I have plenty of articles also indicating these facts, but I felt it wasn't worth the trouble trying to debate this with the message sender in question. I've been on lists long enough to realize that it would be a pointless argument that would only perpetuate his enjoyment in list controversy.
Take Care John D. Panarese Managing Director Technologies for the Visually Impaired, Inc. 9 Nolan Court Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel/Fax, (631) 724-4479 Email, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet, http://www.tvi-web.com AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTORS FOR PORTSET SYSTEMS LTD, COMPSOLUTIONS VA, PREMIER ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INDEX, PAPENMEIER, REPRO-TRONICS, PULSEDATA, DUXBURY, DANCING DOTS, ROBOTRON AND OTHER PRODUCTS FOR THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Access Curmudgeon Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 9:36 AM To: General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS X by the blind Subject: Re: Re: game over Abdul, I don't believe you are being deliberately malicious, but you are spreading Windows propaganda. My regrets that I let this ride a few days. > There is no hard empirical evidence supporting the notion that Windows' > greater susceptibility to viruses and worms is exclusively due to low > quality development on the part of Microsoft. How many hundreds of experts opinion do you need to read to think there might be something to this? My favorite pundit writes about this again this week, he mentions Boot Camp too. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060406.html > The argument could also be made that the very fact that Windows is > used by the majority makes it more of a target. Target for script kiddies maybe. Oh, but you just asserted that the Windows architecture doesn't make it more vulnerable. For the real hacker, there would be great prestige in authoring the first true virus. OS X is wearing a huge bulls eye, it could not be more of a target, yet remains uncompromised! > In other words, Mac OS may be too small a fry for which hackers could > pay any attention. Classic FUD that gets to insult Macs for their market share as well as being a pretend explanation for the lack of malware. If the OS X virus rate was a fraction of the Windows rate this arguement would have some credibility. If there is but one Mac user for every twenty Windows users, then if things were balanced there would one Mac virus for every twenty Windows virus. Playing the popularity card, say Windows is a hundred times more attractive to hackers, one might expect one Mac virus for every two thousand viruses. The ratio is even less than one hundredth of that. If that is enough to convince you the assertion is specious, consider this: viruses propagated just fine in the early days of Unix and Mac OS Classic, just as they did for DOS. The disproportionate market share, and the lack of the Internet, didn't stop the malware from spreading then. There are way more Mac OS X machines now than early DOS boxes when viruses first started propagating (let alone Classic machines) so it obvious that the critical mass necessary for malware to thrive exists. [snip] > Thus it is conceivable that there are viruses that could just as well > corrupt a Mac OS partition via use of Windows on the same machine. When booting from the Windows partition, Windows XP cannot even see the Mac file system, let alone read OS X formatted volumes. You want to attribute to multiple viruses powers the Windows operating system does not even possess? Desperate and envious Windows apologists are gleefully hoping Boot Camp will inflict even part of their pain to Mac users. They will be disappointed. [snip] > If Apple were to have Microsoft's market share, you would see the same > level of behavior which inexorably leads to the same outcome. So, to paraphrase, you are arguing the average Mac user is smarter than the average Windows user? I am tempted concede the point. There used to be the tradition of asserting that Mac users were too stupid to figure out Windows, but the rush of Unix switchers seems to have put that lie to bed. > In other words, there might come a day when you will have to do just > as much to protect your Mac OS as you would a PC. Another assertion lacking any credibility that Windows apologist desperately repeat to each other as they try to convince themselves that things are not so bad. I understand why people are stuck with Windows at work. I am in that sad state of affairs too. But for the home, or if you are self-employeed, (that is, to say, if you have a choice about it), why would anyone pick Windows over OS X? Fear of the unknown is the only reason for the status quo.
