[TheBoyKen]

We need journalists to make sure they have at least basic computer use in their grasp, so they aren't spreading misinformation around.
Darn you got me! OK I agree with that point!
Also, don't these articles get proofed before getting posted to MacWorld?
If it's anything like the MacWorld UK site, which seems to contain a typo (or more than one) on every other article, then I'd say "no they don't proof them"... journalism isn't what it once was methinks /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Perhaps the 'mac users are more intelligent' statistic was not so accurate after all /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Interestingly the MacWorld UK articles with typos in are typically (but not always) credited to "MacWorld staff" rather than someone's name, which would infer there is some kind of vetting process... but not an entirely fool-proof one, sadly...

[lkalliance]

In reply to:

---

Perhaps the 'mac users are more intelligent' statistic was not so accurate after all

---

Funny you should bring this up, and funny the author should mention it. I've seen glib (and not so glib) reference to Mac users being more intelligent, and it's always struck me as absurd. But in pondering it over the years it seems to me that the actual process weeds out a lot of people. If a buyer is not very computer-literate then his "default purchase" is Windows, because that's probably what he is familiar with or the only thing he's heard about. It takes more thought and consideration to purchase a Mac in today's computing climate, and so it's more likely that a random Mac purchaser has given more thought to his purchase than a random Windows user. That should result in -- on average -- a more informed user base.
I also think it's more likely that a random Mac user has at some point used a kumquat in the construction of a homemade radio transmitter. I'm still working on that one.

[Netizen_Kane]

In reply to:

---

So, if anything, this indicates that this guy has been using Macs forever and just hasn't broken his double-click habit.

---

Um, do you realize the "guy" was named Rebecca Freed?
Sorry, but I have to agree with most people here. It's not just the double-click problem. It's an awful lot of other things in the article. Like all her problems with Little Snitch. I didn't get that many notifications from LS when I started using it. In fact, I get so few that sometimes I wonder if it's still running. Then there's the way she brushes off the dangers of keyloggers. If they were a danger on Macs, she wouldn't be any safer just because she's the only person with access to her Mac. Remote keyloggers that send the data via Internet do exist for Windows, so why not for Macs?

[Nobody]

Six years and not a single virus, spyware or malware so far... Gimme a break!
The Mac is more secure because it has a permissions built-in, whereas Windows is a can of worms in security.
Those are the main facts. First, it is much more difficult to write a virus or other malware against a rock-solid Unix OS like Mac OS X versus hole-filled Windows. But second, even if a virus is written, it will not spread in the wild to other users like in the Windows World. Not even to other users of the same computer. In Windows, any virus can go to all users of the same computer and to all computers out there. THAT IS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE. SO MAC USERS, REST ASSURED THAT YOU DO NOT NEED ANY ANTIVIRUS OR SIMILAR STUFF FOR THE MOMENT AND LIKELY FOR MANY YEARS TO COME. I seems to me that the author has only seen a Mac on television but uses Windoze daily... Try again...

[Nobody]

"SO MAC USERS, REST ASSURED THAT YOU DO NOT NEED ANY ANTIVIRUS OR SIMILAR STUFF FOR THE MOMENT AND LIKELY FOR MANY YEARS TO COME."
That's a pretty bold claim. How can you be so sure?

[jmincey]

"The Mac is more secure because it has a permissions built-in, whereas Windows is a can of worms in security."
Huh?

[rameeti]

In reply to:

---

Scanning e-mail is important because Mac users could unwittingly forward an infected message attachment received from a Windows user.

---

I've yet to ever hear a Windows user saying that another Windows user should use Anti-Virus software so that a 3rd user might not get sent a virus. People need to take responsibility for their own stuff. If all the Windows users took responsibility for their own stuff, no Mac user would be able to offer any value in running a virus checker that checked for Windows viruses.
Could you even imagine a Windows user recommending to another Windows user that they should run Anti-Virus software to make sure that the don't forward a Mac virus to a Mac user? lol

[macslut]

In reply to:

---

"SO MAC USERS, REST ASSURED THAT YOU DO NOT NEED ANY ANTIVIRUS OR SIMILAR STUFF FOR THE MOMENT AND LIKELY FOR MANY YEARS TO COME."
That's a pretty bold claim. How can you be so sure?

---

Well I would make the same claim and claim that it's not a bold claim. We've gone over 5 years now without a single OS X virus and longer without a Mac OS virus. You'd have to go pretty far back before you'd find an actual threatening virus that was spread.
Technical reasons or security through obscurity? I think it's a bit of both, but it doesn't matter. For 5 years now I've been telling people that buying AV software for the Mac is a waste of time, money and computing resources. AV software has had bugs and during the past 5 years has resulting in MORE data loss when used than when not used.
While I'd like to see Mac market share grow exponentially, it's highly unlikely to do so to the point where we break the security through obscurity level anytime soon. And even then, we have many technical reasons that give OS X protection...which I admit only go so far, but Apple is likely to act very quickly on releasing updates.
Bottom line is that it used to be "when" there is an OS X virus, then you might consider the threat level, whether it is fixed/killed by Software Update, whether there are free utilities to deal with it, or if all else fails if you should buy AV software.
It now has become a question of "if" there is an OS X virus someday.
We've gone over 5 years with OS X without a virus, how many more years are left?

[jmincey]

"It now has become a question of "if" there is an OS X virus someday."
I hope you are right but I think it's a question of when myself.

[macslut]

I think the author didn't understand Little Snitch and gave a poor evaluation. Little Snitch allows you to Allow Forever as stated, but also within the context of Server, Port, or Any Connection. I have yet to see or hear of anyone else having problems with Little Snitch doing as told and not bothering anymore.
It's a shame to, because Little Snitch is probably the best app Mac users could install to detect and prevent malware from ever propagating.
I highly recommend Little Snitch, and a little reading through their documentation would help explain what it does and how to use it, though it was pretty clear to me just from the interface feedback.

[kranbollin]

What about the ability to create secure disk images (via Disk Utility)? It is not necessary to 'encrypt your whole hard drive'. Are secure disk images easy to hack into? According to what I've read, you have to be NSA or better to crack these things. I have one where I keep all my passwords, financial info, etc. I assume that I'm safe if my machine is stolen or hacked into. Tell me I'm not.

[HumanJHawkins]

In reply to:

---

Um, do you realize the "guy" was named Rebecca Freed?

---

Yeah... Mr. Rebecca Freed. You don't know him?
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bastion]

In reply to:

---

I've yet to ever hear a Windows user saying that another Windows user should use Anti-Virus software so that a 3rd user might not get sent a virus.

---

Not quite the same because it's certainly more of an issue of self-interest than altruism, but just about any company that allows their employees to connect remotely requires that any machine used for said connection have active anti-malware software in place. (For which reason I wasn't allowed to use my BeBox to connect to my company's network.)

[wnurse]

You guys are funny!!!!!.. berating the author cause he double clicked?.. so what?.. yes, he could have single clicked but he can also double click, triple click, quadrouple click. You guys need something called "a [filtered] life". Go out, get a girlfriend and see a movie or something. Wow, an article where the author made a mistake.. "EXTRA, EXTRA.. first article in history to have an error.. get your copy now!!!"