toggle

AAPL Stock: 442.71 ( + 1.36 )

http://www.macnn.com/articles/03/08/28/"the.big/

"The Big Advantage in Being Small"

updated 04:15 pm EDT, Thu August 28, 2003

 
", 0, 0);


Business Week writer Charles Haddad comments on the Mac's , which flooded the Internet last week. "And though I was tethered to the World Wide Web, I was spared this ordeal. What saved me? These worms have no appetite for Macs, especially those running the latest operating system, OS X. And, it seems, I'm among the few here who uses a Mac ... Neither the disgruntled nor the crusader wants to bother attacking a computer that represents only 3% of worldwide PC sales."


by MacNN Staff

Post tools:

TAGS :

 industry

Related Articles

Recent Articles

toggle

Comments

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    08/28, 04:33pm | report spam | Reply |

    second time

    I usually hate this guy's columns however I have agreed 100% with the last two he has written. Maybe this guy is starting to see things my way.

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    08/28, 04:48pm | report spam | Reply |

    He's wrong again

    Mac OS X has been free of viruses to this point mainly because of good engineering, not obscurity. MacObserver had a good article on Aug 27 on this issue.

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    08/28, 04:48pm | report spam | Reply |

    Not remoras...

    I agree with most of this article except the remora comment. I don't think Mr. Haddad thought about the analogy too much before he made it. Remoras are parasitic fish that would have a hard time surviving without bigger fish to feed off of. I don't think using a Mac would be hard if all the Wintel PCs disappeared... there would just be less games... and less viruses.


    - Maclectic

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    08/28, 05:26pm | report spam | Reply |

    pompous a*******

    Yes, most of you guys are just arrogant zealots. I rather have someone write about Apple, even thought the tone may sometimes be critical, than having no one write about Apple at all.

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    08/28, 05:49pm | report spam | Reply |

    Re: He's wrong again

    Totally agree! Have you ever wondered why M$, with virtually unlimited funds for R&D still don't seem to invest enough of their customers' hard earned money into developing software that actually doesn't have loopholes and bugs? They have the resources, why don't they use them? No, it's better to ask: Why do people still buy their products? It's like getting hit with a baseball bat and still ask for more...

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    08/28, 06:07pm | report spam | Reply |

    WHO keeps giving ...

    ... this idiot WORK??

    Once AGAIN, Haddad has it COMPLETELY wrong. The Mac's immunity to viruses has NOTHING to do with it's marketshare. If the Mac had a well-known vulnerability, there would be exploits for it by the truckload.

    The fact that a couple of Apache exploits (and a couple of FTP exploits, IIRC) were found in the UNIX underbelly of OS X is proof that someone is LOOKING for these things.

    You can't say that it's because the Mac platform has few developers, either ... last I looked the ADP had 300,000 members. Certainly there are more Win devs than that, but not THAT many more.

    So it's not marketshare, it's not lack of developers ... what could it be?

    1. The platform is INHERENTLY more secure than Windows, something every pundit seems to be afraid to actually come out and say. Mac OS X is *better engineered* than Windows. Period.

    2. The Mac community is a *community,* and doesn't attract that many juvenile delinquents with a bent for programming. We don't *loathe* the company that makes our OS and consequently, we have no wish to destroy them with crippling viruses.

    Now, the interesting part is WHY does NO Mac pundit ... even Andy Inhatko ... seem to have the balls to just come out and say that the Mac OS is *inherently superior* on this front?

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    08/28, 06:09pm | report spam | Reply |

    I agree with the above

    If the Mac had known exploits there are busfulls of Linux and Windows hackers who would run out and buy Macs just so they could program viruses to wipe the arrogant smiles off our faces. But they can't. HAHAHAHAHA!

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    08/28, 06:52pm | report spam | Reply |

    i agree

    its only because of the paltry marketshare that macs are ignored. The press wouldn't have much to say if a minority computer system is affected. Until the mac is more than a drop in the bucket in marketshare, they have nothing to worry about and no one in the vast majority would really care....

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    08/28, 11:15pm | report spam | Reply |

    OS Differences Are Reason

    I would argue that there are inherent differences in the two OSes that make OS X much less a willing participant in spreading viruses. Read the replies to James Coates article for the Chicago Tribune at MacDailyNews. In particular the fifth post.

    http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P1655_0_1_0

    I have quoted the four main points below (the author gives permission in the post):

    1) Windows applications run as 'system' which makes apps like IM or IE comparable to GOD on Windows. Mac applications do not run with this level of power within the hierarchy of services.

    2) A virus on the Mac would require the active collaboration of the user to spread. On Windows it has the granted collaboration of Windows. For example, Dialog Boxes prevent spreading address book tampering on the Mac, not so with Windows.

    3) Microsoft has added VBScript into EVERYTHING that they ship. Excel, Word, Outlook, IE, etc. The intention of this was good, let's make it easy for people to add macros. The outcome has been bad, as there was no security thought put into it until viri started appearing all over Windows.

    4) OSX comes with a more secure default configuration, with most services "off" by default, which is the weakness of most Unix and Linux systems, since they're usually deployed as servers and have most of their services "on" by default. Users on OSX don't run at even the admin level by default. So if you were to launch a Virus it could ONLY ravage your own home directory.

    The point is that by default there are vulnerabilities turned on in a Windows XP machine that make the machine itself a great promoter of viruses and worms. A Mac or Unix box would require admin permission (a requester box requiring an admin password would appear any time changes to the system are about to be executed by an application. In Windows, those changes are given approval by default.

  1. MacNN.com Reader

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2001

    0
    08/28, 11:43pm | report spam | Reply |

    OK

    I've decided not to buy a new Mac. I was going to, but I'd hate to encourage the spread of new viruses to the Mac.

Show More Comments

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

MaxUpgrades MaxConnect for 2006-2008 Mac Pro

Nobody outside of Cupertino's privileged bunch knows the future of the Mac Pro line for sure. Despite Apple's reluctance to tell us wh ...

Brother HL-3170CDW LED Printer

We've mentioned before that we are far from a paperless society. For now, at least, there are tasks that require a piece of paper for ...

HTC One

It is hard to overstate just how critically important the HTC One is to the Taiwanese company’s fortunes. Despite its alarming decline ...

toggle

Most Commented

 

Popular News