Originally Posted by ChiA
If Windows was so battle hardened and perfect it would be impenetrable. Yet with Windows 7 still requires antivirus because Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses.
Even Microsoft acknowledges that its current Windows 7 requires anti-virus software:
Yet after 10 years and millions of users, we're yet to see a single virus affect Mac OS X. True it has been affected by malware, but not the deluge that engulfs the Windows world.
The real problem is this:
many (most?) OSX users have never had to deal with viruses/moved from PC and have stopped dealing with them.
People who use OSX are *generally* not very well prepared to deal with an influx of viruses.
People who use Windows are *generally* prepared to deal with the viruses.
Also note, Many Windows users have AV programs, which stop viruses.... not so many for OSX.
The thing about Windows, is that Microsoft issues patches very frequently for viruses. I believe the last huge one that hit OSX had been patched in Windows for a month or something before Apple did anything about it.
It is an issue of users who in general are less prepared to deal with viruses, and a company which does not have a much experience in dealing with viruses.
The issue becomes a problem because OSX is gaining enough market share that it may become more profitable to target solely OSX. Why?
1. in general people with OSX are richer as most Windows machines are cheaper than Macs.
2. in general people using OSX are more likely to be tricked by viruses/not worry about them
3. Apple is very slow (so far) in responding to viruses that affect many people.
If you want to debate this further please PM me :)!
EDIT: added reply to this post:
Originally Posted by benanderson89
Yeah... no. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Since the release of Lion Apple has been so serious about security I'm wondering if they have obsessive compulsive disorder.
Older versions of OSX back when Apple had a smaller market share had the worst security you could imagine and were far easier to break into. Windows 7 and even Ubuntu had better security than OSX Leopard and Snow Leopard by a considerable degree.
OSX Lion, on the other hand, has had all of its security features go through a Major overhaul. ASLR in OSX was vastly improved and is now on par with the implementations in Windows7. The Non-Executable bit has had some little tweaks made to it and, of course, you have the BSD-UNIX permissions system. Even if you manage to get past the ASLR you'll end up in the Application Sandbox and it is nearly impossible to get out of a sandboxed environment (like Google Chrome, only for the entire OS).
This is why I upgraded to OS Lion the day it came out.
To put it simply:
Lion is Fort Knox inside another Fort Knox.
Snow Leopard is a car parked on the street where the owner forgot to lock the door. But you're not quite sure if its unlocked or not when you walk past it.
Leopard is your house with a neon sign above it saying "We don't lock our doors or own an alarm. Keys to the Audi are in the vase in the hall".
I do not upgrade OSX often.... so yes, you may be right about newer version.
however, is the majority of OSX running Lion?
and being on Par with Windows 7 is nothing special... my bigger concern as noted above is that Apple took so much longer to fix the vulnerability, I believe it was about a month after Microsoft fixed the problem, and announced it in its patch....
As a note, if i ever stop using a thinkpad for work (cough when i have to buy another computer.... WHY YOU STOP USING 16:10 LENOVO!!!) I will be sure that any Mac i get will have Lion or better :)
Edited by nicolbolas - 6/26/12 at 12:01pm