PC Or Mac need help ASAP!

[thxsubwoofers]

My older brother 2 yr old sony pentium 4 crashed from a virus. I was hearing other peoples rumors that apple computers have no viruses. What really gets me mad, is that he just lets the virus comes in, and is to lazy to delete them. My Dad and I had to clean out 2 computers from Trojan/virus, the labtop had 168 trojan horse/virus, and the compaq had 165 trojan/virus in the mainland about 3 yrs ago. He destroys computers like nothing.[] Right now, he is on a slow pentium 3 computer. I was thinking about a apple computer for him? Only thing he does is music, aol chat, and forums. LOL "So my question is does apple computers have viruses like pc computers." thanks...

[dragonfyr]

The simple answer is "yes", their are viruses for the Mac as well as the PC and you will want to run anti-virus software such as Norton on either.

That being said, thee are fewer viruses for the Mac.

And neither platform will protect a negligent owner from problems, ESPECIALLY if they routinely visit the P2P sites that harbor viruses and spyware. After all, this is the equivalent of having ultimate unsafe sex and wondering if you might be exposing yourself to pathogens. The answer is a simple yes!

But there are many practical reasons to look at the Mac, including the ability to natively interact with the UNIX world (the Mac is full blown FreeBSD Unix under the GUI) that includes Linux, plus the fact that it natively reads any Windows formatted file, and also will natively run Windows with the installation of Microsoft's VirtualPC (included with MS Office Premium or available alone).

So you have the ability to seamlessly move between both worlds with extra abilities rather then limitations. And this is rather unique as the UNIX and Windows worlds on any other incarnation do NOT coexist well and necessitate the very awkward and unwieldy use of terminal emulation such as Hummingbird Exceed! A painful proposition at best!

It is finally time to move back to the Mac as the system that adds additionally real functionality and compatibility without the trade offs that were once present.

The old perceptions of the Mac being more expensive or less compatible or less functional are NO LONGER TRUE, with the opposite now being the case. And with their move to Intel, this will become even less so as OSX will be supported by VMWare. If you want a bright future that includes both all of the benefits and power of UNIX along with full compatibility and the joy of Windows (a rather oxymoronic concept at best!), then you have no choice but to go with the Mac, and nothing else incorporates both worlds without the limitation of either as well.

And I will simply mention for those not aware, if you are not familiar with the native capabilities of OSX as a server OS, you have not seen anything yet! This system rocks! And the irony is that 95% of the Apple users do not even know that the Mac is built atop full blown UNIX and that when they open a terminal session that they are in the most POSIX compliant version of command line UNIX available! And this is a fully mature POWERFUL UNIX, not the baby wannabe UNIX exemplified by 'UNIX done the Window's way' called Linux (sort of like the traditional description of DC - 'it combines Northern charm with Southern efficiency!' Ouch!) And OSX on the PC will literally be a Linux killer. And I was personally shocked to see so much interest in whether OSX will be supported on VMWare on Intel! (It WILL!!) And even they expressed amazement at the amount of desire and interest on their developer's roadshow!

Its time to go back!

[Colin]

ummm, complete Mini -Macs still cost more than a complete eMachines or some such for a few hundred....[H]

[dragonfyr]

Stock Mac desktops range from $499 to a maximum $2999 for a dual 2.7GHz G5 with every bell and whistle included, including both Firewire 400 & 800. And to find as close an equivalent PC you are looking at from ~$4K-$5500+ from Dell, Absolute, Velocity Micro, Alienware, et.al. without monitor. And the PCs still can't hold a candle to them for video and graphics rendering. How many PCs are actively being used in non-linear editing suites? And how many PCs are running Windows 2003 Server, the OS you have to run to even come close to OSX! And OSX has already implemented 64 git memory addressing. Are running Windows XP Pro 64-bit? Try running Windows2003 Server on your EMachines! And when was the last time you tried accessing Windows from UNIX, of heaven forbid, UNIX from Windows! Isn't Exceed fun!? And you still don't have the functionality!

And the Mac can run Windows and read Windows formated files. Can your EMachines (who ironically began as a Mac peripheral maker before making clones and then moving to the PC arena) run Mac software?

I have no problem if you want to compare equally functional configurations, but simply pulling names out of the hat is not comparing equally functional machines. If you want to compare functionality, I welcome the comparison.

I have no vested interest in pushing any of the platforms. I have to deal with them all for better or worse. I routinely live in the UNIX world by choice (AIX in particular), but deal with Windows (and listen to the SysAdmin marvel that their Windows servers have an uptime reaching a week) because it is ubiquitous.

But the Mac does all worlds seamlessly while adding additional functionality that neither platform can provide. From the one platform I can natively interact with both worlds while simultaneously adding value with the unique tools that the Mac offers. And with their move to Intel, Apple is positioned to assume a position of strategic advantage where one must seriously question the viability of the architecturally limited and administratively challenged Linux in light of OSX's much more extreme capabilities and ease of management, in addition to the ability for OSX to seamlessly act as a Windows network server without incurring licensing fees! Add to that the forthcoming support of VMWare, and you have a powerful combination! You can consolidate on a cheaper more powerful alternative capable of hosting your 64 bit UNIX applications as well as your Windows apps, all from an elegant unified administrative environment.

It's time to start planning a move back to the Mac. Even if is is simply to run OSX on your PC. (Lots of interesting info coming from friends at Adobe and a few other Cupertino shops regarding OSX on Intel!). Both for Windows compatibility as well as for UNIX compatibility, plus the extra capabilities that only the Mac offers. And the Intel Macs will all feature full 64 bit OS and hardware support for both Windows and UNIX /Mac.

Apple may indeed get it right this time despite Jobs' vision and elitist tendencies!

[skeptic]

I have not seen any virus in the wild for Mac OS X. Even if there were, due to the fact that normal users on Mac boxes aren't administrators, the user would have to enter their admin password to install the virus. While it is possible to create a virus for Macs, this would slow their spread. There have been a few trojans for macs, but so far they have been rather benign. Again, spyware is possible with a Mac, but so far they have not been created, and to have the same effect as they do on windows you have to enter your admin password when prompted.

[dragonfyr]

Just to balance the perception that the Mac is IMMUNE to viruses and spyware...

Despite the lack of major security incidents and the popular misconception that Mac users aren't affected by viruses involving Mac OS X, there ARE viruses and spyware that can effect the Mac! And there are system vulnerabilities. Even when viruses can't run specifically on the Mac platform, Macs continue to be carriers of viruses, thus increasing their overall spread.

But it is a fact that the prevalence of viruses, as well as the severity of the viruses, have been MUCH lower on the Mac then with Windows!

And they do not necessarily require you to be root.

It is important not to assume the attitude that there is no potential danger on the Mac, despite the fact that the frequency and severity of occurrences have been much less!!!!

Malware can exploit many of the same structures that are prevalent in Windows such as buffer overflows, etc.

And with regards to spyware, the most common means of accumulating spyware for ALL platforms is granting access by simply clicking through sites without reading the privacy policies, as you inadvertently grant them permission to do so by your actions! And all P2P file sharing sites should be treated as spyware and virus cesspools!

Additionally, there are vulnerabilities for being hacked.

A quick list of the 'top 20' vulnerabilities for both Windows and UNIX is available at the SANS website:

http://www.sans.org/top20/

The Mac is simply FreeBSD (Berkeley UNIX) with Apple's GUI residing 'on top'.

[thxsubwoofers]

Thanks everyone for the help. Nice reviews[]

[skeptic]

"there ARE viruses and spyware that can effect the MaC"

Can you please list them? Perhaps with urls to their descriptions? Because, except for some proof of concept trojans, I have not seen any viruses or spyware.

There are system vulnerabilities, as with most unix systems, however I have seen no automated worms or viruses or spyware which exploit them.

"The Mac is simply FreeBSD (Berkeley UNIX) with Apple's GUI residing 'on top'"

I disagree with this. It is not a freeBSD kernel. It is the XNU kernel, which is based on some MACH code with a BSD subsystem. Apple has done a lot more than throw a GUI onto a stock BSD system.

[dragonfyr]

Mach is the elegant Carnegie Mellon rewrite of the UNIX kernel which has been employed by almost every major UNIX since NEXTStep in 1989.

And even Apple is under the impression that it is using FreeBSD: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

And for more detail:
http://images.apple.com/macosx/pdf/MacOSX_UNIX_TB.pdf

Quoting from the link above:

"The Mac OS X kernel at the heart of Darwin is based on FreeBSD 5 and Mach 3.0. The Berkeley Standard Distribution (BSD, first developed at the University of California, Berkeley) is one of the most widely respected UNIX implementations. BSD provides Mac OS X with the stability, performance, and compatibility for which UNIX is justly famous.

Apple has enhanced BSD by adding Mach 3.0 technology based on the OSF/mk microkernel from the Open Software Foundation, providing memory management, thread control, hardware abstraction, and interprocess communication services.

Apple has built on top of this rich Mach/BSD heritage with a number of powerful innovations, including well-defined, future-proof kernel programming interfaces (KPIs) supporting dynamically loadable file systems, network extensions, and packet filters, as well as I/O Kit drivers. Such innovations enable Mac OS X to provide a wide range of services."

As far all of the vulnerabilities...
Here is a quick link identifying a few: http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/a/macosxflaws.htm

Like its even more secure 'sibling' OpenBSD, OSX is a fundamentally safer architecture by virtue that it is much more compartmentalized. And like OpenBSD, OS X ships with nearly all Internet services turned off by default. And when installing new software OSX requires an administrator password to change certain configurations as well as running the system updater.

In addition to this, unlike in Windows, applications do not patch the BSD family kernel architecture, including OSX, at low levels. And OSX doesn't suffer from the flawed IE that serves as the Windows equivalent of the Finder.

But applications are still subject to the same vulnerabilities. And if someone wants to compromise a system, the primary threat is not malware, but direct atacks on the application!

One of the smartest things Apple ever did (but Don't tell them or they will 'fix' it!), was to abandon blue box and yellow box and to cease being a proprietary OS developer and avoid the cost center that simply sucks dollars while demanding ever more resources for R&D with no return. The world did/does NOT need a new OS! They were extremely wise to hitch their wagon to BSD and to let them pursue the R&D costs!

[skeptic]

All of the vulnerabilities on the linked page are TROJANS not viruses or worms. Just as I was saying, I have never seen a Mac os X virus in the wild. The are basically scripts that run "rm -rf *" or something similar with a changed icon.

I never said apple wasn't using BSD code. What I said is, it is not "simply freeBSD with a gui on top". It is a blend of BSD subsystems, the XNU kernel (which has BSD and MACH code). It is not a re-branded freeBSD, it is a completely new system, Darwin.

"Mach is the elegant Carnegie Mellon rewrite of the UNIX kernel which has been employed by almost every major UNIX since NEXTStep in 1989."

First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "the UNIX kernel". There are A LOT of UNIX kernels around, not just one.

The rest of the message is also incorrect, I have no idea where you got it from, if it is correct, I would like to see a link. Mach is a kernel. Linux is a kernel it does not use MACH code. SGI has a kernel for their *NIX, it does not use MACH code. Sun Solaris does not use MACH code. I could go on and on. I would say that NO major UNIX except NEXTStep and Mac OS X use MACH technology.(I know know, you are going to bring up HURD, or MASIX and say they are major, well they aren't.)

So what Major UNIX systems are using the MACH kernel?

[dragonfyr]

All of the vulnerabilities on the linked page are TROJANS not viruses or worms. Just as I was saying, I have never seen a Mac os X virus in the wild. The are basically scripts that run "rm -rf *" or something similar with a changed icon. I never said apple wasn't using BSD code. What I said is, it is not "simply freeBSD with a gui on top". It is a blend of BSD subsystems, the XNU kernel (which has BSD and MACH code). It is not a re-branded freeBSD, it is a completely new system, Darwin. "Mach is the elegant Carnegie Mellon rewrite of the UNIX kernel which has been employed by almost every major UNIX since NEXTStep in 1989." First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "the UNIX kernel". There are A LOT of UNIX kernels around, not just one. The rest of the message is also incorrect, I have no idea where you got it from, if it is correct, I would like to see a link. Mach is a kernel. Linux is a kernel it does not use MACH code. SGI has a kernel for their *NIX, it does not use MACH code. Sun Solaris does not use MACH code. I could go on and on. I would say that NO major UNIX except NEXTStep and Mac OS X use MACH technology.(I know know, you are going to bring up HURD, or MASIX and say they are major, well they aren't.) So what Major UNIX systems are using the MACH kernel?

A truly fascinating rant!

Let's see, no other UNIXes based upon Mach...Hmmm... Oh yeah, that little UNIX that OSX wished it had the capabilities of is called AIX, the tiny UNIX from IBM is Mach based. And it's capabilities go FAR beyond the capabilities of OSX! And that's without mentioning LVM, PSSP and HACMP capabilities! Oh!

Read the annual DH Brown OS surveys!

And like BSD, almost everyone has borrowed elements from Mach! (And Mach itself is derivative!)

And the news that there are many kernels. Really? Since I was addressing those that were related (the BSD family and OSX) I really didn't feel the need to delve into the origins of all the other UNIX variants available! As if anyone cares! Especially since most Mac owners don't even know that it is ANY kind of UNIX under the covers!

And the OSF has adopted the use of Mach. And a system based upon BSD/Mach is not a "completely new" system! Since words do indeed mean things, a completely new system is by definition completely original - you know - "completely new"! A system that is based upon other technology is derivative and "based on other technologies".

And OpenBSD is the most secure version of UNIX available and is used by the government for its most secure systems. Sun's Trusted Solaris (another BSD based product) is a close second!

Darwin is essentially a modernized version of the Mach/BSD layer from the old NextStep operating system that is FULL of BSD. And the quote that is all wrong in my previous post is directly from an Apple whitepaper if you bother to read the link!

But I enjoy your debate which is akin to Pepsi complaining about Coke over who is the real cola!

But for some reason you seem intent on making Apple some kind of unique Lone Ranger in the world of UNIX where all of the various names of "UNIX-like" systems are distinct simply because UNIX is a trademarked name!

And the last part that spoke to the compartmentalization of the OS is absolutely correct! If not, then I can say that the TCSEC Protection Profile for the ASCI White RS6000SP complex is wrong! Opps! My bad!

And I love your malware distinctions! Regarding anti-virus software, you do not buy separate products for 'worms', 'trojans', 'viruses', and each granularity of malware! It falls under 'anti-virus' software. So your distinction that is it a worm versus a trojan versus a whatever doesn't matter to the consumer who is looking for anti-virus software! Talk about splitting hairs!

And regarding the secure nature of OpenBSD. When was the last time you had to complete a Trusted Computing Systems Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) Protection Profile for a secure government system adhering but not limited to the Common Criteria and the Orange Book? Have you ever seen an example of that Martian gibberish!? Heck, I sincerely wish that I hadn't!!

And if would like additional references, start with:

Computer Security: Art & Science by Matt Bishop ISBN 0-201-44099-7

Computer Security Handbook, ed. by Bosworth & Kabay, ISBN 0-471-41258-9

supplemented by:

Building a Secure Computer System, by Gasser

Using the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation, by Herrmann

The Common Criteria

http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/public/consumer/index.php?menu=2

The Orange Book

http://www.boran.com/security/tcsec.html

Also, if you need internal contacts at the NIST regarding the TCSEC standards, let me know!

And please don't go so far as to say that OSX can't be hacked!! As I have personally watched Lee Lawson completely embarass a few very experienced security admin at Lawrence Berkeley labs in less time then ANY of us want to admit!

[fletcherkane]

Let me lighten up this thread a bit. The Mac vs. PC battle will continue to rage, but here is a joke to lighten your day

How many Microsoft engineers does it take to cahnge a light bulb?

Answer: None. They simply patent darkness and declare it the industry standard.

[]