If you end up with a virus on your computer, it's because you're ignorant, and have done something you shouldn't have done. You were ignorant because you didn't know about the necessary precautions to take. As such, anyone who claims to have switched to a Mac due to the many viruses they had was either ignorant, or are simply trolling.
What an attitude, and all too common. Maybe you should try helping people, most of whom are perfectly intelligent, but are overwhelmed by technological complexities.
or....lives with someone, or visited a trusted website with a zero day flash infection, or received an email with a .doc attachment from a trusted source which was nevertheless infected with a virus. I don't think that everyone who's been infected by a PC virus is ignorant. The truly smart PC users should just avoid the internet, I guess.
The one that your up to date free anti-virus would catch...
Quote:
What an attitude, and all too common. Maybe you should try helping people, most of whom are perfectly intelligent, but are overwhelmed by technological complexities.
I do, fairly often. I've dealt with people who have asked 'what's the mouse?' when I've asked them to use the mouse to control the cursor.
Yeah, but an Apple dominated industry would look ALOT better than a Microsoft dominated one.
Ah, updated antivirus. But aren't updates inherently reactive? They can't issue a fix before the problem is created right? So, there will necessarily be some lag time between the time the virus is out in the wild and the time an update is issued. Thus, a non ignorant pc user can be infected.
The ultimate fix would be to stay off the Internet. Otherwise, update frequently and hope to god that the update came in time.
But I like your logic. So I can say that anybody who cannot successfully navigate through an adjustment of status application with an I601 waiver is either ignorant or a troll. Cool. Now I feel better about myself.
Ah, updated antivirus. But aren't updates inherently reactive? They can't issue a fix before the problem is created right? So, there will necessarily be some lag time between the time the virus is out in the wild and the time an update is issued. Thus, a non ignorant pc user can be infected.
The ultimate fix would be to stay off the Internet. Otherwise, update frequently and hope to god that the update came in time.
But I like your logic. So I can say that anybody who cannot successfully navigate through an adjustment of status application with an I601 waiver is either ignorant or a troll. Cool. Now I feel better about myself.
Oops. Quoted the wrong post. I'm so ignorant with these computer thingies.
Ah, updated antivirus. But aren't updates inherently reactive? They can't issue a fix before the problem is created right? So, there will necessarily be some lag time between the time the virus is out in the wild and the time an update is issued. Thus, a non ignorant pc user can be infected.
The ultimate fix would be to stay off the Internet. Otherwise, update frequently and hope to god that the update came in time.
But I like your logic. So I can say that anybody who cannot successfully navigate through an adjustment of status application with an I601 waiver is either ignorant or a troll. Cool. Now I feel better about myself.
I can see your point, but it really does only take common sense and an up to date anti-virus and nothing more. I'm sure most people around here can just about manage to rub 2 brain cells together to manage that . The only infected computers I've ever seen are those which people have been downloading illegal content, or accepting files from unknown contacts through IMs etc, all of which are well documented, well publicised, widely known ways of getting a virus. If you still continue regardless, you're ignorant, and deserve to be infected by said virus.
I can see your point, but it really does only take common sense and an up to date anti-virus and nothing more. I'm sure most people around here can just about manage to rub 2 brain cells together to manage that . The only infected computers I've ever seen are those which people have been downloading illegal content, or accepting files from unknown contacts through IMs etc, all of which are well documented, well publicised, widely known ways of getting a virus. If you still continue regardless, you're ignorant, and deserve to be infected by said virus.
I can see your point, but it really does only take common sense and an up to date anti-virus and nothing more. I'm sure most people around here can just about manage to rub 2 brain cells together to manage that . The only infected computers I've ever seen are those which people have been downloading illegal content, or accepting files from unknown contacts through IMs etc, all of which are well documented, well publicised, widely known ways of getting a virus. If you still continue regardless, you're ignorant, and deserve to be infected by said virus.
I must disagree. Nobody deserves to have his/her machine infected by a virus unles he/she is one of the jerks creating viruses in the first place.
It's awfully presumptuous to assume that people are idiots if they don't know much about computers.
I must disagree. Nobody deserves to have his/her machine infected by a virus unles he/she is one of the jerks creating viruses in the first place.
It's awfully presumptuous to assume that people are idiots if they don't know much about computers.
Exactly. It is so condescending to say that it's always user error. This is the classic tech head argument. I know lots and lots of Windows users who have had their PCs hosed multiple times. They are not ignorant people by any means. They are not downloading illegal content, they are not the type to use IM at all. WIth Windows, it only takes one errant click -- and the spreaders of these viruses are very good at inducing that errant click. Of course I sometimes suggest politely to friends who are having recurring problems that they might be better off with a Mac. But I am never, ever going to question their wisdom, knowledge or intelligence in any event.
cause every time he say's something negative about a product, it goes through the roof, making him eat crow. So, bash away Steve, just let me know how you want the serving of crow, roasted or grilled?
I must disagree. Nobody deserves to have his/her machine infected by a virus unles he/she is one of the jerks creating viruses in the first place.
It's awfully presumptuous to assume that people are idiots if they don't know much about computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrochester
If you end up with a virus on your computer, it's because you're ignorant, and have done something you shouldn't have done. You were ignorant because you didn't know about the necessary precautions to take. As such, anyone who claims to have switched to a Mac due to the many viruses they had was either ignorant, or are simply trolling.
sounds to me your the one who ignorant and very narrow minded in your comments. Wishing people to have viruses, well what goes aorund comes around, karma!
I really get irriated when someone makes this quote, you are one person out of many millions and because yours works fine, Hey its ok. Hmm please if you going to quote at least have some FACTS and understand the virus issue with MS.
This basically a translation of your quote to allow you to see how silly it was 'Hey my country has never been to war, so I can't understand why everyone is talking about all the wars around the world'
There are many people who are probably virus free, BUT when you compare the number of people/coporations that have been infected, it is vastly significant compared to Apple community.
Life isn't safe, if you drive a car you have to be intelligent and not do something stupid or you'll kill yourself and others. If you use an oven you have to take precautions not to roast your hands. And so on.
A PC simply requires a low level of intelligence and common sense to operate. It's not a DVD player which even a monkey could operate, it's something far more complex and powerful.
If people a) install some anti-virus software, b) don't visit dodgy sites, and c) don't do something as retarded as opening attachments from people they don't trust, then they'll be fine. I've never had a virus on my PC, EVER. I'm not an IT professional, I'm not an expert on any of this type of stuff, I just don't do stupid stuff on my machine. And when I do that, guess what, it just works!
Yes it's true, Windows PCs can just work if you have a brain. Who'd of thought it?
sounds to me your the one who ignorant and very narrow minded in your comments. Wishing people to have viruses, well what goes aorund comes around, karma!
I didn't at any point wish for anyone to get a virus. I did say that if you do get a virus, you have got it because you were ignorant and didn't take the necessary precautions. If you're not ignorant, and do take the necessary precautions, you won't get a virus.
I didn't at any point wish for anyone to get a virus. I did say that if you do get a virus, you have got it because you were ignorant and didn't take the necessary precautions. If you're not ignorant, and do take the necessary precautions, you won't get a virus.
No, but this is just about as bad. Blaming the victim is possibly even worse.
If people a) install some anti-virus software, b) don't visit dodgy sites, and c) don't do something as retarded as opening attachments from people they don't trust, then they'll be fine. I've never had a virus on my PC, EVER. I'm not an IT professional, I'm not an expert on any of this type of stuff, I just don't do stupid stuff on my machine. And when I do that, guess what, it just works!
Most PC malware comes from everyday websurfing. You hit an infected (hacked) website, it loads malware in your browser from a second site using cross-site scripting that you never see. The malware itself can load via any number of Windows/IE vulnerabilities and often completes the install via the RunOnce registry key on the next reboot. The background services don't show up in Task Manager or msconfig, or if they do they look like other normal background processes including the inscrutable Windows-specific background processes.
This all happens without your knowledge, without surfing to dodgy sites, without opening attachments, etc. Mostly this is quiet, except when the guy running the botnet wakes it up on thousands of PCs to send out v1@gra spam or launch a DDoS attack on Twitter or whatever. The other approach is to surreptitiously scan your PC for potentially sensitive files or keylog your passwords when you log into banking website, to send back to the mothership later.
I'd venture to say that most people who have these types of malware on their PCs not only know they don't have it, but are probably just as indignant as you are that they are somehow "safe" because they have "safe habits". The problem isn't so much in what you do, since you can't control how well secured the websites are that you surf to everyday. The problem is that the Windows platform itself is insecure by its nature and patching the holes is a b1tch to keep up with. OS X doesn't do anything special to be more secure than Windows in that regard, it just leverages the BSD underpinnings that were written to be more secure by default.
I never thought comparing Windows PCs to Macs was a fair comparison. First off Microsoft is just a software company, they don't build PCs, they depend on other manufacturers to do that. So the cheapness of WinPCs is not coming from Microsoft, its coming from the PC manufacturers like Dell and HP. Microsoft for its part has the daunting task of trying to shoe-horn their OS into a nearly infinite number of hardware configurations which would explain the bloat of Windows. And microsoft needs to up the cost of their software because its their only real revenue stream.
Apple on the other hand can afford to slice down the costs of their software because they more than make up for it on the hardware end where they make MUCH more money. But Apple is a closed system. Hardware and software all flow from the same place. That leads to simplicity but also destroys any kind of competition which would regulate prices.
Microsoft allows anyone who buys a license to install their software on any compatible PC. So you get wider appeal.
I think Apple knows that its closed eco-system can never compete head-to-head with Microsoft and its armada of OEMs. So Apple has positioned itself as a 'boutique' company and is doing quite well. Upside is its high returns are able to weather these economic storms downside is limited exposure to the mass-market.
Microsoft is able to be everywhere because of its army of manufacturers but the downside is such wide-spread exposure makes them a target for hackers and bargain vendors that don't care about quality only price. And microsoft has to dumb-itself down to be able to work with them.
It really is apples and oranges. But the wrench being thrown into the mix is the internet. For the most part the internet is OS neutral. All you need is a web-browser. And as the need for a particular OS diminishes people are more easily able to switch back and forth which is why Apple is doing so well lately. Which is good for everyone. If companies like Microsoft, Sony, HP, Palm, etc are all targetting and copying Apple's innovative designs thats good for everyone. It means innovation isn't dead.
The browser is more relevant that ever! Google is betting the farm on it. Everything they've built was designed to run in a browser, or use a browser - and now they've packaged up their very own browser. If you believe even a little of the hype around "cloud computing" and all the related technologies, you know the web browser isn't going anywhere soon.
The browser is walking dead argument surfaced when some people "predicted" that all the great desktop apps would eventually be connected to the net to move, store, and share data, usurping the need for "dumbed-down", browser-based applications.
I think those people might have been wrong.
I think the original poster simply left out the word "Netscape." In that by the time they forced Microsoft to decouple, they had time to improve Explorer to the point of Netscape leading it's significant edge.
Here's my biased view of the browser history:
Between 1992 and 1993
---------------------------
NCSA Mosaic developed on the NeXT (therefore quickly available on on all *nix variants.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Mac (along with MacWeb, MacWWW (Samba), Cello, etc.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Windows
Netscape Navigator (1994)
Internet Explorer (1995)
Netscape had a much better browser than Explorer, and was simply kicking Explorer's butt. Microsoft was losing big time when it came to Internet tools in general.
Microsoft starts bundling Explorer. Netscape is so much better that people use it anyway. PC manufacturers want to ship Netscape to make customers happy. Microsoft tells them they won't license Windows to them if they ship Netscape, and they must ship Explorer installed and as default browser. Justice department looks into monopolistic practices.
Microsoft also distributes (for free) FrontPage, so people can make webpages. Webpages made with Frontpage seem to work fine when using Explorer, but often crash Netscape when Netscape tries to load a page created by FrontPage. FrontPage is free, so many pages are developed using Frontpage, making Netscape look more unstable than it actually is. Microsoft pulls the same stunt with MP3 audio files by bundling a version of WindowsMediaPlayer that plays MP3's horribly, but when converted to Microsofts media format, sounds better. Giving people the impression that MP3 is inferior to WMF.
Microsoft works very hard at improving Explorer, and does improve it significantly for version 5. By this time the justice department rules that Microsoft's practices of forcing Netscape out was illegal, but it is too late. The 3 years allowed MS to copy Netscape and dominate the browser market anyway. -Neat! (I won't even get into the copied Quicktime code, and how MS screwed Borland when they decided to get into the developer market, by not publishing known snags (or worse... creating them) that would cause other developer tools to bog down, while the information was given to the Turbo/Visual group.
You don't need conspiracy theories when there are real, documented conspiracies. Microsoft did conspire to force Netscape out, but not for the reasons we might assume. Microsoft wasn't concerned with being bested in the browser market per se, they were worried that the browser might eventually make the operating system less relevant. Netscape was talking openly about this possibility. Microsoft wanted Netscape neutralized for this reason primarily. FrontPage wasn't the issue so much as ActiveX and other Microsoft-specific technologies which they pushed through their server products, as a way of marginalizing Netscape.
I think they went through a whole lot of trouble for nothing much. If the browser was in any danger of becoming a software platform, this was little more than a theory during the mid-1990s. But Microsoft thought it could happen, so that was enough for them to use their uniquely powerful position in the market to eliminate any chance that Netscape could become a future competitive threat. They tried the same thing with Java. Any technology that was platform-neutral, they worked overtime to destroy.
You don't need conspiracy theories when there are real, documented conspiracies. Microsoft did conspire to force Netscape out, but not for the reasons we might assume. Microsoft wasn't concerned with being bested in the browser market per se, they were worried that the browser might eventually make the operating system less relevant. Netscape was talking openly about this possibility. Microsoft wanted Netscape neutralized for this reason primarily. FrontPage wasn't the issue so much as ActiveX and other Microsoft-specific technologies which they pushed through their server products, as a way of marginalizing Netscape.
I think they went through a whole lot of trouble for nothing much. If the browser was in any danger of becoming a software platform, this was little more than a theory during the mid-1990s. But Microsoft thought it could happen, so that was enough for them to use their uniquely powerful position in the market to eliminate any chance that Netscape could become a future competitive threat. They tried the same thing with Java. Any technology that was platform-neutral, they worked overtime to destroy.
Right... It was probably ActiveX, which was easily implemented using FrontPage that caused Netscape to seem unstable. But I swear I heard about other snags in FrontPage that crashed Netscape outside of ActiveX. I certainly read about Window versions that tripped-up Borland's developer tools/compilers but yet somehow the Microsoft developer tools were aware of these "undocumented" snags. I believe in 1993 Borland was sueing Microsoft for this... maybe I'm wrong.
Right... It was probably ActiveX, which was easily implemented using FrontPage that caused Netscape to seem unstable. But I swear I heard about other snags in FrontPage that crashed Netscape outside of ActiveX. I certainly read about Window versions that tripped-up Borland's developer tools/compilers but yet somehow the Microsoft developer tools were aware of these "undocumented" snags. I believe in 1993 Borland was sueing Microsoft for this... maybe I'm wrong.
You could be right, I don't recall. Maybe I'll look it up. Anyway, I do know that Borland wasn't cited in the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft. They pulled so many anticompetitive stunts during the '80s and '90s. Not all of them were documented in the antitrust case.
I think the original poster simply left out the word "Netscape." In that by the time they forced Microsoft to decouple, they had time to improve Explorer to the point of Netscape leading it's significant edge.
Here's my biased view of the browser history:
Between 1992 and 1993
---------------------------
NCSA Mosaic developed on the NeXT (therefore quickly available on on all *nix variants.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Mac (along with MacWeb, MacWWW (Samba), Cello, etc.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Windows
Netscape Navigator (1994)
Internet Explorer (1995)
Netscape had a much better browser than Explorer, and was simply kicking Explorer's butt. Microsoft was losing big time when it came to Internet tools in general.
Microsoft starts bundling Explorer. Netscape is so much better that people use it anyway. PC manufacturers want to ship Netscape to make customers happy. Microsoft tells them they won't license Windows to them if they ship Netscape, and they must ship Explorer installed and as default browser. Justice department looks into monopolistic practices.
Microsoft also distributes (for free) FrontPage, so people can make webpages. Webpages made with Frontpage seem to work fine when using Explorer, but often crash Netscape when Netscape tries to load a page created by FrontPage. FrontPage is free, so many pages are developed using Frontpage, making Netscape look more unstable than it actually is. Microsoft pulls the same stunt with MP3 audio files by bundling a version of WindowsMediaPlayer that plays MP3's horribly, but when converted to Microsofts media format, sounds better. Giving people the impression that MP3 is inferior to WMF.
Microsoft works very hard at improving Explorer, and does improve it significantly for version 5. By this time the justice department rules that Microsoft's practices of forcing Netscape out was illegal, but it is too late. The 3 years allowed MS to copy Netscape and dominate the browser market anyway. -Neat! (I won't even get into the copied Quicktime code, and how MS screwed Borland when they decided to get into the developer market, by not publishing known snags (or worse... creating them) that would cause other developer tools to bog down, while the information was given to the Turbo/Visual group.
Oh well... enough conspiracy theory for today....
IAMIQ78
I wish more people understood that this is how the events unfolded.
MS was quite prescient in deciding to abusing its monopoly in order to put Netscape out of business. Browsers did, and still do, represent the biggest threat to Microsoft's Windows/Office dominance. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded in de-standardizing the web, choice of OS would have become largely irrelevant. Their abuse of monopoly powers set back web standardization by at least a decade.
This was an absolutely pivotal turn of events in the computing industry. It has had a large hand in defining the computing landscape for the past decade, and perhaps even the next decade. It really was that significant.
Comments
If you end up with a virus on your computer, it's because you're ignorant, and have done something you shouldn't have done. You were ignorant because you didn't know about the necessary precautions to take. As such, anyone who claims to have switched to a Mac due to the many viruses they had was either ignorant, or are simply trolling.
What an attitude, and all too common. Maybe you should try helping people, most of whom are perfectly intelligent, but are overwhelmed by technological complexities.
or....lives with someone, or visited a trusted website with a zero day flash infection, or received an email with a .doc attachment from a trusted source which was nevertheless infected with a virus. I don't think that everyone who's been infected by a PC virus is ignorant. The truly smart PC users should just avoid the internet, I guess.
The one that your up to date free anti-virus would catch...
What an attitude, and all too common. Maybe you should try helping people, most of whom are perfectly intelligent, but are overwhelmed by technological complexities.
I do, fairly often. I've dealt with people who have asked 'what's the mouse?' when I've asked them to use the mouse to control the cursor.
Yeah, but an Apple dominated industry would look ALOT better than a Microsoft dominated one.
Ah, updated antivirus. But aren't updates inherently reactive? They can't issue a fix before the problem is created right? So, there will necessarily be some lag time between the time the virus is out in the wild and the time an update is issued. Thus, a non ignorant pc user can be infected.
The ultimate fix would be to stay off the Internet. Otherwise, update frequently and hope to god that the update came in time.
But I like your logic. So I can say that anybody who cannot successfully navigate through an adjustment of status application with an I601 waiver is either ignorant or a troll. Cool. Now I feel better about myself.
Ah, updated antivirus. But aren't updates inherently reactive? They can't issue a fix before the problem is created right? So, there will necessarily be some lag time between the time the virus is out in the wild and the time an update is issued. Thus, a non ignorant pc user can be infected.
The ultimate fix would be to stay off the Internet. Otherwise, update frequently and hope to god that the update came in time.
But I like your logic. So I can say that anybody who cannot successfully navigate through an adjustment of status application with an I601 waiver is either ignorant or a troll. Cool. Now I feel better about myself.
Oops. Quoted the wrong post. I'm so ignorant with these computer thingies.
Ah, updated antivirus. But aren't updates inherently reactive? They can't issue a fix before the problem is created right? So, there will necessarily be some lag time between the time the virus is out in the wild and the time an update is issued. Thus, a non ignorant pc user can be infected.
The ultimate fix would be to stay off the Internet. Otherwise, update frequently and hope to god that the update came in time.
But I like your logic. So I can say that anybody who cannot successfully navigate through an adjustment of status application with an I601 waiver is either ignorant or a troll. Cool. Now I feel better about myself.
I can see your point, but it really does only take common sense and an up to date anti-virus and nothing more. I'm sure most people around here can just about manage to rub 2 brain cells together to manage that
I can see your point, but it really does only take common sense and an up to date anti-virus and nothing more. I'm sure most people around here can just about manage to rub 2 brain cells together to manage that
Good point. I definitely agree with that.
I can see your point, but it really does only take common sense and an up to date anti-virus and nothing more. I'm sure most people around here can just about manage to rub 2 brain cells together to manage that
I must disagree. Nobody deserves to have his/her machine infected by a virus unles he/she is one of the jerks creating viruses in the first place.
It's awfully presumptuous to assume that people are idiots if they don't know much about computers.
I must disagree. Nobody deserves to have his/her machine infected by a virus unles he/she is one of the jerks creating viruses in the first place.
It's awfully presumptuous to assume that people are idiots if they don't know much about computers.
Exactly. It is so condescending to say that it's always user error. This is the classic tech head argument. I know lots and lots of Windows users who have had their PCs hosed multiple times. They are not ignorant people by any means. They are not downloading illegal content, they are not the type to use IM at all. WIth Windows, it only takes one errant click -- and the spreaders of these viruses are very good at inducing that errant click. Of course I sometimes suggest politely to friends who are having recurring problems that they might be better off with a Mac. But I am never, ever going to question their wisdom, knowledge or intelligence in any event.
Good point. I definitely agree with that.
I must disagree. Nobody deserves to have his/her machine infected by a virus unles he/she is one of the jerks creating viruses in the first place.
It's awfully presumptuous to assume that people are idiots if they don't know much about computers.
If you end up with a virus on your computer, it's because you're ignorant, and have done something you shouldn't have done. You were ignorant because you didn't know about the necessary precautions to take. As such, anyone who claims to have switched to a Mac due to the many viruses they had was either ignorant, or are simply trolling.
sounds to me your the one who ignorant and very narrow minded in your comments. Wishing people to have viruses, well what goes aorund comes around, karma!
I really get irriated when someone makes this quote, you are one person out of many millions and because yours works fine, Hey its ok. Hmm please if you going to quote at least have some FACTS and understand the virus issue with MS.
This basically a translation of your quote to allow you to see how silly it was 'Hey my country has never been to war, so I can't understand why everyone is talking about all the wars around the world'
There are many people who are probably virus free, BUT when you compare the number of people/coporations that have been infected, it is vastly significant compared to Apple community.
Life isn't safe, if you drive a car you have to be intelligent and not do something stupid or you'll kill yourself and others. If you use an oven you have to take precautions not to roast your hands. And so on.
A PC simply requires a low level of intelligence and common sense to operate. It's not a DVD player which even a monkey could operate, it's something far more complex and powerful.
If people a) install some anti-virus software, b) don't visit dodgy sites, and c) don't do something as retarded as opening attachments from people they don't trust, then they'll be fine. I've never had a virus on my PC, EVER. I'm not an IT professional, I'm not an expert on any of this type of stuff, I just don't do stupid stuff on my machine. And when I do that, guess what, it just works!
Yes it's true, Windows PCs can just work if you have a brain. Who'd of thought it?
sounds to me your the one who ignorant and very narrow minded in your comments. Wishing people to have viruses, well what goes aorund comes around, karma!
I didn't at any point wish for anyone to get a virus. I did say that if you do get a virus, you have got it because you were ignorant and didn't take the necessary precautions. If you're not ignorant, and do take the necessary precautions, you won't get a virus.
I didn't at any point wish for anyone to get a virus. I did say that if you do get a virus, you have got it because you were ignorant and didn't take the necessary precautions. If you're not ignorant, and do take the necessary precautions, you won't get a virus.
No, but this is just about as bad. Blaming the victim is possibly even worse.
If people a) install some anti-virus software, b) don't visit dodgy sites, and c) don't do something as retarded as opening attachments from people they don't trust, then they'll be fine. I've never had a virus on my PC, EVER. I'm not an IT professional, I'm not an expert on any of this type of stuff, I just don't do stupid stuff on my machine. And when I do that, guess what, it just works!
Most PC malware comes from everyday websurfing. You hit an infected (hacked) website, it loads malware in your browser from a second site using cross-site scripting that you never see. The malware itself can load via any number of Windows/IE vulnerabilities and often completes the install via the RunOnce registry key on the next reboot. The background services don't show up in Task Manager or msconfig, or if they do they look like other normal background processes including the inscrutable Windows-specific background processes.
This all happens without your knowledge, without surfing to dodgy sites, without opening attachments, etc. Mostly this is quiet, except when the guy running the botnet wakes it up on thousands of PCs to send out v1@gra spam or launch a DDoS attack on Twitter or whatever. The other approach is to surreptitiously scan your PC for potentially sensitive files or keylog your passwords when you log into banking website, to send back to the mothership later.
I'd venture to say that most people who have these types of malware on their PCs not only know they don't have it, but are probably just as indignant as you are that they are somehow "safe" because they have "safe habits". The problem isn't so much in what you do, since you can't control how well secured the websites are that you surf to everyday. The problem is that the Windows platform itself is insecure by its nature and patching the holes is a b1tch to keep up with. OS X doesn't do anything special to be more secure than Windows in that regard, it just leverages the BSD underpinnings that were written to be more secure by default.
Apple on the other hand can afford to slice down the costs of their software because they more than make up for it on the hardware end where they make MUCH more money. But Apple is a closed system. Hardware and software all flow from the same place. That leads to simplicity but also destroys any kind of competition which would regulate prices.
Microsoft allows anyone who buys a license to install their software on any compatible PC. So you get wider appeal.
I think Apple knows that its closed eco-system can never compete head-to-head with Microsoft and its armada of OEMs. So Apple has positioned itself as a 'boutique' company and is doing quite well. Upside is its high returns are able to weather these economic storms downside is limited exposure to the mass-market.
Microsoft is able to be everywhere because of its army of manufacturers but the downside is such wide-spread exposure makes them a target for hackers and bargain vendors that don't care about quality only price. And microsoft has to dumb-itself down to be able to work with them.
It really is apples and oranges. But the wrench being thrown into the mix is the internet. For the most part the internet is OS neutral. All you need is a web-browser. And as the need for a particular OS diminishes people are more easily able to switch back and forth which is why Apple is doing so well lately. Which is good for everyone. If companies like Microsoft, Sony, HP, Palm, etc are all targetting and copying Apple's innovative designs thats good for everyone. It means innovation isn't dead.
Poppycock!
The browser is more relevant that ever! Google is betting the farm on it. Everything they've built was designed to run in a browser, or use a browser - and now they've packaged up their very own browser. If you believe even a little of the hype around "cloud computing" and all the related technologies, you know the web browser isn't going anywhere soon.
The browser is walking dead argument surfaced when some people "predicted" that all the great desktop apps would eventually be connected to the net to move, store, and share data, usurping the need for "dumbed-down", browser-based applications.
I think those people might have been wrong.
I think the original poster simply left out the word "Netscape." In that by the time they forced Microsoft to decouple, they had time to improve Explorer to the point of Netscape leading it's significant edge.
Here's my biased view of the browser history:
Between 1992 and 1993
---------------------------
NCSA Mosaic developed on the NeXT (therefore quickly available on on all *nix variants.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Mac (along with MacWeb, MacWWW (Samba), Cello, etc.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Windows
Netscape Navigator (1994)
Internet Explorer (1995)
Netscape had a much better browser than Explorer, and was simply kicking Explorer's butt. Microsoft was losing big time when it came to Internet tools in general.
Microsoft starts bundling Explorer. Netscape is so much better that people use it anyway. PC manufacturers want to ship Netscape to make customers happy. Microsoft tells them they won't license Windows to them if they ship Netscape, and they must ship Explorer installed and as default browser. Justice department looks into monopolistic practices.
Microsoft also distributes (for free) FrontPage, so people can make webpages. Webpages made with Frontpage seem to work fine when using Explorer, but often crash Netscape when Netscape tries to load a page created by FrontPage. FrontPage is free, so many pages are developed using Frontpage, making Netscape look more unstable than it actually is. Microsoft pulls the same stunt with MP3 audio files by bundling a version of WindowsMediaPlayer that plays MP3's horribly, but when converted to Microsofts media format, sounds better. Giving people the impression that MP3 is inferior to WMF.
Microsoft works very hard at improving Explorer, and does improve it significantly for version 5. By this time the justice department rules that Microsoft's practices of forcing Netscape out was illegal, but it is too late. The 3 years allowed MS to copy Netscape and dominate the browser market anyway. -Neat! (I won't even get into the copied Quicktime code, and how MS screwed Borland when they decided to get into the developer market, by not publishing known snags (or worse... creating them) that would cause other developer tools to bog down, while the information was given to the Turbo/Visual group.
Oh well... enough conspiracy theory for today....
IAMIQ78
I think they went through a whole lot of trouble for nothing much. If the browser was in any danger of becoming a software platform, this was little more than a theory during the mid-1990s. But Microsoft thought it could happen, so that was enough for them to use their uniquely powerful position in the market to eliminate any chance that Netscape could become a future competitive threat. They tried the same thing with Java. Any technology that was platform-neutral, they worked overtime to destroy.
You don't need conspiracy theories when there are real, documented conspiracies. Microsoft did conspire to force Netscape out, but not for the reasons we might assume. Microsoft wasn't concerned with being bested in the browser market per se, they were worried that the browser might eventually make the operating system less relevant. Netscape was talking openly about this possibility. Microsoft wanted Netscape neutralized for this reason primarily. FrontPage wasn't the issue so much as ActiveX and other Microsoft-specific technologies which they pushed through their server products, as a way of marginalizing Netscape.
I think they went through a whole lot of trouble for nothing much. If the browser was in any danger of becoming a software platform, this was little more than a theory during the mid-1990s. But Microsoft thought it could happen, so that was enough for them to use their uniquely powerful position in the market to eliminate any chance that Netscape could become a future competitive threat. They tried the same thing with Java. Any technology that was platform-neutral, they worked overtime to destroy.
Right... It was probably ActiveX, which was easily implemented using FrontPage that caused Netscape to seem unstable. But I swear I heard about other snags in FrontPage that crashed Netscape outside of ActiveX. I certainly read about Window versions that tripped-up Borland's developer tools/compilers but yet somehow the Microsoft developer tools were aware of these "undocumented" snags. I believe in 1993 Borland was sueing Microsoft for this... maybe I'm wrong.
Right... It was probably ActiveX, which was easily implemented using FrontPage that caused Netscape to seem unstable. But I swear I heard about other snags in FrontPage that crashed Netscape outside of ActiveX. I certainly read about Window versions that tripped-up Borland's developer tools/compilers but yet somehow the Microsoft developer tools were aware of these "undocumented" snags. I believe in 1993 Borland was sueing Microsoft for this... maybe I'm wrong.
You could be right, I don't recall. Maybe I'll look it up. Anyway, I do know that Borland wasn't cited in the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft. They pulled so many anticompetitive stunts during the '80s and '90s. Not all of them were documented in the antitrust case.
I think the original poster simply left out the word "Netscape." In that by the time they forced Microsoft to decouple, they had time to improve Explorer to the point of Netscape leading it's significant edge.
Here's my biased view of the browser history:
Between 1992 and 1993
---------------------------
NCSA Mosaic developed on the NeXT (therefore quickly available on on all *nix variants.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Mac (along with MacWeb, MacWWW (Samba), Cello, etc.)
NCSA Mosaic developed for Windows
Netscape Navigator (1994)
Internet Explorer (1995)
Netscape had a much better browser than Explorer, and was simply kicking Explorer's butt. Microsoft was losing big time when it came to Internet tools in general.
Microsoft starts bundling Explorer. Netscape is so much better that people use it anyway. PC manufacturers want to ship Netscape to make customers happy. Microsoft tells them they won't license Windows to them if they ship Netscape, and they must ship Explorer installed and as default browser. Justice department looks into monopolistic practices.
Microsoft also distributes (for free) FrontPage, so people can make webpages. Webpages made with Frontpage seem to work fine when using Explorer, but often crash Netscape when Netscape tries to load a page created by FrontPage. FrontPage is free, so many pages are developed using Frontpage, making Netscape look more unstable than it actually is. Microsoft pulls the same stunt with MP3 audio files by bundling a version of WindowsMediaPlayer that plays MP3's horribly, but when converted to Microsofts media format, sounds better. Giving people the impression that MP3 is inferior to WMF.
Microsoft works very hard at improving Explorer, and does improve it significantly for version 5. By this time the justice department rules that Microsoft's practices of forcing Netscape out was illegal, but it is too late. The 3 years allowed MS to copy Netscape and dominate the browser market anyway. -Neat! (I won't even get into the copied Quicktime code, and how MS screwed Borland when they decided to get into the developer market, by not publishing known snags (or worse... creating them) that would cause other developer tools to bog down, while the information was given to the Turbo/Visual group.
Oh well... enough conspiracy theory for today....
IAMIQ78
I wish more people understood that this is how the events unfolded.
MS was quite prescient in deciding to abusing its monopoly in order to put Netscape out of business. Browsers did, and still do, represent the biggest threat to Microsoft's Windows/Office dominance. If Microsoft hadn't succeeded in de-standardizing the web, choice of OS would have become largely irrelevant. Their abuse of monopoly powers set back web standardization by at least a decade.
This was an absolutely pivotal turn of events in the computing industry. It has had a large hand in defining the computing landscape for the past decade, and perhaps even the next decade. It really was that significant.