The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
How Do I Setup/Configure a PC to Run Like a Mac
Old 16th September 2011
  #121
Lives for gear
 

PaPi is often lacking humor on the subject of Mac users. I think that's a real shame... PaPi, you've got to get back on top of the subject. So some people use Macs, and you prefer to build your own PCs.

Some people have to watch their loved ones starve while they are powerless to do anything about it... I mean, how many human beings just died in Somalia in this last year?

Perhaps we can distract them from their suffering by arguing about our riches ad nauseum.
Old 17th September 2011
  #122
Deleted User #106149
Guest
What is it with MAC people on here and their irrational fear of pc virus' ? If you can handle a sequencer a Trojan here and there is a piece of cake to remove, having said that you really have to be quite clueless to get one in the first place.. or your downloading too much porn/torrents!

This myth that Macs are more reliable is nonsense and always was, based purely on one or two good marketing videos by their Almighty Steve Jobs. A MAC can't crash? In Uni 2001ish our Macs crashed hourly whilst my trusty Carillon back home lived until 2010... didn't crash anymore than perhaps 5 times in 9 years.

People bang on about the build quality of Macs. Why don't they include Dell and HP in their boastings considering they are all made by the same manufacturers?

I understand everyone has their preferences and that's fine, like their cereal and favourite power ranger. But what gets on my nerves is some, and that seems to be the majority, in the MAC community ignorantly spouting quite frankly, BS about PCs and naively plugging even more BS about Macs.

And it goes on...:........


I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!

Sent from my HTC Desire using Gearslutz.com App
Old 17th September 2011
  #123
Lives for gear
 
tamasdragon's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wcb123 View Post
What is it with MAC people on here and their irrational fear of pc virus' ? If you can handle a sequencer a Trojan here and there is a piece of cake to remove, having said that you really have to be quite clueless to get one in the first place.. or your downloading too much porn/torrents!

This myth that Macs are more reliable is nonsense and always was, based purely on one or two good marketing videos by their Almighty Steve Jobs. A MAC can't crash? In Uni 2001ish our Macs crashed hourly whilst my trusty Carillon back home lived until 2010... didn't crash anymore than perhaps 5 times in 9 years.

People bang on about the build quality of Macs. Why don't they include Dell and HP in their boastings considering they are all made by the same manufacturers?

I understand everyone has their preferences and that's fine, like their cereal and favourite power ranger. But what gets on my nerves is some, and that seems to be the majority, in the MAC community ignorantly spouting quite frankly, BS about PCs and naively plugging even more BS about Macs.

And it goes on...:........


I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!

Sent from my HTC Desire using Gearslutz.com App
I'm partially agree with you. The fear from viruses is half real. It is overrated, but still, there's some truth to it.
About the macs are more reliable. I think we should differentiate things. The old saying:macs are more reliable comes from (imho) seeing many low-end pc die in a year or two. All knowledgeable people know that quality pc is rerliable. But still, while most of the pc users making upgrades in every 4-6 months, the average mac user just use hers/his machine for years without any modification or anything. While this does not necessarily mean that macs are more reliable, from the "outside", it may look like that.

I think both camp profoundly overreacts things. These are just computers...heh
Old 17th September 2011
  #124
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by inthere View Post
Would calling the other camp "fanboys" be the same?
Very good point. Once terms like "fanboy" or religious references show up in threads, you usually can forget about them.
That being said:

- one person states that a platform that has over 1 million viruses is less secure than a platform that has zero viruses
- another person states that a platform that has over 1 million viruses is more secure than a platform that has zero viruses


If you wanted to use a derogatory term like 'fanboy', to which one of the two would it apply?
Old 17th September 2011
  #125
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wcb123 View Post
Or just install Linux which is free and is the backbone behind the MAC OS. You do realise the MAC is nothing but a gimmick for all the materialistic's out there?
Could you point out links to convolution reverbs, pultec type plugs, la-2a's, samplers, multiband compressors, linear phase eq's, drivers for audio hardware etc. for Linux?

Before I got my first Mac years ago, I seriously considered Linux, still think it's a great platform, especially if you run a server. But back then, some of the important pieces of audio software were missing. Just wondering if this situation has changed over the last few years...
Old 17th September 2011
  #126
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wcb123 View Post
What is it with MAC people on here and their irrational fear of pc virus' ?

Why would a Mac user be afraid of PC viruses?? There is no way a Mac could catch one of those, unless you install Windows.
Old 17th September 2011
  #127
Lives for gear
 
valis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by wcb123 View Post
I understand everyone has their preferences and that's fine, like their cereal and favourite power ranger. But what gets on my nerves is some, and that seems to be the majority, in the MAC community ignorantly spouting quite frankly, BS about PCs and naively plugging even more BS about Macs.

And it goes on...:........
It sure does!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamasdragon View Post
I think both camp profoundly overreacts things. These are just computers...heh
Until you mix in the B.S.s!

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
If you wanted to use a derogatory term like 'fanboy', to which one of the two would it apply?
Is this rhetoric or irony?


And there within the space of 3 posts we have the same circle that's gone on for several pages in this thread, and *always* occurs with this admixture of O.S.es that mistake themselves for B.S.s (belief systems). And of course stratology being true to type proves to be trebly repetitive to boot....

Obviously the mods are being more tolerant towards this subject, much as they are towards certain hackintacky subjects. We can sit here and posture about the strengths and weaknesses about 'our cases' but frankly...these aren't cases! They're just posturing to protect an investment of time and money into bits, plastic and some semi-precious metals. I do hope someone here is actually making music
Old 17th September 2011
  #128
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
- one person states that a platform that has over 1 million viruses is less secure than a platform that has zero viruses
- another person states that a platform that has over 1 million viruses is more secure than a platform that has zero viruses


If you wanted to use a derogatory term like 'fanboy', to which one of the two would it apply?

Good question: Is a tent with no one _currently_ attacking it inherently more secure than a castle that is easily defending itself from an attack by a thousand armed soldiers?

In other words, whether something is currently under attack or not has no bearing on how inherently secure it is.

Alistair
Old 17th September 2011
  #129
Here for the gear
 
themass's Avatar
 

PC's are definately more secure than a mac, but I consider macs safer to use because there's so few of them out there compared to PC's. And subsiquently there's very few viruses for Mac's compared to PC's. If hackers devoted even a 1/10th of the effort they put into hacking PC's toward Mac's, it'd be hell on earth running OSX.
Old 17th September 2011
  #130
Unsubscribe
Old 17th September 2011
  #131
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
In other words, whether something is currently under attack or not has no bearing on how inherently secure it is.
Very true. How would you know if it's under attack in the first place when it's secure enough to not let the attacks get through?

That's why it makes sense to look at it historically, to see how many real exploits have happened in the last 10 years.


To pick up your example, you are saying that a castle that has fallen to attacks over a million times in the past (because the soldiers were not up to the task of defending it) is more secure, because the soldiers better have learned by now how to do a decent job...
I'd say they have just shown that they're very good at failing.


For the end user, it makes no difference whatsoever if the reason for security is better technology or less attacks.
Old 17th September 2011
  #132
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by themass View Post
PC's are definately more secure than a mac, but I consider macs safer to use because there's so few of them out there compared to PC's. And subsiquently there's very few viruses for Mac's compared to PC's. If hackers devoted even a 1/10th of the effort they put into hacking PC's toward Mac's, it'd be hell on earth running OSX.
Do you have any data that support your point? The size of the user base is not a deciding factors, because OSs with a significantly smaller user base have been exploited in the past. This includes Mac OS 9 and earlier in the '90s, there were around 120 viruses for it.

The whole point is a fallacy, IMHO. It's based on the assumption that other OS's (not only OS X) must be as poorly written as Windows. It's based on the assumption that the security of other platforms is just as easily undermined as Windows, if a hacker only tries. This is basically going into denial about poor code.

Again, security is not a Mac/PC thing, because there are a lot of other platforms out there that have not fallen to attacks as often as MS products.
Old 17th September 2011
  #133
Here for the gear
 
themass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Do you have any data that support your point? The size of the user base is not a deciding factors, because OSs with a significantly smaller user base have been exploited in the past. This includes Mac OS 9 and earlier in the '90s, there were around 120 viruses for it.

The whole point is a fallacy, IMHO. It's based on the assumption that other OS's (not only OS X) must be as poorly written as Windows. It's based on the assumption that the security of other platforms is just as easily undermined as Windows, if a hacker only tries. This is basically going into denial about poor code.

Again, security is not a Mac/PC thing, because there are a lot of other platforms out there that have not fallen to attacks as often as MS products.

No data, just guessing that if hackers spent focused considerable more attention on macs , there would be more viruses and issues with Macs. But obviously apple takes security seriously so it may not even be worth the hackers time?
Old 17th September 2011
  #134
Lives for gear
 
tuRnitUpsuM's Avatar
 

Apple Computers Inc silently invest in Open Source development. So does Microsoft. Everything these two OSes do currently were in R&D departments ( software engineers home based computers while sipping coffee and reading the front page news while going over high-level - low-level computing languages, compilers, assemblers, yada) years ago.

Workspace UIs , File System Journaling, MetaData file search engines, etc. They are only now seeing the light in these two Popular OSes. So pitting one against the other is a moot point because both pull resources from the same technology pool.

Take a copy of OSX, Win 7 and GNU/Linux, install them on the very same machine or underneath a hypervisor (hardware virtualization software) and the true fact is .... They ALL get the job done. (Linux outshining the lot but thats not here nor there). The very best OS is one that just gets the hell outta the way when instantiating an Application. Linux has the unique edge here. ( WHY havent Independent Software vendors been shipping their Applications in their own kernel environment?? ie... get rid of the true bloat and stick to the meat and potatoes).

its no coincidence the handheld smartphone market is dominated by open-source technologies, iOS, WebOS, Android etc. Its also no coincidence the desktop/server spaces are trying to replicate this environment. You are in for a Windows 8 surprise.

whats my point?

The point being... they are ALL capable and ALL do the very same things. They let you run Audio / Video Applications to get things done.

Pick a Prom Queen and Dance already!!!

Have a Wonderful Weekend

p.s download and install Dreamstudio Linux and Harrison Mixbus if you are a believer that Linux and Applications for Linux arent ready for Primetime. Pleasant surprise awaits!
Old 17th September 2011
  #135
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
Very good point. Once terms like "fanboy" or religious references show up in threads, you usually can forget about them.
That being said:

- one person states that a platform that has over 1 million viruses is less secure than a platform that has zero viruses
- another person states that a platform that has over 1 million viruses is more secure than a platform that has zero viruses


If you wanted to use a derogatory term like 'fanboy', to which one of the two would it apply?
First, actual viruses haven't been an active threat for many years. Trojans, on the other hand, are still an active threat and now target both platforms.

Second, if you want to call the security expert writing in MacWorld a "fanboy" -- for being among the many security experts who state that Windows 7 is more secure than OS X, I guess that's your business. But he does back his assertion up -- pointing out that it's Windows 7's 'anonymization' architecture that creates unique -- as opposed to standardized as with OS X -- locations for key system files.

I guess -- even though MacWorld apparently thought enough of his security expertise to ask him to write about the Mac Defender/MacGuard security epidemic -- your rationale appears to be that if he believes Win 7 is more secure then he must be a Windows fanboi. However I've yet to see you give any sort of reason for dismissing his seemingly well-documented assertion. How about that?

And, it's also worth noting that in the last 3 PWN2OWN white hat hacking contests, it has been OS X which has fallen first, typically within minutes of the opening of each year's competition. Thoughts?
Old 17th September 2011
  #136
Gear Head
 

Let's not forget that the first viruses appeared on the Mac. It was the dominant platform of the mid-80s, so it was the natural target.

Also, it seems that the "ha-ha-I-attacked-your-computer-and-deleted-all-your-files" days are gone. Today hackers are looking for the money. So why hack the Mac when you can hack 10x (or more) PCs?

Anyway, the network is the natural vector for viruses. Easy fix: take the computer off the network. That's what I do for my music PC. I know this won't suit everyone, but it suits me.
Old 17th September 2011
  #137
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Second, if you want to call the security expert writing in MacWorld a "fanboy" -- for being among the many security experts who state that Windows 7 is more secure than OS X, I guess that's your business.
My guess is that you are referring to the Macworld review for Lion here.
It has very little actual technical information about security. The reviewer seems to have completely misunderstood how the key for Filevault 2 works (it's explained here). He also writes about Application sandboxing, which has been around for some time, because he seems to be unfamiliar with the new process level sandboxing in Lion.

Arstechnica has more detail here, you may also find this interesting, as the guys quoted there, Charlie Miller and Dino Dai Zovi, actually have some real world experience and expertise in Mac hacking and security.
Old 17th September 2011
  #138
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM View Post
its no coincidence the handheld smartphone market is dominated by open-source technologies, iOS, WebOS, Android etc.
iOS is closed source, Android tried to build a reputation to be more 'open', but arguably has failed to do so.
Old 17th September 2011
  #139
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lhorwinkle View Post
Anyway, the network is the natural vector for viruses. Easy fix: take the computer off the network. That's what I do for my music PC. I know this won't suit everyone, but it suits me.
The network is one vector. Have you read about Stuxnet? It was designed to infect computers that are not connected to the internet, worked like a charm.

I think the whole idea of taking a computer off the internet to make it secure is bizarre...
Old 17th September 2011
  #140
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
My guess is that you are referring to the Macworld review for Lion here.
It has very little actual technical information about security. The reviewer seems to have completely misunderstood how the key for Filevault 2 works (it's explained here). He also writes about Application sandboxing, which has been around for some time, because he seems to be unfamiliar with the new process level sandboxing in Lion.

Arstechnica has more detail here, you may also find this interesting, as the guys quoted there, Charlie Miller and Dino Dai Zovi, actually have some real world experience and expertise in Mac hacking and security.
No, actually, I've linked to the article a couple of times already and quoted it previously... It's by Rich Mogull, who MacWorld got to do a write-up on the Mac Defender/MacGuard threat.

Mac Defender: Pay attention but don't panic | Antivirus & Security | Macworld


In the comments section he addresses some of the features of Win 7 which make it more secure than Snow Leopard (which I've also previously quoted):
Quote:
Windows 7 includes a series of anti-exploitation technologies that are ahead of Snow Leopard. Specifically, the combination of DEP + ASLR. OS X was slower to implement both, and still hasn't implemented a full ASLR (Library Randomization). Apple doesn't (yet) randomize the location of the dyld library, and having a fixed location to the dynamic loader allows an attacker to easily bypass the other protections.
Perhaps rather than simply arguing against what I've linked to -- you ought to read it?

As you'll note in this post I actually read the article you directed me to and quoted it back to you to try to point out to you why it actually helped support what I was saying. Maybe you should show some of the same due diligence.
Old 17th September 2011
  #141
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

This MacDefender article is from May 2011. That means it refers to Mac OS X 10.6. The current version of Mac OS X is 10.7.

The Macworld article was also written before Apple released the security update that addressed Macdefender. That makes it irrelevent in 2 ways...


When you quoted my link, you left out the part that describes how you have to click through an installer to actually get Macdefender installed - which is the most important bit.
Old 18th September 2011
  #142
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
This MacDefender article is from May 2011. That means it refers to Mac OS X 10.6. The current version of Mac OS X is 10.7.

The Macworld article was also written before Apple released the security update that addressed Macdefender. That makes it irrelevent in 2 ways...


When you quoted my link, you left out the part that describes how you have to click through an installer to actually get Macdefender installed - which is the most important bit.
Apple fixes for Mac Defender and MacGuard were being released daily during the period that article was written. So much for that contention.

It's probably worth noting, however, that those daily fixes were only for the then-latest version of OS X -- not any earlier versions. (Whereas MS puts out fixes going back to XP.)

However, if Apple did manage to significantly re-architect their system for the subsequent Lion (which seems unlikely, since it was released less than two months later) -- and fully implement ASLR and randomize the location of the dyld directory that would definitely be pertinent.

But I'm not aware that that was included in Lion. Do you have a link to contrary information?

Moving on to the article you apparently think I left important info out of, the ellipsis in my quote of that Intego article you linked merely removed mention and a graphic from the Intego anti-malware software they were saying would protect you. http://blog.intego.com/2011/05/25/in...-installation/

Rather than have folks think I'm trying to fool them, here is the entire article with the preamble and prevention tips -- and some huge graphics I'd cut out included as links:
Quote:
Malware: OSX/MacDefender.F and OSX/MacDefender.G
Risk: Medium; effective SEO poisoning has led many Mac users to this type of malware, and no administrator password is required to install this new variant.
Description: On May 2, 2011, Intego discovered the MAC Defender fake antivirus, which targets Mac users via SEO poisoning attacks (web sites set up to take advantage of search engine optimization tricks to get malicious sites to appear at the top of search results). Since then, several variants have appeared: MacDefender, MacProtector and MacSecurity, all of which are the same application using different names. The goal of this fake antivirus software is to trick users into providing their credit card numbers to supposedly clean out infected files on their Macs.


Intego today discovered a new variant of this malware that functions slightly differently. It comes in two parts. The first part is a downloader, a tool that, after installation, downloads a payload from a web server. As with the Mac Defender malware variants, this installation package, called avSetup.pkg, is downloaded automatically when a user visits a specially crafted web site.
http://blog.intego.com/wp-content/up...5/macguard.jpg
If Safari’s “Open ‘safe’ files after downloading” option is checked, the package will open Apple’s Installer, and the user will see a standard installation screen. If not, users may see the downloaded ZIP archive and double-click it out of curiosity, not remembering what they downloaded, then double-click the installation package. In either case, the Mac OS X Installer will launch.
http://blog.intego.com/wp-content/up.../macguard2.jpg
Unlike the previous variants of this fake antivirus,no administrator’s password is required to install this program. Since any user with an administrator’s account – the default if there is just one user on a Mac – can install software in the Applications folder, a password is not needed. This package installs an application – the downloader – named avRunner, which then launches automatically. At the same time, the installation package deletes itself from the user’s Mac, so no traces of the original installer are left behind.
The second part of the malware is a new version of the MacDefender application called MacGuard. This is downloaded by the avRunner application from an IP address that is hidden in an image file in the avRunner application’s Resources folder. (The IP address is hidden using a simple form of steganography.) Intego VirusBarrier X6’s Anti-Spyware feature detects this operation:

http://blog.intego.com/wp-content/up.../macguard3.jpg
Intego considers that the risk for this new variant to be medium, in part because the SEO poisoning has been very efficient in leading Mac users to booby-trapped pages, but also because no password is required to install this variant.



For further information about this fake antivirus and how it functions, see Intego’s Security Memo of May 2, 2011 describing the initial variant, Mac Defender.
Means of protection: the first thing to do is make sure that when seeing a web page that looks like a Finder window, and purports to be scanning your Mac, you know that this is bogus. Leave the page, and quit your web browser. If anything has downloaded, and the Installer application has opened, quit it right away; look in your Downloads folder for the file, then delete it. Next, users should uncheck the “Open ‘safe’ files after downloading” option in Safari’s General preferences.



Intego VirusBarrier X6 protects users from this malware with malware definitions dated May 25, 2011 or later. VirusBarrier X6’s real-time scanner will detect the file when it is downloaded, and its Web Threats protection blocks web pages containing this malicious code. VirusBarrier Express and VirusBarrier Plus, available exclusively from the Mac App Store, detect this malware with malware definitions dated May 25, 2011 or later, but these programs do not have a real-time scanner, due to limitations imposed by the Mac App Store; users should scan their Macs after they have updated to the latest malware definitions.
[bold -- and missing space typo -- is from the article]

Apologies for wasting so much space but I don't much like to have people suggest I'm trying to put something over on anyone. As should be clear now, I'm not.

The key section to my way of thinking is this:
Quote:
Unlike the previous variants of this fake antivirus,no administrator’s password is required to install this program. Since any user with an administrator’s account – the default if there is just one user on a Mac – can install software in the Applications folder, a password is not needed. This package installs an application – the downloader – named avRunner, which then launches automatically. At the same time, the installation package deletes itself from the user’s Mac, so no traces of the original installer are left behind.

The second part of the malware is a new version of the MacDefender application called MacGuard. This is downloaded by the avRunner application from an IP address that is hidden in an image file in the avRunner application’s Resources folder. (The IP address is hidden using a simple form of steganography.)
[some additional bold added]

Let me belabor the obvious: if Mac Defender and MacGuard had not been a big deal to a lot of Apple users, they would not have been the topic of so much spilled ink and discussion.


Again, I really do not think that Mac users have any reason to be fearful about operating their machines as long as they pay attention to the common sense warnings in that MacWorld article. And if Apple has rewritten those parts of the architecture of OS X which have made it more vulnerable than Windows 7, they are just that much safer. However, I would like to see some info on that important security point, since this is the first and only place I've seen it suggested.
Old 18th September 2011
  #143
Lives for gear
 
valis's Avatar
Stuxnet is a good example of a modern worm/virus, as it was not created by some 'lone wolf' hacker or team of Nigerian scammers working on a small scale. The amount of effort that went into creating it required enough intellectual work and financing that it's alleged only the Isreali or US intelligence agencies could have done it. If you think those kind of resources couldn't be brought to bear on *any* modern piece of software (Apple's Ivory Tower protects you?) then that's...ridiculous. In this case any Mac that a similar team chose to target wouldn't be in control of Siemens hardware used for centrifugal production either, it would be some head of state's wife or kid hanging out on facebook and uploading videos to their .Mac account, so why create anything that needs to propagate anyway when you can just exploit the singular machine directly.

Still this discussion goes in off topic circles around & around...if stratology's anecdotal evidence is used as fact then Windows machines haven't progressed one whit since 2001 while OSX is capable of stratospheric flight. Choose theblue, tuRnitUpsuM, DAWPlus and you'd think that Windows machines never get viruses (something in fact that my personal Windows machines have NEVER had either..so my own anecdotal evidence seems in line with theirs). Listen to PaPi61 and you'd think that the opposite of what stratology asserts is true...

And those who continue to put forth a realistic assertion, that technologies evolve in parallel since they draw from the same human pool of ideas and talents...are still in the minority here when they assert that you can get work done on any platform you're familiar with. There's something I have repeatedly backed up as I use *multiple* OSes in my work to learn a living. Mac, PC, rhel Linux (CentOS hosting my web clients), deb linux (Debian personal dev box in the closet)....they all continue to function daily just fine.

Now how about a different tact, take a look at each person's profile that's posting on this page. Go to the statistics tab, click the 'find all posts by (username)" link... who among us has done ONLY one thing on these forums recently (nearly 30 posts all dragging this thread repeatedly in the same direction)? In fact gazing back over several years of (meager) posting one might even notice a trend that holds true among some of the others (repeating some of the things that were said here...spotlight being "kernel" /hand waving/ superior bla bla...) ...but at least he's made other posts that were relevant in other threads in the past. I guess it's just this particular subject that brings out the inability to pursue on topic, relevant and insightful sharing of NEW information...which is why it's been considered poor form to indulge these threads in the past.

Old 18th September 2011
  #144
Quote:
Originally Posted by valis View Post
Stuxnet is a good example of a modern worm/virus, as it was not created by some 'lone wolf' hacker or team of Nigerian scammers working on a small scale. The amount of effort that went into creating it required enough intellectual work and financing that it's alleged only the Isreali or US intelligence agencies could have done it. If you think those kind of resources couldn't be brought to bear on *any* modern piece of software (Apple's Ivory Tower protects you?) then that's...ridiculous. In this case any Mac that a similar team chose to target wouldn't be in control of Siemens hardware used for centrifugal production either, it would be some head of state's wife or kid hanging out on facebook and uploading videos to their .Mac account, so why create anything that needs to propagate anyway when you can just exploit the singular machine directly.

Still this discussion goes in off topic circles around & around...if stratology's anecdotal evidence is used as fact then Windows machines haven't progressed one whit since 2001 while OSX is capable of stratospheric flight. Choose theblue, tuRnitUpsuM, DAWPlus and you'd think that Windows machines never get viruses (something in fact that my personal Windows machines have NEVER had either..so my own anecdotal evidence seems in line with theirs). Listen to PaPi61 and you'd think that the opposite of what stratology asserts is true...

And those who continue to put forth a realistic assertion, that technologies evolve in parallel since they draw from the same human pool of ideas and talents...are still in the minority here when they assert that you can get work done on any platform you're familiar with. There's something I have repeatedly backed up as I use *multiple* OSes in my work to learn a living. Mac, PC, rhel Linux (CentOS hosting my web clients), deb linux (Debian personal dev box in the closet)....they all continue to function daily just fine.

Now how about a different tact, take a look at each person's profile that's posting on this page. Go to the statistics tab, click the 'find all posts by (username)" link... who among us has done ONLY one thing on these forums recently (nearly 30 posts all dragging this thread repeatedly in the same direction)? In fact gazing back over several years of (meager) posting one might even notice a trend that holds true among some of the others (repeating some of the things that were said here...spotlight being "kernel" /hand waving/ superior bla bla...) ...but at least he's made other posts that were relevant in other threads in the past. I guess it's just this particular subject that brings out the inability to pursue on topic, relevant and insightful sharing of NEW information...which is why it's been considered poor form to indulge these threads in the past.

I saw my name up there. If people are making distinctions between viruses and worms, it's important to keep them straight. I would never suggest that Windows is immune to worms and other malware. However I don't believe that either OS X or Win 7 (or Vista?) are vulnerable to conventional viruses like the boot sector viruses that went around in the 90s.

In fact, I had my own boot sector virus nightmare in '96 when my machine picked one up from an installation floppy I got included with an opened-and-returned pointing device. (The package was marked opened and returned. It's not like I didn't have some warning. My bad.)

And, heaven knows, I would never suggest that an unpatched version of XP was invulnerable to modern worms -- since I spent the better part of a day and a half once removing an amazing hell brew of malware from a client's machine about 3 or 4 years ago. [That said, he had done everything I recommend people not do, frequenting porn sites, inadvertently allowing his machine to be used for downloading cracked software and movies, etc. But it was most likely his wife opening an email attachment from an unknown source -- which she sheepishly told me about out of his hearing -- that invited the devil in. It was truly nightmarish.]

And, indeed, new zero day vulnerabilities are discovered from time to time (and fixes typically issued within a month going back through XP) so it would certainly be possible for someone to get malware if such a vulnerability was exploited in the wild and one was unlucky enough to cross paths with it.

So let no one be mistaken, I am far from saying Windows is invulnerable. (And I should think a good reading of my posts would have precluded such an assertion about me.)

However, if one keeps his OS and software patched and up to date and avoids typical infection vectors, doesn't click on suspect email attachments, DL crackware, porn, etc, I do, indeed, believe he has little to worry about, as I've said before.

[EDIT: I should probably add that, while it is still regularly patched, XP's architecture is not nearly as secure as Vista and Win 7. Or, for that matter, OS X.]
Old 18th September 2011
  #145
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
To pick up your example, you are saying that a castle that has fallen to attacks over a million times in the past...
No that is definitely not what I am saying.

Quote:
For the end user, it makes no difference whatsoever if the reason for security is better technology or less attacks.
It does: Better technology tells you something about security in the future. Less attacks doesn't. You are still sitting in your tent while I look down at you from my castle's battlements.

A complacent Mac user and a single virus/trojan/whatever is all it takes for the makings of a very bad day.

Anyway, you are doing an amazing job of missing the point again and again because you just can't seem to accept any criticism of your precious Mac OS.

Over and out.

Alistair
Old 18th September 2011
  #146
Lives for gear
 
Finnish's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM View Post
Take a copy of OSX, Win 7 and GNU/Linux, install them on the very same machine or underneath a hypervisor (hardware virtualization software) and the true fact is .... They ALL get the job done. (Linux outshining the lot but thats not here nor there). The very best OS is one that just gets the hell outta the way when instantiating an Application. Linux has the unique edge here. ( WHY havent Independent Software vendors been shipping their Applications in their own kernel environment?? ie... get rid of the true bloat and stick to the meat and potatoes).
Triple boot here, Lion/Ubuntu/Win7. If ubuntu could do that audio-stuff properly (running Reaper as my main DAW) + support audio interfaces we would have a truly winner here
Old 18th September 2011
  #147
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
And, heaven knows, I would never suggest that an unpatched version of XP was invulnerable to modern worms -- since I spent the better part of a day and a half once removing an amazing hell brew of malware from a client's machine about 3 or 4 years ago. [That said, he had done everything I recommend people not do, frequenting porn sites, inadvertently allowing his machine to be used for downloading cracked software and movies, etc. But it was most likely his wife opening an email attachment from an unknown source -- which she sheepishly told me about out of his hearing -- that invited the devil in. It was truly nightmarish.
I cleaned my ex's laptop about half a year ago. She was complaining that it was very slow. There were a few different viruses on there (sources unknown) but they had been copying themselves all over the system. There was something like 28000 copies in total. LOL! And every time she booted the laptop they all tried to start-up. It was taking an hour or more just to get to the login screen. Heh. :-)

(After that one very slow and painful boot sequence to see what was going on, I just put the internal disk into an external USB enclosure, launched Kaspersky on my DAW, plugged the drive in and Kaspersky cleaned it all up automatically in a jiffy. Problem solved).

Alistair
Old 18th September 2011
  #148
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I cleaned my ex's laptop about half a year ago. She was complaining that it was very slow. There were a few different viruses on there (sources unknown) but they had been copying themselves all over the system. There was something like 28000 copies in total. LOL! And every time she booted the laptop they all tried to start-up. It was taking an hour or more just to get to the login screen. Heh. :-)

(After that one very slow and painful boot sequence to see what was going on, I just put the internal disk into an external USB enclosure, launched Kaspersky on my DAW, plugged the drive in and Kaspersky cleaned it all up automatically in a jiffy. Problem solved).

Alistair
Probably trojanized worms, technically speaking. But no less obnoxious, obviously. The nightmare machine I fixed for my client had nearly 100 instances of one of the three malwares that were infecting it. But he hadn't backed up in (I'm thinking) forever, didn't know where all his registration and passwords were, etc, so he was desperate to have the machine disinfected, not just start over. It was a TFPITA. And a half. But I got it done. But did that stop him from cruising porn sites? Nah...
Old 18th September 2011
  #149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finnish View Post
Triple boot here, Lion/Ubuntu/Win7. If ubuntu could do that audio-stuff properly (running Reaper as my main DAW) + support audio interfaces we would have a truly winner here
I, too, look forward to a day when an open source Linux distribution will support the kind of rich multimedia production environment we have today on Windows and OS X.

As I see disturbing signs of both Apple and MS seeming to push paradigms oriented to passive media consumption with a little Facebook updating on the side, I find myself wondering if they might not both simply abandon the desktop to open source *nix variants. It's a vision at once troubling but with a vague sort of promise...
Old 18th September 2011
  #150
Lives for gear
 
valis's Avatar
theblue1, I wasn't necessarily singling you out for any specific claims about Windows. Rather that all the names I was mentioning (including mine) keep partaking in page after page of discussion about the endless religious/belief system based discussion of which is 'better' rather than what the thread initially asked. I think on reading your posts closely you'll find that you are squarely in that camp, though I do not exclude myself from that either. heh

However I also suggested that (were I say a mod) a quick glance at other recent posts by the people still partaking in this thread may reveal other things, like who has the ability to contribute to Gearslutz beyond this particular (never ending) Mac vs. PC holy..."discussion". I only singled out a single example there because that particular..poster...has been continually dragging this thread on, each post is a poke at the embers to stoke things back to life.

I think we (who are experienced with using Mac & PC) could probably shared more exactly HOW we go about securing and customizing our "PC", maybe we could have asked the OP to even clarify in what ways he'd have liked to have a "PC" "Run like a Mac" so that this thread wasn't quite such a gaping hole for the outgaassing of B.S. (belief systems). Instead we have a Cupertino bridge dweller leading the pack out back onto the merry go round everytime we seem to get tired on the playground... but you'll note my complete lack of surprise as I post the same words yet again myself, in this endless spinning wheel of Karma we call our tiny GS universe
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump