Apple decides that Macs aren't immune to viruses

Source.

 

Well, at least it shows that their marketing department are being a bit more honest. Statistically though, Macs almost certainly are far safer machines. You don't need marketing spiel & slogans just to realise that.

 

IMHO, Steve Jobs wouldn't allow this PR change, rofl.

 

I don't get the distinction between a 'Mac' and a 'PC'; I've always counted the former as a one of the latter.

 

Technically, you are right. But the marketing world doesn't accept that

 

I don't think anyone other than "fanboys" ever claimed that Macs were/are totally immune to infection. It's just that given their market share compared to Windows, they've so far been a less popular and obvious target.

 

Yes, but are Macs more immune because the OS is less susceptible to infection by design, or because they are less used compared to PC?

 

Less used. See: http://malware.cbronline.com/news/apple-10-years-behind-microsoft-on-security-kaspersky-250412

 

Both I think.....

 

Really? Show us how it is less susceptible to infection "by design" than latest Windows.

 

Hate to break it to ya but Windows blows Mac away...pretty much always has and probably always will in terms of security and control.

For example...group policy...Mac doesn't even offer a remotely close feature.

Mac likes to sell "one size fits all" but one size DOESN'T fit all. I want the control that Windows gives. I feel Windows 7 Home Premium gives me more OS control than Mac OS X "just one edition" does.

Some people were arguing they finally got their act together with Lion but recent reports continue to disprove that. They still suck with security. Kasperspky CEO hit it dead on here.

You want REAL security go Linux or Windows. You want "head in sand" "security", go Mac. <3

 

Show us how it isn't.....

 

I knew you'd say that.

 

Haha...

 

Erm ... OK. But are Macs more immune because the OS is less susceptible to infection by design, or because they are less used compared to PC?

 

I asked first. And I provided the opinion of an expert as well (Eugene Kaspersky). It's your turn.

 

I'm pretty sure arguing about it would just be a waste of time, SPP...

 

But you aren't shy to give a controversial opinion. Don't be shy to defend it, brave man!

 

I've seen this before. I don't really believe it though. There again, I don't believe in almost anything any more.

 

I'll let you do your own research, SPP... No need to hash thru things that have been discussed a million times before.

 

Perhaps some of these ESET Blog entries tagged Apple would help this thread along somewhat.

See also:
• PC World Article

 

Alright...

"Anytime there's been a hacking contest, within a few hours someone's found a new Apple vulnerability." ~ Marc Maiffret

"Now when you look at Microsoft today they do more to secure their software than anyone. They're the model for how to do it. They're not perfect; there's room for improvement. But they are definitely doing more than anybody else in the industry, I would say "~ Marc Maiffret

 

You say that as an "expert "

IMO the way one should look at it is how secure is the OS Win/OSX from the start point when the computer get's home with Dr Joe from the store, without any sort of security tweaks that only interests people like us. Or was that what you meant?

Though I don't buy a product based on how secure, popular or whatever it is.
I buy it based on what I will do with it. And there after secure it the best I can.

And I am sure that most Wilders members would be able to find ways to secure a Mac to a high level as well.

 

IMO its about market share and nothing at all to do with one is safer then the other.My windows is probably safer then most macs because I take precaution with security.