Mac vs. Windows

[mr. ck]

You probably just opened a can of worms :P

Really, everybody is going to have a different opinion here. I'd suggest you to try both the OSes than starting a potential war :)

 

[Archer]

You probably won't want to switch any time soon considering how much of an increase malware, trojans etc are in the wild now for mac OS X.

The number is still very small in comparison to Windows machines. They are also less susceptible to drive-by style attacks. You're usually going to get them through pirated Mac software, so if you're not stupid, you're pretty safe.

 

[missingnoresearcher]

You probably won't want to switch any time soon considering how much of an increase malware, trojans etc are in the wild now for mac OS X.

As new, but remember Mac OS X based on BSD, which in turn is one of the most stability UNIX systems ever. UNIX/UNIX-like (*cough*Linux*cough*) have superior security systems that even if UNIX had the same amount of virus of Windows people still get way less infected.

So unless some random guy cracks through every wall in UNIX's system,..... (actually i can't think of a ending for this. )

 

[wakachamo]

The number is still very small in comparison to Windows machines. They are also less susceptible to drive-by style attacks. You're usually going to get them through pirated Mac software, so if you're not stupid, you're pretty safe.

If you're not stupid you're pretty safe on a Windows machine as well.

 

[Dawn]

As new, but remember Mac OS X based on BSD, which in turn is one of the most stability UNIX systems ever. UNIX/UNIX-like (*cough*Linux*cough*) have superior security systems that even if UNIX had the same amount of virus of Windows people still get way less infected.

So unless some random guy cracks through every wall in UNIX's system,..... (actually i can't think of a ending for this. )

Unless you can provide actual tech details as to why it's more secure, which I'm pretty sure you can't, I'll have to point out that Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows.

Once again, Linux destroys Mac OSX in terms of security.

 

[missingnoresearcher]

Unless you can provide actual tech details as to why it's more secure, which I'm pretty sure you can't, I'll have to point out that Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows.

Well, it's more pointing to the UNIX system.
1. UNIX, unlike Windows, is built for multi-user capabilities. Therefore, in UNIX,because by default you aren't the controller of the computer, you have to run the command "sudo" in order to run admin tools. Or with Mac, you have to personally make an admin account which the average Mac user wouldn't.
2.UNIX itself uses a much more secure system of permissions which no one but the admin can change the permissions. And if some malware tries to change it, you'll get a popup asking for permission to access admin rights.
3. Mac itself has library randomization, unlike Windows, Mac's memory address randomize constantaly changes, giving hackers a less success of making buffer overflows and gaping explotation holes.
4. Mac's built-in sandboxing system allows Mac-bulitin software (iLife, iWork, blah, blah, I just use my Mac for Slackware and Ubuntu) to run without interfering with the system and when you "X" the application, the hidden process also terminates along with it.
5. And while it's expensive as ****, Mac system's hardware are all from Apple, so you can send it in for checkup.
Bonus. Oh and for running Windows programs on Mac (directly, no Virtualbox or Boot Camp), use WINE: an application that gives your UNIX system a compability layer for Windows .dll dependent .exe files. If the program turns out to be a virus, all it's doing is attacking a virtual Windows directory with like 40-ish files. Compability's not the best, but it's pretty good. Played Grant Theft Auto: San Andreas at almost full speed on that thing. And the best thing: it's open-source and free.

You see, with Mac and UNIX, hackers have to find new ways to exploit things.
tl;dr Use Linux if you're cheap.

 

[twocows]

Well, it's more pointing to the UNIX system.
1. UNIX, unlike Windows, is built for multi-user capabilities. Therefore, in UNIX,because by default you aren't the controller of the computer, you have to run the command "sudo" in order to run admin tools. Or with Mac, you have to personally make an admin account which the average Mac user wouldn't.
2.UNIX itself uses a much more secure system of permissions which no one but the admin can change the permissions. And if some malware tries to change it, you'll get a popup asking for permission to access admin rights.
3. Mac itself has library randomization, unlike Windows, Mac's memory address randomize constantaly changes, giving hackers a less success of making buffer overflows and gaping explotation holes.
4. Mac's built-in sandboxing system allows Mac-bulitin software (iLife, iWork, blah, blah, I just use my Mac for Slackware and Ubuntu) to run without interfering with the system and when you "X" the application, the hidden process also terminates along with it.

You see, with Mac and UNIX, hackers have to find new ways to exploit things.
tl;dr Use Linux if you're cheap.

1. Windows also uses a similar model of administrative rights vs user rights.
2. This is incorrect. The owner of a particular file can change permissions. This also works on Windows if you set it up correctly.
3. Memory randomization does next to nothing. As long as you know where something is relative to something else, it doesn't matter where the segment is.
4. If it was truly sandboxed, it wouldn't be able to do make writes outside of the sandbox, and thus wouldn't be very useful. You can sandbox applications on Windows with Sandboxie if you really want.

Hackers have to find new ways to exploit things on Windows, as well. Security updates are constantly being pushed out, and each new installment of Windows is more secure than the previous (except perhaps Windows 7, since UAC is gimped).

 

[locoroco]

Really? You said that you were underqualified to give an opinion and then made a verdict. The fact is that each brand has pros and cons, so each person should make their own choice.

thats what i said i havent used the orginal in an apple pc but i have used it on a windows pc dual booting...... i just dnt know if its the same cuz i just got it from a personal site and well it was free so idk.

If you're not stupid you're pretty safe on a Windows machine as well.

im with this guy i almost never get any viruses ^^. I dont even get spyware so yeah i support this completely XD.

 

[Zet]

Well, it's more pointing to the UNIX system.
1. UNIX, unlike Windows, is built for multi-user capabilities. Therefore, in UNIX,because by default you aren't the controller of the computer, you have to run the command "sudo" in order to run admin tools. Or with Mac, you have to personally make an admin account which the average Mac user wouldn't.
2.UNIX itself uses a much more secure system of permissions which no one but the admin can change the permissions. And if some malware tries to change it, you'll get a popup asking for permission to access admin rights.
3. Mac itself has library randomization, unlike Windows, Mac's memory address randomize constantaly changes, giving hackers a less success of making buffer overflows and gaping explotation holes.
4. Mac's built-in sandboxing system allows Mac-bulitin software (iLife, iWork, blah, blah, I just use my Mac for Slackware and Ubuntu) to run without interfering with the system and when you "X" the application, the hidden process also terminates along with it.
5. And while it's expensive as ****, Mac system's hardware are all from Apple, so you can send it in for checkup.
Bonus. Oh and for running Windows programs on Mac (directly, no Virtualbox or Boot Camp), use WINE: an application that gives your UNIX system a compability layer for Windows .dll dependent .exe files. If the program turns out to be a virus, all it's doing is attacking a virtual Windows directory with like 40-ish files. Compability's not the best, but it's pretty good. Played Grant Theft Auto: San Andreas at almost full speed on that thing. And the best thing: it's open-source and free.

You see, with Mac and UNIX, hackers have to find new ways to exploit things.
tl;dr Use Linux if you're cheap.

User Account Controls does the same thing as this apparent mystical thing that the mac does with a popup with something about malware changes. And did you know that Linux is can do everything UNIX can do, but more and better?

Though I don't know if hackers have to find new ways to exploit things on UNIX when apple does a silent antimalware update patching more than 40+ exploits.

And you have to remember that Apple is it's "own" OS, so really you're just paying 3x the normal price for an Apple logo on your case.

 

[Archer]

1. Windows also uses a similar model of administrative rights vs user rights.
2. This is incorrect. The owner of a particular file can change permissions. This also works on Windows if you set it up correctly.

Keep in the mind that the permissions system only became as proactive as they are now in Vista. In XP, you could easily modify system files without authentication, providing your are an admin. Furthermore, you can plug access and modify a Windows filesystem from underneath Linux, ignoring any permissions going on there. You do a similar thing in Mac, but NTFS writing is patchy, to say the least.

 

[Ankoku Flare]

I'm a PC user. Mostly due to the fact that I use and test programs that are not available for macs. Even though Mac are more higher up with graphics, I have no problem making them through windows 7.

 

[beauty. proletariat]

Hacking is a business where new things pop up quite regularly. <:

Whilst the UNIX environment is much more secure, it doesn't change anything. Most hackers rely on the fact that the majority of users will be running a copy of Windows.

If anything, Linux is MORE secure than Darwin because you have more people working on improving and maintaining security / compatibility / stability.

The one thing i don't like about windows is it's horrible filesystem support and how for some reason, videos don't look quite that crisp and natural in comparison to the Mac OS.

 

[missingnoresearcher]

*Posts pwning me and praising Linux.*

You know, this thread should have a poll with Linux in it. I like it better than Mac to begin with.
Anyways, open source is the way to go.
I mean, Microsoft and Apple (to an extent) look at users as customers, not people who need their probelms solved.
Running Fedora on Mac, I frequently have to check the forums for support. While, sometimes I get snide comments by Linux eliteist, everything gets solved in the end.

 

[Zet]

I'm a PC user. Mostly due to the fact that I use and test programs that are not available for macs. Even though Mac are more higher up with graphics, I have no problem making them through windows 7.

If Macs were more higher up with graphics, they should be able to support blu-ray and 1080p.

 

[Charizard★]

I don't really like how Mac is setup, mainly because I used it once. So, for now I choose Windows.

 

[Silver]

If Macs were more higher up with graphics, they should be able to support blu-ray and 1080p.

Two things, First off if I'm not mistaken they do support 1080p, iirc my 21.5" iMac is a 1080p resolution. Second, am I missing something where PC's (referring to computers running windows) come standard with Blu-Ray now? As far as I know you can get an external blu-ray player for both and it works just fine.

 

[Zet]

Two things, First off if I'm not mistaken they do support 1080p, iirc my 21.5" iMac is a 1080p resolution. Second, am I missing something where PC's (referring to computers running windows) come standard with Blu-Ray now? As far as I know you can get an external blu-ray player for both and it works just fine.

If this was true, then Apple's new TV would support 1080p.

 

[MightyKirby777]

I just prefer Mac more than Windows. Even though Mac is a higher price, I just like it more.
I know a lot of people just prefer Windows for a lot of reasons, But I like Mac.

 

[beauty. proletariat]

Adding to Zet's statement, Just because you are able to use something with Mac OS, doesn't mean that it is supported.

Look at NTFS. I know this example goes into copyright issues and that they are forced to do so but, officially, Apple does not support writing to NTFS. However, you are able to write to NTFS with the use of third-party tools that are also (surprise, surprise) not supported by Apple.

They have a way of leaving things out until the last minute to boost their sales.

 

[Évan1]

TBH, I don't see how Mac security is any better than Windows. I mean, true, hackers and programmer are limited when it comes to Mac OS, and no malware/viruses to affect it. You are as threatened to be affected with a virus, either you're a Mac or Windows user.

And I think Apple does support 1080p, but as Zet implied, it's not found in the new TV implementation.