Naff Norton

[onthecut]

Hi Demag.

Thanks for the input. Will do. Been impressed with the Avast so far.

Mike.

[Zaphod]

The mac now its on OS X is no more virus prone than any other UNIX box, (yes thatha right OS X is a Unix derivative) and so Effective viruses are far harder to create, so It is highly unlikly that virus writers will bother. PC suers can have this iminuty as well by upgrading to Linux and open office (and at the same time enjoying a huge perfmance increase)

Stewart

[Ciaran]

Good points there Stewart, some of which I agree with.

It does still have to be said though, that a reduced likelihood of a .nix virus existing, should not be grounds for believing that it will never happen. To think like that regarding security is quite dangerous.

The thing is, there are increasing numbers of people using nix platforms these days, they're moving to it in droves if you believe some Unix/Linux advocates, in fact. Doesn't it stand to reason, that as this userbase increases, so to does the potential for malware? This smug air of 'it'll never happen to me, *I* use a *proper* computer' favoured by some users is going to result in an awful lot of people being caught with their pants well and truely down, when the inevitable does finally happen. Particularly less technically minded users who maybe started out on one of the increasingly intuitive, GUI friendly distros now available. To have them think they never need to worry about viruses and other security threats is downright irresponsible, but sadly its happening all around us.

You how it goes, the chances of anything coming from Mars, are a million to one they say….

This post has been edited by Ciaran on June 06, 2007 08:07 pm

[rowanmoor]

I agree that non-Windows users are safer (at the moment) but not with the reasoning.

The most malware free platform I have come across is one I use every day, and it is written by Microsoft and has huge similarities to Windows. It is called Windows Mobile. AFAIK there has been a single proof of concept virus written for it, but never released. There have been a few wind ups and there are even a couple of antivirus vendors with software for it. But it has never had a single wild infection to date.

The reason that there is no malware in the wild and only one proof of concept? Because the user base is currently so small (and the data stored generally so unimportant and redundant) it makes it too small a target. Would it be any more difficult to attack than Win 98 - I doubt it - probably easier as the processing power of the devices mean that antivirus software would be too great a drain on usability for most users to install even if there was a risk.

The reason Windows is so bad for malware is it's market penetration. If you wanted to write a virus or other malware what platform would you choose? The one that has the highest penetration amongst PCs that are most easily accessible (ie connected to the Internet or email). The only answer there is Windows. Plus it has the added bonus that the most inept users (and so easiest targets) are guaranteed to be using it.

If Linux gets the market penetration that its users would like then I guarantee it will become as much of a malware issue as Windows. Yes, it may tax the malware writers a bit more to achieve the same results, but that is just a challenge that they will relish.

But - at the moment it is a pretty safe haven from malware. Just don't be caught with your trousers down when it does happen.

[onthecut]

Hi Guys.

I'm not into the technicalities, but this line of discussion is mirrored (on a simple level) with a regular drinking buddy of mine who is a confirmed Apple man. On the one hand -- and I have no reason to disbelieve him -- he tells me the Apple is much quicker than the PC, programs take less space and the whole lot is much simpler to use. On the other hand, those parts of his computing life that involve being on line or communicating with other (mostly PC) users seems to be an endless succession of problems with servers, users and everything else, that doesn't recognise or play with his (version 10 ?) operating system or software.
To me, using the machine as a working, communicating tool, that would have his sytem consigned to the skip in short order. If it won't work reasonably reliably and communicate effectively then it's truly a waste of space.
Another thing that strikes me from his conversation is that the actual hardware seems expensive compared to PCs. (I also think the quality of plastics etc on his machine looks decidedly flimsy and toy like. ) I actually quite like having an old fashioned solid metal box I can stand my mug, old engine part, whatever-- on top of ! Sorry Apple people --- I for one don't think it is all we PC users who are out of step.

Mike.

[demag]

Ok,

I'll just add my two penneth for what it's worth. I think the majority of us on here use Windoze for the simple reason that a, It's fairly user friendly most of the time as MS saw an opportunity and grabbed it. (you can't blame them for that). b, There isn't anything else on the market that's comparable AND as user friendly.

The problem I see with XP is it carries so much baggage with it and is so slooow! Installed on your hard drive it is 2gig plus. That's one hell of an operating system. Also due to all it's inherant loopholes you have to back it up with all forms of extra security.

I have used Linux and I have to say it is lightning fast and only takes up a small portion of your drive BUT, it is nowhere near as developed as XP and you have to have a bit of savvy to get it all working properly. It reminds me a bit of Win95. Remember when you were trying to load a third party driver and 95 insisted on ignoring it and loading its own driver! In a few years time I think it will be more polished and more of a threat to MS but for ease of everyday use there's a way to go yet.

[techmanagain]

I find it interesting to read all the semi-technical guff about which is the "best" system. I have XP, with automatic updates from Microsoft, and Norton Internet Security, also updated - by me - regularly. Touch wood, I have so few problems that if anything seems to be dicey, I just "system restore" back to an earlier date and carry on from there. But then, I'm not trying to be clever with new programmes and fiddles and alterations that so may seem to be trying out. I can't afford to be without my regular systems.
My local Micrsoft - trained engineer complains that he doesn't seem me very often nowadays! He only calls in for a cup of coffee!

[kiwi]

Ha,

It is good to see the PC vs Mac and Others debate continues. I was a dedicated PC user but became frustrated with system crashes, software drivers, rapid hardware obsolescence, security, Microsoft etc etc so I decided to try the Mac environment.

I am a convert. What I appreciate most about the Mac platform is that it just goes. It doesn't suffer from system crashes, has a great OS and is very user friendly. I work on a PC network at my day job so I am constantly reminded of how the other half live - poor souls! The real benefit of a Mac from my perspective is that less time spent worrying about PC problems equates to more time worrying about my XMs!

Each to his own though, and I can understand why some prefer to persist with PCs. We have a wireless network running at home and keep a PC on it hooked up to the wifes sewing machine. Seems to be okay in that role.

Regards
Kiwi

This post has been edited by kiwi on June 08, 2007 08:13 pm