

"External act that bypasses or contravenes security policies, practices, or procedures. A similar internal act is called security violation."

"breach of security
Definition
Disclosure of classified information, access to protected assets without proper authorization, or their theft or misappropriation."

"The process of ensuring confidentiality, integrity, and availability of computers, their programs, hardware devices, and data. Lack of security results from a failure of one of these three properties. The lack of confidentiality is unauthorized disclosure of data or unauthorized access to a computing system or a program. A failure of integrity results from unauthorized modification of data or damage to a computing system or program. A lack of availability of computing resources results in what is called denial of service."


Hmmm unauthorized access to a system or program. You know kind of like the Pre sycning with iTunes when Apple puts security in place to prevent it.

You need to get a clue.

There! Right there is where you let yourself down.

I think you are missing some very important facts about Windows in an enterprise environment.
One first is Active Directory integration. Macs don't integrate well into Active Directory.
Also the ability to write Group Policy Objects in AD that control computer behavior.
At my work they are testing the 100 iPhones in our work environment but they are finding that the iPhone is so much more insecure that a BB. The companies data is not protected as well as on a BB with device encryption. Also we have tons of products and applications that bind and tie into our other MS solutions and Exchange is certainly one of them. Apple has no competing products for anything close to what MS does for enterprise companies.

Let me see. Nope don't feel like I let myself down.

There is no system in the world that someone with the determination and knowledge to do so cannot break into if they have physical access and the time. It's a meaningless point.

No one has set you straight because you aren't here for rational discussion.

It would only be a meaningless point if Apple didnt try to use in its ads that OSX is somehow immune from attacks.

I have your attention. You can stop posting to me anytime

Poor reading comprehension from your own reference is amusing.

"Did you consider reporting the vulnerability to Apple?

I never give up free bugs. I have a new campaign. Its called NO MORE FREE BUGS. Vulnerabilities have a market value so it makes no sense to work hard to find a bug, write an exploit and then give it away. Apple pays people to do the same job so we know theres value to this work. No more free bugs."

and

"Does it work on Safari for Windows?

I dont know. I didnt look."

It's true that Leopard didn't fully implement ALSR but so far most OSX exploits have relied on social engineering (getting the user to run the exploit as admin). OSX has DEP but still allows heap allocated memory execution. Snow Leopard has NX bit support in 64 bit mode but older 32 bit machines are still vulnerable.

So really, Apple only needs to fully implement ALSR to achieve security parity with Win7 on any new Macs. That and default the firewall and virtual memory to more secure modes. Personally, I think working on GCD was much more useful than hardening Snow Leopard.

The biggest advantage (from an enterprise perspective) is that Win7 works better than Vista and is far more secure than XP. OSX is between XP and Vista/Win7 in hardness.

Win7 will be a big winner for MS, both for the enterprise and for the consumer market. It also gives MS a leg up in terms of multi-touch support on the desktop vs Apple. At least in the near term before the next big kitty release. Still though, MS has some significantly nice developer tools in WPF, LINQ, Multitouch SDK, and so forth.

Heh...issues with OSX security in the wild has been mild. As in those security vulnerabilities have not translated into widespread attacks. Wake me when an OSX botnet has been created with something other than users installing pirated software...

You need to put it context. Charlie Miller did report it to Apple in 2007 then it went unpatched and the SAME exploit was used again in 2008 Pwn 2 Own then it went unpatched and he used the SAME exploit again to compromise the Mac again. It was all over the news and the internet and Apple never patched it. Charlie was making a joke about reporting the exploits because Apple ignored him for 3 years about the same exploit.
Did you also read the part about OS X being easier to compromise than Windows? Did you just ignore that part?

The fact is there were viruses for the Mac back in the 68000/PowerPC days and that was when the Mac had a lesser marketshare then today. If people were willing to write some 40 Mac viruses for the Classic then with its larger marketshare MacOS X should have as many--but it doesn't. That alone should tell you something.

Compared to windows, it is. You're desperately clinging to a rather thin thread.

Yes, I'm sure you'd be very happy to be allowed to post your nonsense without always having to be contradicted by the facts. You have our attention because of your non-stop barrage of outright false, inaccurate, misleading and absolutely stupid claims. Propagandists are always happy to have a clear field for their brazenly false claims.

I never expected that you would. Perhaps you have been posting unsubstantiated boasts about your, anonymous, self for a little too long.

Again, the reason there are no exploits in the wild targeting OS X has nothing to do with market share, and anyone who says it does just looks stupider and stupider.

The hacker who writes the first widely effective malware of any type for OS X is going to be famous. Don't you think there are hackers out there who want to be famous?

There's no doubt that some have tried. They have failed, because OS X is a safer environment than Windows. Full stop.

You keep telling yourself that. Its all about market share. People don't become famous for writing viruses.

iTunes and Qucktime have been exploited and Sarfari for Windows was hacked in 24 hours. Which shows Apple sucks at security.

No Exploits ever on the Mac? This was a harmless virus as most are but it still worked.

http://news.techworld.com/security/5...us-hits-apple/

Tell that to you beloved Charlie Miller. Made him a household name. So much so, he ended up looking like a total ass when he lambasted Snow Leopard for not having 64-bit ASLR and that made it less secure than Windows.

Right after, Microsoft put out an advisory to shut down an open port (open by default) that would allow remote code execution on their flagship operating system of the time, Microsoft Vista. I'm sure he did a facepalm.

You mean the guy who was the first to hack the iPhone. Here you go here is a good read for you.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

The simple reality is that there is no malware for OS X, and there's over 100,000 for Windows. And counting.

Been this way for years. Every year since 2001 we were told that that tidal wave of malware for OS X was just around the corner and we'd be toast. Every year since 2001 we were told that as OS X gains market share, malware will proliferate.

And here we are nearly nine years later. Still nothing. Hackers have had NINE YEARS to shut Apple up. Hasn't happened. Doesn't make one whit of difference why.

You can talk about security, about how easy it is to hack whichever platform, etc. It makes no damn difference when, yet again, Mac users will have another year of surfing the net unimpeded. And Apple will have a wonderful time, entirely justified, with promoting OS X as the safest platform. And they're right.

The Mac gets compromised in 2 minutes in 2008. Then gets hacked in 10 seconds in 2009 at the Pwn 2 Own. The guy who hacked the Mac for 3 years running tells everyone that he reported the exploit to Apple for 3 years and the exploit has not been patched yet to his knowledge.
The same hacker becomes a household name get tons of publicity and notoriety. The exploit get posted all over the internet. You admit that you don't use any kind of anti virus because of a false sense of security and hatred for Windows. The now famous hacker Charlie Miller tells everyone in the post 2009 Pwn 2 Own that OS X is inherently less secure than Windows
Here is the article again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
Why Safari? Why didn’t you go after IE or Safari?

It’s really simple. Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don’t do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier. You don’t have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you’d find in Windows.

It’s more about the operating system than the (target) program. Firefox on Mac is pretty easy too. The underlying OS doesn’t have anti-exploit stuff built into it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<
Link to the full article:http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

Here is another link to article explaining how Apple and Macs are becoming targets because they are becoming trophys to brag about after they are hacked:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=995&tag=rbxccnbzd1

Here is another article: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-251586.html

Apple even recommends all users run anti virus software since 2008!:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12...mac_av_advice/

I think there is some mis information concerning Macs and viruses. There are no known viruses in the wild currently targeting Macs. BUT a Trojan is not defined as a virus!!!!
Do a Google search for Trojans on Macs and see everything you come up with you will be surprised.
And if you did get a Trojan how would you know you have one????

What is really interesting about all this rhetoric is the analogy about the other guys gets all the attention so they won't bother with us......
Do you lock the door to your house at night? Do you live in a safe neighborhood? Why locked your door? Have you ever been robbed? No? Then why lock you front door at night.
Do you drive a nice car? Do you have a car alarm?
Here are the most stolen cars in the US for 2009:
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...t-Stolen-Cars/
So according to your analogy....unless you drive on of those cars you don't need a car alarm or even have to locked your doors.
It is just amazing to me that Mac users have no sense of security at all....
Again I am not trying to bash Apple or MS or say that one is better than the other. I use both Apple products and MS products and they both do a great job for what they were designed to do.

But to have the attitude that just because I have a Mac I won't get compromised is irresponsible.

The chances of the average Mac user getting any form of malware, on a vanilla, barebones OS X install with the firewall turned off - even when surfing questionable websites, is nearly zero. In fact, they're probably more likely to experience a kernel panic - which most users will never experience.

If YOU, with all the security measues you put in place, are unlikely to get a Trojan or any other malware, then imagine how much *less* likely I am to get one.

This "how do you know aren't infected" nonsense is hardly worth discussing.

I thought this was all about market share and how hackers "don't care" about us? Well if we have such miniscule market share and if no one cares to taget us, then why the hell even bother asking me whether I can be sure I don't have a Trojan, or how I am to know?? There's really nothing to infect us in the first place!

Will that change anytime soon? I don't know, it's been this way for nine years now. And Windows will remain the biggest target, and OS X's market share may increase somewhat but do you see it getting to 15%? Is that even the "magic number"? I mean, Windows sucks, but it has to suck *hard* for Apple to grab that much share. The Premium market is only so big. And really, it doesn't need to get a whole lot bigger for Apple to continue to do very well and for us to continue to get the experience we're getting. And how long will that take to get to 15%? 20%? I don't see it happening soon.

So when you ask me a ridiculous question like "how do you know you're not infected", keep in mind that it's like worrying about getting struck by lighting, *inside*, on a rainy day.

A Trojan is not defined as a virus because it's not a virus. It's also not an example of someone hacking into a system. It's a type of social engineering exploit, which, by definition, bypasses system security with the help of the user. Unknown trojans are virtually impossible to defend against on any OS. There are basically a handful of Trojans on OS X, as you can see from the list here:

http://www.iantivirus.com/threats/

Many of the 113 threat listed at the above link are for "Classic", so aren't OS X issues, and the list includes variations of the same threats as separate entries, as well as "proof of concept" threats that don't exist in the wild. Now, go compare that list against a list of the thousands of threats for Windows -- you can no doubt find one at Symantec -- and tell me which system has a serious malware problem.

It's sort of odd that some would proudly assert the number of threats as evidence of the superiority of a platform: proclaiming that it's because of their marketshare and proves they are best. And, while it is partly because of marketshare that Windows has more threats, it's also partly because many malware authors specifically target Microsoft because of personal animus and partly because Windows has always simply presented many avenues of attack with a very large soft underbelly.

It's pretty clear that Windows has a serious malware problem, and it's also pretty clear that Mac OS X does not. Hacks, like jailbreaking, that require physical access and time aren't relevant to either system. or to the discussion, because there is no security on any system when the attacker has physical access. Rational people realize that Windows is a bag of hurt for this and so many other reasons, and that's the bottom line here: Vista/7 will continue to be attacked relentlessly and OS X will continue to have a tiny trickle of attacks against it.

So, if a couple of hacks shows that, "Apple sucks at security," what do the thousands upon thousands of Windows hacks show us?

Really, I don't think you're bringing your A-game to this discussion. Oh, wait, nonsense is your A-game.

Thousands of hacks only means that Windows is attacked far more, it doesn't mean OSX is more secure. Which is a concept that isn't holding between you ears. I have dropped down to my C-game and you still can't grasp a simple concept. Not sure how much lower I need to go to get on your level.

Thousands of hacks and being attacked "far more" means that Windows is less secure, in the real world, and Windows 7 will continue to be a security nightmare for users and administrators. You can try to dance around that fact all you want, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

I don't think you have any game at all. Your argument is that a handful of hacks means that OS X sucks, but that thousands of hacks on Windows only means thousands of hacks on Windows? I think what we can conclude based on that is that your ability to reason logically is nonexistent.

Another set of iPhone’s have been attacked, but this time it’s serious. THe attacker Rick Rolls the unsuspecting iPhones with a home screen picture of Rick Astley. OH THE HUMANITY.

Seriously, it’s the same exploit as before which requires the user to jailbreak their iPhone and then turn on SSH while not actually changing the default SSH password. These type of hacks do reinforce Apple’s stance that normal costumers should not be jail breaking their phones.I’m sure my parents don’t know what SSH means or what it’s used for, much less the potential dangers for keeping it on with the keys under the mat.

•

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/1...hones?from=rss

Windows isn't simply exploited because it's the biggest target, but because historically, Windows had an absolutely dismal security track record, mostly before Vista. MS was colossally negligent when it came to security. For chrissakes, in 2001, well into the "internet age", XP shipped with 5 open ports.

I guess there's a reason Apple advises users against compromising their own hardware, which in and of itself is a pain to do anyway. Imagine taking the effort (and the average user needs detailed instructions) to deliberately make your device vulnerable.

The details are pretty simple. You do search on public WiFi for devices with SHH open. When you find one you try the default password Alpine. This kind of script is childs play to make. Why the community hasnt rewritten the Cydia home page to warn abut this or have the OpenSSH installer use a nice little GUI to change the password for you before continuing. I fear tis silly hacks will not convert many people to think ahead.

I wouldn't trust the haxie community with my toaster, never mind an expensive piece of tech. But that's just me. I've lived (and suffered) through the days of XP customization. That was plenty.

Speaking of, beware of this toaster: http://www.nbcuniversalstore.com/det...r&esvtk_s=bgss

Now THAT is a collector's item.

A plate which burns the phrase ''Frak Off'' on a piece of toast
A plate which burns an image of a Cylon on a piece of toast
The red cylon eye lights up on the front of the toaster and moves across the helmet

Talk about features!

Now that depends on who do you ask.

But since this is an Apple forum...

Only at introduction, but was fixed time ago.



Well 3 years is sort of normal refresh time for Windows OS - only XP to Vista took uncharacteristic 5 years.

Non-NT line:

Win 3.0 - 1990
Win 3.1 - 1992
Win 95 - 1995
Win 98 - 1998
Win ME - 2000

NT Line:

Win NT3.1 - 1993
Win NT4 - 1996
Win 2000 - 2000
Win XP - 2002 (or was it 2001?)
Win Vista - 2006
Win 7 - 2009

If you add in between Win 3.11, 98SE, NT 3.5 and NT3.51... you'll realise that 3 years is actually longer than average period for Windows refresh.

How often does Apple release new versions of OSX, anyway? If 3 years or less - does that mean Apple also must rush out new versions..?


Retail... probably. But business shops through supply channels, and most will offer Vista Business machines preinstalled with XP.


No. You don't have to be too savy to pop in XP recovery disk(s) and reimage your PC. Most PC with downgrade option that I have seen come with recovery image that already has all the drivers and apps that normally come with computer (bloat included, unfortunately), so all user has to do is to swap CD/DVD when prompted.

However, you do need to have Vista with downgrade rights, and that excludes Home Basic and Home Premium - most common among home users.


This is another myth I haven't experienced in reality - and I do work in IT support role. I've yet to see any significant number of Vista users who hate it. Most haters among PC users don't use Vista at all, and hate it because they were told how awful it is by someone else (usually not using Vista as well). I'd say there is big fear of change (and new things to be learned) causing people to look for the reason not to change, and that is probably caused to a certain extend by prolonged period of XP stagnation. Vista broke the ice with some great causalities inflicted upon itself, and while so much people hate it for stirring the water, it also helped change state of consumers' mind - that change is inevitable... thus preparing ground for much easier penetration of 7.


Why would they? If XP was running fast enough on their existing hardware, likely will 7 as well. Some will pop in new graphics, more RAM... but replace whole PC just because new OS is out, unlikely.

Of course Macs don't integrate well into Active Directory. What would be the point in Microsoft making it easy for a competitor to play nice with their systems. I would like to think that Apple will not make the same kinds of mistakes that Novell made in the 1990s. Where I work, Active directory membership for a Mac is needed for convenient file access on a windows server, and nothing more. Are your Macs members of OD as well (golden triangle)?

Regarding your other (valid) points, I certainly hope that Apple will continue to play catch up in the enterprise server room. My guess is that Apple is spending most of its resources in maintaining domination in the portable device space (Iphone, Ipod, etc.). Enterprise desktops/servers and corresponding applications are not a high priority with Apple - for now, anyways.

Nothing to do with your arguments, but Vista went retail on Jan 30, 2007, and XP went retail on Oct 25, 2001. Your second guess about XP was right.

Man, I feel old . . .