[Spliff]

http://birdhouse.org/blog/archives/2...f_the_ditc.php

I'm hearing stories like this more and more, and yet my PC-using friends don't really seem to have that many complaints. Their PCs are cheaper than Macs and that makes them happy. Oh, and the games, too.

[Cubeoid]

Actually, it's a little worse.

[maxintosh]

It's true. I do IT work for my Uni and the situation with Windows on campus has been getting progressively worse. Virus outbreaks, trojans, and just absurd amounts of spyware. We had so many virus issues one semester we required users to reformat to regain network access and handed out patch CDs because we simply couldn't handle the demands. This semester we implemented a Self-Help guide on the capture subnet that lets users try to patch and repair their own machines before calling us. On calls I've seen over 3,000 pieces of spyware on a machine!!!

Firefox helps but Windows is still easily comprimised. We've had a lot of people switch to Mac and are pretty much all very thankful they did. The Windows world really is a nightmare these days...

I just wish Apple would be bolder about capitalizing on it. Aggressive ad campaigns about the security and lack of spyware of OS X would be amazing.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Spliff:
...yet my PC-using friends don't really seem to have that many complaints. Their PCs are cheaper than Macs and that makes them happy. Oh, and the games, too.

Same with my friends. Cheaper, more games, better video card options, etc.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by maxintosh:

I just wish Apple would be bolder about capitalizing on it. Aggressive ad campaigns about the security and lack of spyware of OS X would be amazing.

How much truth is there in the claim that IT departments don't want Mac-based systems because it would jeopardize their jobs and budgets? It seems to me that Apple needs to target the bean-counters instead of the IT people. Show them how a Xserve-based system would save them money and maybe they'd make the change.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by Spliff:
How much truth is there in the claim that IT departments don't want Mac-based systems because it would jeopardize their jobs and budgets? It seems to me that Apple needs to target the bean-counters instead of the IT people. Show them how a Xserve-based system would save them money and maybe they'd make the change.

Oh, I don't think they should target IT depts. I was thinking more like end-users. Sure a lot of Windows folks would raise a stink, but a lot of casual users sitting at home with their PCs would go "Hmm..."

[Luca Rescigno]

Well, having used a Windows PC as my main system for about four months now, I haven't run into the rampant problems that a lot of people talk about. At least, not on my own machine. It's really amazing how much you can stop by simply:

- Not using Internet Explorer
- Running Spybot and Ad-aware every couple weeks
- Not using Outlook Express (especially the preview pane)

I use Firefox for web surfing and email (I just use online email). Spybot blocks known-bad files, and Ad-aware checks for any that slip through. In the last month, I have detected I think one single piece of spyware. By contrast, many people seem to pick up about 20-30 per week through normal (stupid) browsing with Internet Explorer. So I'm not saying the problems don't exist. Far from it - they're absolutely out of control if you do nothing to prevent it. But if you just take a few simple steps, it's not a problem at all. Or at least, it hasn't been for me.

Maybe in another few months my Windows installation will degrade into an unusable hunk of crap, leaving behind the "new car smell" that I still have going on right now. But so far it's been fine. Not that Windows is a very good OS, but it's certainly not unstable or unusable for me. It's simply a less efficient, less pretty method of taking me between applications.

[OpenStep]

Most Windows machines that get owned are run by poor admins. (Here comes the flamewar) In a network enviroment systems should be locked down (same with Mac OS X, make users not be able to install programs, modify system settings, etc) with group policy and keep a current security template. Windows has its quirks but when I redid a computer lab at school with Windows 2000 I spent about a week exploring any potential security problems/bugs/glitches and properly took care of everything before the lab went live. And guess what, for the time I worked there everything ran great when I kept it updated... no major Windows horror stories. On a university computer the systems should be locked down so users cannont install anything (including spyware) and the fault isn't Windows but the admins that don't know to properly secure systems.

[OpenStep]

Originally posted by Spliff:
How much truth is there in the claim that IT departments don't want Mac-based systems because it would jeopardize their jobs and budgets? It seems to me that Apple needs to target the bean-counters instead of the IT people. Show them how a Xserve-based system would save them money and maybe they'd make the change.

The real problem here is an Xserve isn't going to save them money when compared to an x86 server running a flavor of Linux. The Xserve is no doubt a fine piece of machinery but when compared to a Linux server that does the same thing for a third of the price it isn't going to go well with IT managers.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by OpenStep:
Most Windows machines that get owned are run by poor admins. (Here comes the flamewar) In a network enviroment systems should be locked down (same with Mac OS X, make users not be able to install programs, modify system settings, etc) with group policy and keep a current security template. Windows has its quirks but when I redid a computer lab at school with Windows 2000 I spent about a week exploring any potential security problems/bugs/glitches and properly took care of everything before the lab went live. And guess what, for the time I worked there everything ran great when I kept it updated... no major Windows horror stories. On a university computer the systems should be locked down so users cannont install anything (including spyware) and the fault isn't Windows but the admins that don't know to properly secure systems.

At my school is the admin is pretty good and we have a bunch of Windows 2000/XP PCs and they are running flawlessly. We have to login to use one, and we are only allowed to use the internet, and certain applications like Word, Excel, Dreamweaver etc, and we can only save to our network shared disk. In the past year there hasn't been a day where the network went down because of a security compromise.

[CD Hanks]

I don't think it is so much that Windows is that bad, as it is people are just that goddamn stupid.

I becha most (if not all) of those IT depts in colleges and whatnot have to work on unpatched computers with no antivirus software and are owned by total mouth breathing idiots who always click yes at any ActiveX prompt.

Windows needs a lot of heavy work, but MS does what it can (or chooses too) in keeping it safe, but that isn't going to do squat if the incompetant sloth using it isn't going to bother wasting a few minutes of their day and running Windows Update. Why do you think SP2 makes the updates mandatory by default?

[effgee]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
I don't think it is so much that Windows is that bad, ... Windows needs a lot of heavy work, ...

Don't you think the latter somewhat negates the former?

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
I don't think it is so much that Windows is that bad, as it is people are just that goddamn stupid.

Ya well given that people are stupid then Windows is that bad.

Also if people weren't so stupid Linux would be an easy to use desktop OS and it would be safe to drive in traffic.

Since Windows is an OS for people it is an OS for stupid beings and as such it sucks so much the English language lacks proper adjectitves to describe it.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by effgee:
Don't you think the latter somewhat negates the former?

I'm stoned. What do you want?

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Ya well given that people are stupid then Windows is that bad.

Also if people weren't so stupid Linux would be an easy to use desktop OS and it would be safe to drive in traffic.

Since Windows is an OS for people it is an OS for stupid beings and as such it sucks so much the English language lacks proper adjectitves to describe it.

Even Microsoft has standards to keep. If they really [i]really[/b] had to serve to the lowest common denominator (without totally alienating the rest of us), that'd take years. Hell, they might just be attempting that with Longhorn (seeing as it is taking forever.)

[effgee]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
I'm stoned. What do you want? ...

Not that important - have some nutmeg/banana peel/mushroom on me!

[Twilly Spree]

Seems Apple has always managed to make an OS that people can use. Even teh stupid ones and frankly Windows isn't any more complex or difficult to maintain than OS X. It's all about simple but effective priorities. Should file sharing be on by default, should Outlook launch scripts automatically etc. These things are issues only because they are the default settings of Windows. The smart people just turn them off, the stupid ones don't.

Hey picture that: Much of the suckiness of Windows comes from default settings rather than the crappo programming of the OS itself.

[mitchell_pgh]

I can't stress enough how frustrating it is to use Windows at times. I blame a majority of it on "low end programmers" not understanding that programing is only 1/2 of the program. A good GUI is just as critical.

Also, people bash the single mouse, but it really does force programmers to think in a more simplistic way. Just yesterday I had to right click on something that was completely inappropriate.

[sugar_coated]

No use gettting frustrated. All systems have flaws. Just learn to adapt. Life is short, try to enjoy.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
I just wish Apple would be bolder about capitalizing on it. Aggressive ad campaigns about the security and lack of spyware of OS X would be amazing.

And how much of OSX's "security" do you think has to do with market share? Why write viruses and spyware for less than 5% of the market? Waste of effort. However, virus writers do enjoy a challenge. As Apple increases campaigns which suggest that MacOS is immune to viruses, I fully expect to see virus writers taking up the challenge. I also suspect that Apple is fully aware of this, explaining why there are no such aggressive ad campaigns about the security and lack of spyware of OS X.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Also, people bash the single mouse, but it really does force programmers to think in a more simplistic way. Just yesterday I had to right click on something that was completely inappropriate.

Interesting, the worlds most innovative computer manufacturer forces people to think more simplisticly. I had never thought of it that way.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
Same with my friends. Cheaper, more games, better video card options, etc.

What's with "etc."?

Cheaper, more games, and better video card options are pretty much it.


You wouldn't believe how many fed-up Windows users we get over the day at the store.

The people I know who haven't been hit with (or haven't yet discovered) massive spyware, worm, and virus infections are very, very small - or are completely unhooked from the network.

-s*

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
...These things are issues only because they are the default settings of Windows. The smart people just turn them off, the stupid ones don't.
...

From bash.org

<Dram> XP is basicly 98 with a lot more extra features to hunt down and disable

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
What's with "etc."?

Cheaper, more games, and better video card options are pretty much it.
...

-s*

1) Something they're used to because they've been using it for a long time; 2) as I said earlier, most of my friends have Windows machines (that they built on their own), so when they have problems with their boxes it's easier to help each other out; and 3) the ability to upgrade just about any component very easily (and cheaply, but that was covered in my first post).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Spliff:
I'm hearing stories like this more and more, and yet my PC-using friends don't really seem to have that many complaints.

I’d venture a guess that they’re people who can actually figure out how to use a computer. (Not very hard to do). As others have pointed out, follow a few common sense practices of use, and any computer will work fine for its user.

There are pros and cons of both platforms, and people that really know computers know how to take full advantage of the pros and avoid the cons of both platforms. People that think any computer system is perfect and therefore that they don’t have to ever truly learn anything are the types that have the majority of problems.

Idiots that switch from Windows to Macintosh are just idiots with a Mac. Many of them ‘love’ the Mac up until the point they have to actually learn how to actually use it, and then find out that, gee whiz, the Mac too has to be used properly or it you’ll run into problems with it too.

[turtle777]

In the last 5 days, I have spent more than 10 hours on telephone and VNC to troubleshoot my parents PC.
Spyware, nmetwork problems, email doesn't work on and off, M$ Messenger trouble...

I'm ready to buy them a mini !

-t

[effgee]

Originally posted by turtle777:
In the last 5 days, I have spent more than 10 hours on telephone and VNC to troubleshoot my parents PC.
Spyware, nmetwork problems, email doesn't work on and off, M$ Messenger trouble ... I'm ready to buy them a mini !

Suspend their computer privileges and ground 'em for a week - that oughta' teach 'em!

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Interesting, the worlds most innovative computer manufacturer forces people to think more simplisticly. I had never thought of it that way.

The standard one button mouse is forcing developers to think more simplistically... not the end user, my five button Microsoft wireless mouse works perfectly well...

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And how much of OSX's "security" do you think has to do with market share? Why write viruses and spyware for less than 5% of the market? Waste of effort. However, virus writers do enjoy a challenge. As Apple increases campaigns which suggest that MacOS is immune to viruses, I fully expect to see virus writers taking up the challenge. I also suspect that Apple is fully aware of this, explaining why there are no such aggressive ad campaigns about the security and lack of spyware of OS X.

I don't think you see the whole picture. Many of the patches that are released don't even effect most Mac users. Apache patches, FTP patches, SSH patches.

FYI: Many of the patches aren't just for OS X, but rather for numerous flavors of Unix and Linux. When Apache has a serious flaw, it effects over 60% of the net... when sendmail has a serious flaw, it's a SERIOUS flaw... and Apple patches it.

OS X may have a small market share, but all of unix has a much larger user base they you may think.

Apple never has put on that it's immune to viruses, but facts are facts, there aren't any in the wild. I'm not saying there will never be viruses for OS X, but the OS X is fundamentally different then Windows and OS X is less virus prone.

[maxintosh]

The point is most people use computers casually and shouldn't need to know how to keep it safe. All they want to do is surf the web and check their e-mail without having to worry about how to avoid dangerous perils that will destroy their data and take down their system because of some gaping security flaw. I believe firmly that is the responsibility of the operating system's manufacturer. In that regard, MS has failed miserably.

As for the Mac OS X being just as prone to viruses/spyware but nobody has bothered, I just don't buy it! There are millions of Mac users and I'm sure plenty of malicious, lonely, attention-seeking ones at that. There has even been evidence that spyware and viruses have been attempted to be written for the platform but never managed to spread. If you look at the sheer number of viruses/malware on the Windows platform, even with respect to the number of users, it is wildly disproportionate.

I'm not saying OS X viruses/spyware are impossible, but I seriously doubt they are nearly as easy to get to spread as on Windows. And I'm sure when one does make it into the wild, it won't be nearly as catastrophic as some of the worse ones to hit Windows... although you can be sure Apple will get slaughtered in the press for it. Remember the two biggest security flaws in Windows are ActiveX and IE. Mac OS has neither.

[finboy]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

There are pros and cons of both platforms, and people that really know computers know how to take full advantage of the pros and avoid the cons of both platforms. People that think any computer system is perfect and therefore that they don’t have to ever truly learn anything are the types that have the majority of problems.

I've gotten to like Windows XP, but I still have to wipe it and reinstall every 4-6 months. The difference is in the updating -- imagine if OS X needed a different kernel every time you installed a new game. I never know when I update Direct X (which is often REQUIRED in Windows if you run current software) whether the machine will run properly afterwards. Spyware and adware are an issue, too, but fixable.

My favorite thing about windows is that it is relatively "consumer- proof." OS X is not -- the average moron can completely screw a Unix install in seconds. Why Apple feels it's necessary to have consumers carrying around Unix boxes is beyond me. I've had several critical problems on X so far where I either had to spend $100 on external software to fix the problem or just reinstall (and reinitialize) the machines. Windows is much better about being idiot-proof. After all, it's made for the mass market.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by finboy:
My favorite thing about windows is that it is relatively "consumer- proof." OS X is not -- the average moron can completely screw a Unix install in seconds.

That hasn't been my experience at all. Windows lays out all of the administrative system tools right in front of you without even asking if you're sure you know what your doing. Any person can muck around in the registry (that's why it's so easy for spyware to hijack Windows machines). To modify the System in OSX you either have to enter an administrative password, bypass a warning, or be logged in as root (which few people know how to do.) I haven't seen one case where someone messed up their OS X install without going places they know they shouldn't have.

What $100 software are you using to fix OS X? What on earth were you doing to break it? Apple's Archive and Install feature makes it a snap to reinstall a damaged system. Windows is much more painful to reinstall.

There are many reasons why Apple uses UNIX as a base for OS X that have been gone over many times before.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by finboy:
I've gotten to like Windows XP, but I still have to wipe it and reinstall every 4-6 months. The difference is in the updating -- imagine if OS X needed a different kernel every time you installed a new game. I never know when I update Direct X (which is often REQUIRED in Windows if you run current software) whether the machine will run properly afterwards. Spyware and adware are an issue, too, but fixable.

My favorite thing about windows is that it is relatively "consumer- proof." OS X is not -- the average moron can completely screw a Unix install in seconds. Why Apple feels it's necessary to have consumers carrying around Unix boxes is beyond me. I've had several critical problems on X so far where I either had to spend $100 on external software to fix the problem or just reinstall (and reinitialize) the machines. Windows is much better about being idiot-proof. After all, it's made for the mass market.

Is this some kind of satire?

[turtle777]

Originally posted by finboy:
My favorite thing about windows is that it is relatively "consumer- proof." OS X is not -- the average moron can completely screw a Unix install in seconds. Why Apple feels it's necessary to have consumers carrying around Unix boxes is beyond me. I've had several critical problems on X so far where I either had to spend $100 on external software to fix the problem or just reinstall (and reinitialize) the machines. Windows is much better about being idiot-proof. After all, it's made for the mass market.

Mwahahahaha

Post of the month.

-t

[effgee]

Originally posted by finboy:
..., but I still have to wipe it and reinstall every 4-6 months. ...

Originally posted by finboy:
... I've had several critical problems on X so far where I either had to spend $100 on external software to fix the problem or just reinstall (and reinitialize) the machines.

Great sense of humor! And guaranteed clue-free&trade;! Thanks for that!!

Originally posted by finboy:
... Windows is much better about being idiot-proof. After all, it's made for the mass market.

Tempting. Must. Not. Give. In

[voodoo]

Originally posted by finboy:
I've gotten to like Windows XP, but I still have to wipe it and reinstall every 4-6 months. The difference is in the updating -- imagine if OS X needed a different kernel every time you installed a new game. I never know when I update Direct X (which is often REQUIRED in Windows if you run current software) whether the machine will run properly afterwards. Spyware and adware are an issue, too, but fixable.

My favorite thing about windows is that it is relatively "consumer- proof." OS X is not -- the average moron can completely screw a Unix install in seconds. Why Apple feels it's necessary to have consumers carrying around Unix boxes is beyond me. I've had several critical problems on X so far where I either had to spend $100 on external software to fix the problem or just reinstall (and reinitialize) the machines. Windows is much better about being idiot-proof. After all, it's made for the mass market.

In my experience (which is quite extensive) OS X is rediculously stable and safe to use. You can't screw it up by accident but you can if you want to by using the admin password. In short my experience has been exactly the same as yours if you switch 'Windows' with 'OS X' with the exception that I've *never ever* needed to re-install OS X.

Fix permissions every once in a while (6+ months) is all. You must be kidding or something.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Fix permissions every once in a while (6+ months) is all.

I've never even had to do that. OS X just works.

[Mastrap]

My wife has just switched from PC to Mac at work. She's a risk consultant, so not in the typical creative segment of the market. The first week I got a couple of phone calls along the lines of "how do I add this to my address book?", now she's coming home telling me about stuff she's found out and loves about her Mac.

[royal0711]

Oh yes!!! Windows really sucks!
I had to install Windows about 5 times in the last 3 months because of driver problems and registry damages. My Mac OS is running since August 2004 without any problem.
So...

[jcadam]

I have a windows box at work. Sometimes I sit there and think "If I were doing this on a mac, I would have been done an hour ago."

My favorite was when I was forced to develop a photographic slideshow using powerpoint (no choice) every photograph had to be resized and fit to its slide. Then I had to add music. I had to ensure it was synched to the slideshow (several different MP3s) using trial and error. Not to mention how God-awful slow working with PowerPoint gets when a *.ppt file gets bigger than a few megs.

It took hours upon hours. All the while, I thought, "If I could use iPhoto, I would have had this damn thing set up and running in minutes." In fact, I did use iPhoto on my mac at home to prototype what I wanted the final product to look like (the iPhoto version always worked better, of course).

[turtle777]

Originally posted by royal0711:
Oh yes!!! Windows really sucks!
I had to install Windows about 5 times in the last 3 months because of driver problems and registry damages. My Mac OS is running since August 2004 without any problem.
So...

Wow, bad enough experience to make you post for the first time, hehe...

-t

[wiffmaster]

My Windows XP has run perfectly since October 2003. No adware/spyware or viruses. But i'm still switching to Mac, as I really can't be bothered with Windows anymore. I have to run about 4 differnt anti-malware programmes a day to keep my system clean, I spend more time maintaining it than using it! Every file I open has to be scanned, every download checked for spyware, it's just too much trouble. As I say, my system is perfect, but it's not easy keeping it that way. The fact that XP totally locked up yesterday when no programmes were running.....It crashed when displaying a screensaver dammit! That, and the fact XP is still totally illogical, lacks innovations and is still unstable. The only real changes they've made since 95 that the average naive user would notice is a more colourfull taskbar.

When Tiger comes, i'm making the switch!

[tooki]

That really sums it up: Windows can be kept clean, but it takes tremendous effort to do so, be it by the end user or the sysadmin. Mac OS X is massively more immune out of the box, and can be locked down even more if needed.

tooki

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I don't find that it take any 'tremendous effort' to maintain a Windows XP box. It just takes 'common sense' mainly.

Sorry, but folks exaggerating about 'every file they open' needing to be scanned, and 'more time maintaining it than using it' need to tone the FUD down a few notches already. Yes, Windows can be affected by spyware and malware,(also easy to prevent) but come on, people really get off on exaggerating this to the distant outer limits of ridiculousness.

There's a strange insecurity in purposely exaggerating problems with Windows XP in order to falsely tout up the Mac. The Mac has plenty of positive merits, and stands on its own without falling back on platform-war exaggerated BS.

It reminds me of PC trolls of old that used to do the same thing against Macs, always with outdated 'facts' and always with silly 'anecdotal' evidence that was laughable to anyone who knew how to use ANY computer independent of platform war silliness. The underlying insecurity is always blatant. Is it really so hard for some to enjoy their choice of platform without feeling the need to spread blatant FUD about another? That’s a strange little quirk of the computing universe in general. What other commercial product brings this kind of thing out in people?

[B Gallagher]

My University just got rid of the Macs in two computer labs (out of about 20) and replaced them with PC's. Now there's only one lab which has Macs in it. So depressing.
These are computer labs for students of course.. yet for some reason, ALL the staff have Macs.

Go figure.

[Luca Rescigno]

My school has a weird lab setup. A lot of the larger computer labs have about a 2/3 to 1/3 ratio of Dells to Macs. The Dells are running either Windows 2000 or XP, and have 17" LCD with the resolution set at an atrociously ugly 1024x768. Meanwhile, the Macs are Quicksilver G4s with 17" Apple displays running at native resolution, but they are running OS 9 so you're severely restricted. There's no OS 9 browser that can check Gmail so if I want to do that, I am forced to use one of the Dells.

But then there are smaller labs full of older G4 digital audio towers with 17" CRTs. They have Panther on them and Safari is actually in the dock (although when I sit down at one, there are always about six applications running with all the windows closed, and IE is always one of them). I'm thinking whoever admins the smaller labs can sort of fly under the radar and do more stuff he wants to do without being quite as tied down. I mean, the fact that they're even running OS X at all is pretty nice. That they use Panther tells me the guy in charge knows what's going on. The larger labs have dozens of machines - probably fifty PowerMacs in the large ones. It would be a pain to update all of them to use OS X, but they should do it soon because it's really dumb to be using OS 9 these days.

[ryaxnb]

Oh yeah. Our PC (Athlon 1 Ghz running WinXP) has Spybot, VirusScan, Personal Firewall Plus, and a secure network, but it still has a new major problem that requires us to usually reinstall Windows and/or reformat the drive every few months.

[goMac]

I have a PC running on my desk right now. It's never been infected by anything, but of course I have insane security measures on it. First, its running on my own network behind a Linux gateway machine (to keep it separated from the campus network). It's running Firefox, and I still try to avoid viewing many web pages on it. No Outlook at all. Windows firewall is still running despite the gateway. Automatic updates are on. It's never crashed, but Windows still throws little flukes my way every once in a while.

Can't say the same about other machines on campus. I've had to reformat a lot of Windows machines. The biggest Mac problem I've had so far has been a key falling off a keyboard.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And how much of OSX's "security" do you think has to do with market share? Why write viruses and spyware for less than 5% of the market? Waste of effort. However, virus writers do enjoy a challenge. As Apple increases campaigns which suggest that MacOS is immune to viruses, I fully expect to see virus writers taking up the challenge. I also suspect that Apple is fully aware of this, explaining why there are no such aggressive ad campaigns about the security and lack of spyware of OS X.

I love flame wars .
(That was sort-of sarcastic.)


NO! NO! NO! Mac OS X has:
0 viruses
0 spyware
2 trojan horses
6-8% user share and 3.5% end-user marketshare (3.0% overall.)
It just doesn't add up.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I don't find that it take any 'tremendous effort' to maintain a Windows XP box. It just takes 'common sense' mainly.

Sorry, but folks exaggerating about 'every file they open' needing to be scanned, and 'more time maintaining it than using it' need to tone the FUD down a few notches already. Yes, Windows can be affected by spyware and malware,(also easy to prevent) but come on, people really get off on exaggerating this to the distant outer limits of ridiculousness.

Yeah that level of security is overdoing it but the FACT is that the average Windows user is very easily trapped into spyware and viruses. And it happens *all the time*! That's not FUD or BS.

Keeping a computer safe shouldn't require any effort from the end-user, IMO.

[Link]

For the mac users: Yes, it is that bad! You can just plug in your mac, run it online, and make fun of PC users all day!

For the PC Users: No, it's great unless you're a ****ing idiot and don't do one of the following: to run antivirus check weekly, use firefox and thunderbird, use gaim instead of aim, yahoo, msn, or icq.. use xchat instead of mIRC (too many exploits), and use more secure p2p.. Run anti-spyware programs regularly (like once a week), have a hardware firewall or router, have a software firewall, have latest updates of all kinds possible, have latest security updates for all programs.. Scan all disks for virusses before using, scan all emails for virusses before opening.

Buying an OEM machine is pretty stupid too, unless it's a REAL computer like a DELL. The only laptops to buy are the asian brand ones with really high res screens and a tiny cheap keyboard, the only machines *MUST* be CUSTOM BUILT WITH ANTEC CASES OR ANTEC LOOKALIKE BECAUSE IT'LL MAKE YOUR COMPUTER 500mhz faster!!

lol okay, just kidding... I use firefox + xchat + gaim on my PCs for such thing, have em behind my G4 as a router and that's it. F*** if I'm going to bother securing them any more than that.

[effgee]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I don't find that it take any 'tremendous effort' to maintain a Windows XP box. It just takes 'common sense' mainly. Sorry, but folks exaggerating about 'every file they open' needing to be scanned, and 'more time maintaining it than using it' need to tone the FUD down a few notches already. ...

You are 100% right and 100% wrong - yes, fanboys of any couleur can be obnoxious and a royal pain in the ass. Yes, Windows can be maintained to run (almost entirely) trouble-free.

But, for example, take a look at the following:

• The current version of Spyware Blaster blocks 3,379 possible sources of malware.
• Sypbot Search & Destroy, with the most recent definitions file installed, checks for 23,350 pieces of malware.
• As of this morning, Symantec's Security Response site states the following - Total Viruses Detected: 68,990

I mean for god's sake ... users put up with this shit? Why? Clever marketing, nothing else - "A computer application/OS is an incredibly complex system that can never be bug-free" Come again? Never bug-free?

A bug is one thing but when looking at the items/numbers listed above (in many cases) we're talking major ****ing security holes that are the equivalent of a deaf and blind guy mounting a 20ft. tall, blinking neon sign on the top the roof of his house that reads:

• "Dear burglars - many valuable items stored here, guaranteed no locks or alarm systems - owner is deaf and blind"

And people put up with this shit? Unbelievable.

If you look at other industries that sell products containing extremely complex systems - car manufacturers, for example - what do you think would happen if their products were plagued with such problems? Their customers (to say this with Lewis Black's words) would converge on their corporate headquarters like a horde of enraged huns and take the board of directors out for an afternoon of electroshocks - they'd be out of business faster than you can say "lawsuit".

Whereas Micorsoft has actually managed to convince their customers that the status quo is not only to be expected but that in reality, it is the white knight fighting the good fight for their customers when all it does is to continously put band-aids on one of the crappiest products (security-wise) in the history of shit being sold to people.

And then there's the brainwashed, babbeling crap like "stupid users", "you just need to be more careful", "it's normal that you have to reinstall your OS twice a year" - and that just makes me laugh and marvel at the power of Redmond's marketing machine. Impressive.

And before the next fanboy jumps in - yes, I would/will say the same about Apple should they ever find themselves in a position similar to the one Microsoft is in today.



(edited because I can't spell worth a doo-doo)