keved wrote in <BB2B6246.137D5%kevedAFRAIDOFSPAM[at]pacbell.net>:

><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=44258>
>
>.16% is a very misleading and exaggerated number. In practical terms the
>number is 0%.
>
>There has never been an OSX virus. Not one, ever.
>
>The .16% figure is for viruses not only pre-OSX but pre-OS9.
>
>Also, it should be noted that there are security advantages with the Mac OS,
>both Classic and OSX.

Yeah, Classic was not multiuser--that's a security "advantage" (a
disadvantage in many other respects of course). But since almost no
one uses either variant it would be difficult for a virus to spread
rapidly.

>There is a widespread false belief that there are fewer Mac viruses that are
>spread each year because there are fewer Macs than Windows PCs.
>
>This is wrong on several levels. The only truth in that is there are fewer
>Macs than Windows PCs, but even that is misleading.
>
>Take a look at the stats for PC sales versus Mac sales, and you'll see a
>much higher number of PC sales, however take a look at the stats for Macs in
>use, and you'll see that Macs on average remain in use much longer than PCs.

Well if there's a platform speed stall what else would you expect?
Macs remain longer in use in part because accounting departments will
amortize the higher cost over a longer period, in part because it's
pointless to upgrade when Apple hasn't made any progress. While PCs
vault ahead year after year, month after month, Macs sit there and
stagnate and then every three or four years they advance
significantly, then stall again.

>As a result, the number of actual Macs in use compared to PCs is much higher
>than Mac sales versus PC sales.

Highly speculative. Let's see some hard numbers.

>Also to consider is that due to their lower cost and ability to be purchased
>in stripped down configurations, PCs are in use far more in vertical markets
>than Macs are. (PCs as cash register machines).

Which is irrelevant but thanks for throwing that non sequitur in.

>How significant is the number of Macs in normal consumer use? Well, take a
>look at all the major software vendors and see how the overwhelming majority
>produce for Mac. Take a look at Download.com or VersionTracker and see how
>many shareware developers are producing for the Mac platform.

Yeah, Adobe produces for the Mac, but guess what? Not Premiere
anymore. The market is considered too small and unprofitable
especially with Apple leveraging its platform control to shove its own
competing tools down everyone's throat (good thing Microsoft never
does that). Counting companies rather than software products is a
sign that you know very well how the numbers add up in reality. And
shareware on the Mac? Give me a break. It's a trickle compared to
what is done for PCs.

>You'll see that the Mac platform is very much alive and well in terms of
>developers.

Cough

>In fact, you'll see that Macs in general are more alive and well than ever
>before.

Yeah, just because they lost 80% of their marketshare in the last 10
years is no reason to think the platform isn't thriving. Boy, you're
smart.

>This isn't an argument to say Macs are just as popular as PCs or any such
>silly thing, but only that Macs in use have far surpassed the critical mass
>necessary for software developers to write applications for the platform.
>If it's financially worth creating Photoshop, Microsoft Office, or any of
>the Mac only applications, certainly it would be worth developing a virus
>for the platform.

Why? One has no relationship to the other since viruses aren't
created for financial reasons, blockhead. And would the virus spread?
An email binary for example is only going to run on the OS it was
designed to, so if you send it out to 5000 people but only 100 of them
use Macs and only a further subset are clueless enough to launch it,
it's not going to propagate very quickly. In fact most PC viruses
written have no ability to spread into the wild due to programmer
error.

>Additionally, a larger majority of these Macs are engaged in riskier
>behavior than ever before, with filesharing, networking, email, downloading,
>and not running anti-virus software.

That's why Apple is issuing more security updates these days.

>The assertion of there being fewer viruses on the Mac because there are
>fewer Macs also fails because there are NO viruses released on the Mac.
>There hasn't been a single outbreak of a Mac virus in several years. It's
>been about a decade since the last wide-spread Mac virus.

It's unlikely that anyone even attempts to write viruses for the Mac,
or that the attempts work, for reasons already clear. It's a moribund
platform uninteresting to hacker types, who mainly write exploits for
systems they know. The Mac attracts a distinctly nontechnical and
marketing-influenced user base. I'm surprised they can even get their
computers to do any work, let alone hack the system.

>Go back to around 1989. Go to any Macintosh lab and find one of two
>scenarios... Either all the Macs are running Disinfectant, Virex or
>Symantec/Norton, or all the Macs have a plethora of viruses.
>
>Now keep in mind, there were fewer Macs in use back then, and only a small
>percentage were connecting to the Internet.

Now keep in mind that they had much larger marketshare back then and
therefore attracted a greater variety of users, the key difference you
seem oblivious to. No one who only uses PCs is going to write a
successful Mac virus, you idiot.

>Viruses were widespread during this time, although they weren't much of a
>problem.

Wait, widespread *and* not a problem? ROTFLMAO

>Contrast this with the expensive, difficult to use, difficult to maintain,
>and constantly interfering anti-virus software for the PC today.

Yeah, truly. My home system has never had anti-virus software and my
work system is updated over the network without my involvement. Truly
a fucking nightmare to deal with.

>Now skip forward to 1991. System 7 comes out and Apple did something really

Wait, we were taling about the PC today. Now we're jumping ahead to
1991? Shit, I've entered a time warp!!!

>Imagine an OS upgrade that eliminates the ability of known viruses to
>attack, what a concept!

It's because their design was poor. That's called a security patch,
dipshit, you might have noticed that every other system has them too.

>Now skip forward to OSX. Have you noticed how you need to enter a password
>to do pretty much anything that directly involves changes to your system?
>This is just one thing about OSX that helps provide security. Likewise
>there are things like a built-in firewall and so forth that make the Mac
>much more secure and protected against a variety of attacks.

Yeah, they borrowed some neat ideas from Windows and Unix. Good to
see it. No, wait, I forgot, Apple *invented* passwords! Cool!

>Propagating a Mac specific virus today would be much easier than ever
>before, although creating the virus would be much more difficult.

No it wouldn't, idiot. You don't know anything about computer
viruses. They spread from host to host and therefore must meet up
with a compatible host.

>Virus creators fall into two camps. Most are script-kiddie-like. They
>don't create a virus, they simply alter an existing virus. While these are
>clearly wannabe losers, they do end up causing major havoc and damage. It's

No they don't, most can't even make a virus or worm that runs
properly. You have no idea how many viruses are examined that are
found to be incapable of spreading.

>So think about it...what would be the biggest prize? Attacking Windows and
>being perceived as yet another script kiddie, or being the first person
>*ever* to attack OSX?

Yeah, that will get you respect in hacker circles. "I wrote an OSX
virus!" When the snickering dies down in #V1ruz_L0rDz they'll
probably ask you where you live so they can buy you a drink.

>BTW: I'm not saying that there won't be attacks on OSX. I think it's very

What is your point?

>My own father (a PC tech) once shouted that the behavior of a particular Web
>page was the result of a virus on my sister's Mac... "Uh, dad, did you
>consider that maybe it was just bad HTML?"

So you're dad's a complete moron too? Thanks for confirming.

in article sudjgv0snj0rhcd6aledhb036c2rnjrg62[at]4ax.com, Steve Hanson at
icustomercare[at]usps.com wrote on 7/7/03 11:46 AM:

> keved wrote in <BB2B6246.137D5%kevedAFRAIDOFSPAM[at]pacbell.net>:
>
>> <http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=44258>
>>
>> .16% is a very misleading and exaggerated number. In practical terms the
>> number is 0%.
>>
>> There has never been an OSX virus. Not one, ever.
>>
>> The .16% figure is for viruses not only pre-OSX but pre-OS9.
>>
>> Also, it should be noted that there are security advantages with the Mac OS,
>> both Classic and OSX.
>
> Yeah, Classic was not multiuser--that's a security "advantage" (a
> disadvantage in many other respects of course). But since almost no
> one uses either variant it would be difficult for a virus to spread
> rapidly.

OS9 was/is multi-user, but that's irrelevant. The point is that both have
security advantages which have made a difference. Are you really going to
say that almost no one uses either Mac OS...here?

I'm not arguing the number of Macs to PCs, but rather I'm pointing out that
the fact is there are more Macs in use today, thus easier than ever to
spread a Mac virus.

Yet, there are no Mac viruses being spread these days.


>> There is a widespread false belief that there are fewer Mac viruses that are
>> spread each year because there are fewer Macs than Windows PCs.
>>
>> This is wrong on several levels. The only truth in that is there are fewer
>> Macs than Windows PCs, but even that is misleading.
>>
>> Take a look at the stats for PC sales versus Mac sales, and you'll see a
>> much higher number of PC sales, however take a look at the stats for Macs in
>> use, and you'll see that Macs on average remain in use much longer than PCs.
>
> Well if there's a platform speed stall what else would you expect?
> Macs remain longer in use in part because accounting departments will
> amortize the higher cost over a longer period, in part because it's
> pointless to upgrade when Apple hasn't made any progress. While PCs
> vault ahead year after year, month after month, Macs sit there and
> stagnate and then every three or four years they advance
> significantly, then stall again.

Whatever the reason, Macs remain in use longer. I would agree that part of
the reason was platform speed stall, though in my personal usage I go
through PCs at a rate 2-3X faster than Macs and it has had much more to do
with other reasons.

>> As a result, the number of actual Macs in use compared to PCs is much higher
>> than Mac sales versus PC sales.
>
> Highly speculative. Let's see some hard numbers.

As you agreed above, Macs remain in use longer than PCs. I've seen numerous
reports on this as well. Certainly the ratio of Macs to PCs in use is
higher for Macs than if you look at the ratio of Mac sales to PC sales. How
could you even argue this?

>> Also to consider is that due to their lower cost and ability to be purchased
>> in stripped down configurations, PCs are in use far more in vertical markets
>> than Macs are. (PCs as cash register machines).
>
> Which is irrelevant but thanks for throwing that non sequitur in.

Totally relevant. There are a couple of points here:
1) There are more Macs in use than ever before (especially when there were
Mac viruses)

2) The number of Macs at risk versus PCs at risk is lower obviously, but not
nearly as low as if you just look at the market share numbers.

PCs purchased but used in isolated applications are not at risk for
spreading viruses.

>> How significant is the number of Macs in normal consumer use? Well, take a
>> look at all the major software vendors and see how the overwhelming majority
>> produce for Mac. Take a look at Download.com or VersionTracker and see how
>> many shareware developers are producing for the Mac platform.
>
> Yeah, Adobe produces for the Mac, but guess what? Not Premiere
> anymore. The market is considered too small and unprofitable
> especially with Apple leveraging its platform control to shove its own
> competing tools down everyone's throat (good thing Microsoft never
> does that). Counting companies rather than software products is a
> sign that you know very well how the numbers add up in reality. And
> shareware on the Mac? Give me a break. It's a trickle compared to
> what is done for PCs.

Again, there is obviously more software for Windows, but the point is that
there is an abundant amount of software for the Mac. Wasn't the recent
Apple WWDC attendance a record high, as was the year before, and before, all
the way to 1999? Seems like a growth trend to me.

I won't get into the whole, "How many hundreds of thousands of applications
do you need?" argument, but again the point here is that as compared to when
there were Mac viruses, there are a lot more Mac software developers today.

BTW: I used to use Premiere all the time. I've used Avid and a slew of
other apps, but Final Cut is now my home. It's a shame Premiere couldn't
keep up, but nobody, and I mean nobody is going to say that Final Cut is not
the better product. Sure there are some things I liked about Premiere, but
it was pretty clear that they couldn't keep up with iMovie, Final Cut
Express and Final Cut Pro. I doubt they'll last much longer on Windows,
though there isn't as much competition there.


>> You'll see that the Mac platform is very much alive and well in terms of
>> developers.
>
> Cough

Ok, you're right it's completely dead and growing every year.


>> In fact, you'll see that Macs in general are more alive and well than ever
>> before.
>
> Yeah, just because they lost 80% of their marketshare in the last 10
> years is no reason to think the platform isn't thriving. Boy, you're
> smart.


They didn't lose 80% of the market, just of their already smaller
share...again, compared to when there were Mac viruses...but again, it's not
about market share. It's about Macs in use, Macs in risk use, and
developers for the Mac platform. These numbers are much higher than 10
years ago.

I won't go into the whole, "Apple is profitable during this recession"
argument, but regardless of the well being of Apple or its likely-hood to
survive, the Mac community (users, developers, etc...) is much bigger than
it was back when there were viruses (again it doesn't matter if Windows has
grown even more).

>> This isn't an argument to say Macs are just as popular as PCs or any such
>> silly thing, but only that Macs in use have far surpassed the critical mass
>> necessary for software developers to write applications for the platform.
>> If it's financially worth creating Photoshop, Microsoft Office, or any of
>> the Mac only applications, certainly it would be worth developing a virus
>> for the platform.
>
> Why? One has no relationship to the other since viruses aren't
> created for financial reasons, blockhead.

Obviously not, but if it's worth the $$$ to sell software to X users, then
it's worth the recognition to spread a virus to X users. There's a bonus
for OSX in that the first virus would be reported like crazy by the media.

It would make for a killer story with tons of traffic. It's exactly the
type of prize a virus creator wants.

> And would the virus spread?
> An email binary for example is only going to run on the OS it was
> designed to, so if you send it out to 5000 people but only 100 of them
> use Macs and only a further subset are clueless enough to launch it,
> it's not going to propagate very quickly. In fact most PC viruses
> written have no ability to spread into the wild due to programmer
> error.

Mac users would be much more likely to launch it because they don't see
attachments as a risk.

In 1989 you could send a virus out to 100,000 email addresses and get maybe
10,000 Mac users - most who have virus protection. Today you could send out
to 10 Million email addresses and get 100,000 Mac users who don't have virus
protection or any sense of fear of attachments.

Furthermore, it's really easy to build a database of Mac users just by going
to any usenet group or Website that has forums/chat. I've even seen email
databases that breakdown by platform. It wouldn't be too hard to get a
really large Mac user database to seed the virus via spam and have it
propagate out from there.

>> The assertion of there being fewer viruses on the Mac because there are
>> fewer Macs also fails because there are NO viruses released on the Mac.
>> There hasn't been a single outbreak of a Mac virus in several years. It's
>> been about a decade since the last wide-spread Mac virus.
>
> It's unlikely that anyone even attempts to write viruses for the Mac,
> or that the attempts work, for reasons already clear. It's a moribund
> platform uninteresting to hacker types, who mainly write exploits for
> systems they know. The Mac attracts a distinctly nontechnical and
> marketing-influenced user base. I'm surprised they can even get their
> computers to do any work, let alone hack the system.


Unix



>> Go back to around 1989. Go to any Macintosh lab and find one of two
>> scenarios... Either all the Macs are running Disinfectant, Virex or
>> Symantec/Norton, or all the Macs have a plethora of viruses.
>>
>> Now keep in mind, there were fewer Macs in use back then, and only a small
>> percentage were connecting to the Internet.
>
> Now keep in mind that they had much larger marketshare back then and
> therefore attracted a greater variety of users, the key difference you
> seem oblivious to. No one who only uses PCs is going to write a
> successful Mac virus, you idiot.

They had a larger market share but not much larger. There are more users
today, and more programmers today. Macs are more connected and are running
with less anti-virus software.

>> Viruses were widespread during this time, although they weren't much of a
>> problem.
>
> Wait, widespread *and* not a problem? ROTFLMAO

Yes.

Take a look at the viruses back then. They spread like crazy, but the
overwhelming majority did nothing or did very little. You were much less
likely to be infected by a virus that would cause data loss or do something
like send those stupid emails that keep clogging my mailbox.

Furthermore, the viruses were mostly very easy to remove. Usually hold down
command option on startup. Some perhaps just delete some pref files. There
was never a Mac virus that couldn't be eliminated by a simple method like
this or in an extreme case using something like Disinfectant which was a
free and simple download.

So yes, widespread, and yes, not a problem.

>
>> Contrast this with the expensive, difficult to use, difficult to maintain,
>> and constantly interfering anti-virus software for the PC today.
>
> Yeah, truly. My home system has never had anti-virus software and my
> work system is updated over the network without my involvement. Truly
> a fucking nightmare to deal with.

Ok, there are no PC viruses...nope, no viruses there...no need for
anti-virus software at all for the PC, but if you do feel like running
something like Norton, then don't worry, it's free and no work whatsoever!

R-i-g-h-t!

My mailboxes have over 20 infected emails so far today.

>
>> Now skip forward to 1991. System 7 comes out and Apple did something really
>
> Wait, we were taling about the PC today. Now we're jumping ahead to
> 1991? Shit, I've entered a time warp!!!


I was talking previously about the virus situation in 1989, and then I said
to skip forward to 1991. Sorry, I thought people here would have the
reading retention greater than that of a monkey.

>> Imagine an OS upgrade that eliminates the ability of known viruses to
>> attack, what a concept!
>
> It's because their design was poor. That's called a security patch,
> dipshit, you might have noticed that every other system has them too.

I love it when my Windows XP machine automatically installs virus
protection. I'm so glad that Microsoft includes this in their software.
Remember way back when...when Microsoft would release OS upgrades worth the
$100+ because you knew that you wouldn't have a virus...oh wait, that was
fantasy world.

Microsoft releases security patches...so does Apple. There's a gapping hole
in .NET that's larger than your ass that Microsoft has yet to fix in the
past 2 years. Oh well.

The point here is that Apple released upgrades to their OS that eliminated
known virus threats as well as the ability for viruses to attack the same
way. Microsoft has not.

"Their design was poor" is a lame argument. The viruses took advantage of
what was possible to do on the Mac OS back in 1989, but was not possible
later because of changes Apple made in the OS.

Why can't Microsoft do the same?


> Yeah, they borrowed some neat ideas from Windows and Unix. Good to
> see it. No, wait, I forgot, Apple *invented* passwords! Cool!

Whatever...it seems to be working on the Mac and not on Windows.


>> Propagating a Mac specific virus today would be much easier than ever
>> before, although creating the virus would be much more difficult.
>
> No it wouldn't, idiot. You don't know anything about computer
> viruses. They spread from host to host and therefore must meet up
> with a compatible host.

Really, who would've thunk?

As I think I've stated repeatedly, the point is that with more Macs in use
and better connected, it would be much easier to spread from host to host.

Market share is totally not a factor at all. Does a virus look at sales
figures before deciding to infect a host?

What is important is how easy it is to meet up with a compatible host and
how many of those hosts are in use. There are no negative points give when
a virus comes across an incompatible host. It's not like as if a virus goes
hopping along from Mac to Mac and then if it hits a Windows machine it will
return backwards deleting itself from the Macs it previously infected.

Think of it this way, if a Mac virus could be created and sent via email and
then propagated via email, it could spread very rapidly because Mac users
don't have much reason not to open the attachment, and the email PC users
receive could say something like "Funny joke, but requires a Mac" and PC
users would forward it to Mac users. Don't say they won't, have you seen
the stupid emails that do propagate viruses?


>> Virus creators fall into two camps. Most are script-kiddie-like. They
>> don't create a virus, they simply alter an existing virus. While these are
>> clearly wannabe losers, they do end up causing major havoc and damage. It's
>
> No they don't, most can't even make a virus or worm that runs
> properly. You have no idea how many viruses are examined that are
> found to be incapable of spreading.

Newsflash, if a virus doesn't spread, and is incapable of spreading, then it
isn't a virus now is it? If you're a virus creator who can't create a
virus, then you're not really a virus creator now are you?

>> So think about it...what would be the biggest prize? Attacking Windows and
>> being perceived as yet another script kiddie, or being the first person
>> *ever* to attack OSX?
>
> Yeah, that will get you respect in hacker circles. "I wrote an OSX
> virus!" When the snickering dies down in #V1ruz_L0rDz they'll
> probably ask you where you live so they can buy you a drink.

The story would be a huge traffic boost for AOL, CNET, ZDNet, etc... Anyone
wanting headlines, this would be the best way. Assuming that it's just as
easy to create a Mac virus as a Windows virus...which my whole point is that
it's not.

>> BTW: I'm not saying that there won't be attacks on OSX. I think it's very
>
> What is your point?

That it's a myth that the lack of Mac viruses is the result of decreased
market share as opposed to active steps Apple took to prevent infections to
its OSs.

keved <kevedAFRAIDOFSPAM[at]pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<BB2F4D9F.13DCA%kevedAFRAIDOFSPAM[at]pacbell.net>...
>
> The number of Macs in use is much greater today than it was in 1990. Units
> in use would have a much greater impact on viruses than percentage of sales
> figures.

I agree. Indeed to take the point further...

Nobody cares; they can't be bothered to write the code, the perceived
Mac market share doesn't make it worth it. The perception is that
there are not many Mac's compared to M$.

There are many "secure" operating systems, how many Novell Netware or
IBM OS/2 attacks do you hear of compared to M$? Is Netware secure? Or
is it nobody can be bothered to attack it?

IMHO a virus coder will go for high profile operating systems; they
want to be in the news. Quite frankly, writing a virus for a Mac is a
none event to that type of person.

A long time stumbling block to script kiddies is Mac=expensive. They
don't have the funds to get both a Mac and a M$ system. For example,
attacks on Linux are increasing due to it being free, it runs on the
same hardware as M$ and is becoming a high profile "secure" (LOL)
operating system.

Mac operating systems are not free and do not run on M$ systems.
Script kiddies simply cannot afford to get their hands on the hardware
to play with it and understand it fully. Why should they bother? A
M$ or Linux virus would impress their friends, not a Mac one.

As suggested, a major factor in the security of an operating system is
how popular it is and how much credit the sad idiots who write a virus
will get. Does anybody believe that if M$ had 2% market share there
would be so many attacks on it?

Just to toss in a grenade here.... Why should coders write a virus for
an operating system that Adobe and M$ can't be bothered to write
applications for? ;) How long is it before Apple cuts its wrists and
decides to squeeze Adobe out of publishing and images like they have
with video...?

Ed.

keved wrote in <BB2F3C7E.13D9F%kevedAFRAIDOFSPAM[at]pacbell.net>:

>
>in article sudjgv0snj0rhcd6aledhb036c2rnjrg62[at]4ax.com, Steve Hanson at
>icustomercare[at]usps.com wrote on 7/7/03 11:46 AM:
>
>> keved wrote in <BB2B6246.137D5%kevedAFRAIDOFSPAM[at]pacbell.net>:
>>
>>> <http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=44258>
>>>
>>> .16% is a very misleading and exaggerated number. In practical terms the
>>> number is 0%.
>>>
>>> There has never been an OSX virus. Not one, ever.
>>>
>>> The .16% figure is for viruses not only pre-OSX but pre-OS9.
>>>
>>> Also, it should be noted that there are security advantages with the Mac OS,
>>> both Classic and OSX.
>>
>> Yeah, Classic was not multiuser--that's a security "advantage" (a
>> disadvantage in many other respects of course). But since almost no
>> one uses either variant it would be difficult for a virus to spread
>> rapidly.
>
>OS9 was/is multi-user, but that's irrelevant.

If you think so, you know NOTHING about multi-user. I'm NOT talking
about login profiles.

> The point is that both have
>security advantages which have made a difference. Are you really going to
>say that almost no one uses either Mac OS...here?

Yes, I'll say it here. Macs have only 2% marketshare. This will
seriously retard the spread of viruses/virii/vir-what-the-fuck-ever
because they'll seldom be talking to other Macs, via email, services,
or whatever means. It's rather simple, really, why don't you take a
half hour out of your day to understand it.

>I'm not arguing the number of Macs to PCs, but rather I'm pointing out that
>the fact is there are more Macs in use today, thus easier than ever to
>spread a Mac virus.
>
>Yet, there are no Mac viruses being spread these days.

Raw numbers aren't meaningful when discussing network effects. The
fact that there is a smaller proportion of Macs in use is highly
significant. Come on, turn that crank, get that brain working.

>>> There is a widespread false belief that there are fewer Mac viruses that are
>>> spread each year because there are fewer Macs than Windows PCs.
>>>
>>> This is wrong on several levels. The only truth in that is there are fewer
>>> Macs than Windows PCs, but even that is misleading.
>>>
>>> Take a look at the stats for PC sales versus Mac sales, and you'll see a
>>> much higher number of PC sales, however take a look at the stats for Macs in
>>> use, and you'll see that Macs on average remain in use much longer than PCs.
>>
>> Well if there's a platform speed stall what else would you expect?
>> Macs remain longer in use in part because accounting departments will
>> amortize the higher cost over a longer period, in part because it's
>> pointless to upgrade when Apple hasn't made any progress. While PCs
>> vault ahead year after year, month after month, Macs sit there and
>> stagnate and then every three or four years they advance
>> significantly, then stall again.
>
>Whatever the reason, Macs remain in use longer. I would agree that part of
>the reason was platform speed stall, though in my personal usage I go
>through PCs at a rate 2-3X faster than Macs and it has had much more to do
>with other reasons.

Who cares what your reasons are. PCs are cheaper and the technology
advances more rapidly. Plus you don't see this pathetic embargo on
information in fear of hurting sales. That's real competition in
action, rather than some little cottage industry cannibalizing its
market, or maybe strip mining is a better metaphor.

>>> As a result, the number of actual Macs in use compared to PCs is much higher
>>> than Mac sales versus PC sales.
>>
>> Highly speculative. Let's see some hard numbers.
>
>As you agreed above, Macs remain in use longer than PCs. I've seen numerous
>reports on this as well. Certainly the ratio of Macs to PCs in use is
>higher for Macs than if you look at the ratio of Mac sales to PC sales. How
>could you even argue this?

Where are those numbers? First of all you really need to write more
clearly. Saying "the number of actual Macs in use" when you really
mean "proportion" is going to confuse any discussion. But I want
numbers before debating this further, as I'm tired of Mac users
circulating urban myths amongst themselves and expecting everyone else
to believe them. Mac users like to tell themselves all kinds of
things and they do it so often that they end up with an inbred thought
process, where they believe it because so many other Mac users believe
it--zealotry feeding off itself. This is probably how all religions
get their start.

>>> Also to consider is that due to their lower cost and ability to be purchased
>>> in stripped down configurations, PCs are in use far more in vertical markets
>>> than Macs are. (PCs as cash register machines).
>>
>> Which is irrelevant but thanks for throwing that non sequitur in.
>
>Totally relevant. There are a couple of points here:
>1) There are more Macs in use than ever before (especially when there were
>Mac viruses)
>
>2) The number of Macs at risk versus PCs at risk is lower obviously, but not
>nearly as low as if you just look at the market share numbers.
>
>PCs purchased but used in isolated applications are not at risk for
>spreading viruses.

They typically also aren't counted as PCs because most are special
equipment items. You just seem to be trying to make a few
generalizations and using them to support conclusions you don't have
the facts for. Basically you think you are arguing that there are
more Macs in use now so you want to suppress the population of PCs in
use. This is a stupid argument and leads nowhere because you don't
understand that what matters is not absolute numbers but
marketshare--that's what network effects start from. Nevertheless if
you insist on making this stupid argument I don't see why I should let
you get away with WAG assumptions about PC and Mac usage. Back it up
or admit you're just guesstimating and could be way off base.

>>> How significant is the number of Macs in normal consumer use? Well, take a
>>> look at all the major software vendors and see how the overwhelming majority
>>> produce for Mac. Take a look at Download.com or VersionTracker and see how
>>> many shareware developers are producing for the Mac platform.
>>
>> Yeah, Adobe produces for the Mac, but guess what? Not Premiere
>> anymore. The market is considered too small and unprofitable
>> especially with Apple leveraging its platform control to shove its own
>> competing tools down everyone's throat (good thing Microsoft never
>> does that). Counting companies rather than software products is a
>> sign that you know very well how the numbers add up in reality. And
>> shareware on the Mac? Give me a break. It's a trickle compared to
>> what is done for PCs.
>
>Again, there is obviously more software for Windows, but the point is that
>there is an abundant amount of software for the Mac. Wasn't the recent
>Apple WWDC attendance a record high, as was the year before, and before, all
>the way to 1999? Seems like a growth trend to me.

You're willing to use any figure for application growth other than the
growth of applications. So now WWDC attendance is your proxy for a
healthy application market. Come on, I'm trying to take you
seriously. Why is Adobe not developing Premiere for the Mac? Yeah,
sounds like an abundance alright. Just can't get those developers any
more excited than Microsoft saying "hurry up and sell more OS X or
we're dropping Office" and Adobe saying "it's not worth it to compete
in a divided Apple market".

>I won't get into the whole, "How many hundreds of thousands of applications
>do you need?" argument, but again the point here is that as compared to when
>there were Mac viruses, there are a lot more Mac software developers today.

A lot more? You talk like someone who knows how many. Numbers. Put
up or shut up.

>>> You'll see that the Mac platform is very much alive and well in terms of
>>> developers.
>>
>> Cough
>
>Ok, you're right it's completely dead and growing every year.

We're talking about reality, not your imagination. In what sense does
declining marketshare and declining app development equate to "very
much alive and well"? You're just another garden variety True
Believer.

>>> In fact, you'll see that Macs in general are more alive and well than ever
>>> before.
>>
>> Yeah, just because they lost 80% of their marketshare in the last 10
>> years is no reason to think the platform isn't thriving. Boy, you're
>> smart.
>
>
>They didn't lose 80% of the market, just of their already smaller
>share...

I don't believe you just wrote that. Well that's good news then. "We
didn't lose most of the market, just most of our share in the market."
And you say that as if you think the latter is BETTER.

No one ever accused you of having a head for business I'll wager.

>>> This isn't an argument to say Macs are just as popular as PCs or any such
>>> silly thing, but only that Macs in use have far surpassed the critical mass
>>> necessary for software developers to write applications for the platform.
>>> If it's financially worth creating Photoshop, Microsoft Office, or any of
>>> the Mac only applications, certainly it would be worth developing a virus
>>> for the platform.
>>
>> Why? One has no relationship to the other since viruses aren't
>> created for financial reasons, blockhead.
>
>Obviously not, but if it's worth the $$$ to sell software to X users, then
>it's worth the recognition to spread a virus to X users. There's a bonus
>for OSX in that the first virus would be reported like crazy by the media.

You're delusional. I can't think of a single major media outlet that
would give one (1) fuck if a Mac virus came out. Maybe The Register
would run some cheeky piece.

Also, you've failed in your attempt to brush away the fact that
financial health of the platform has absolutely nothing to do with the
desire to spread a virus. Some small platforms have been very
successful (or at least profitable) but when was the last time you ran
into a virus on an AS/400? None of this is sinking in, is it? The
virus writers need to be familiar with (i.e. users of) the platform,
there needs to be a large share of the market for network effect to
help propogate, these have nothing to do with whether or not someone
can make money selling shareware for Macs.

>It would make for a killer story with tons of traffic. It's exactly the
>type of prize a virus creator wants.

Stop talking nonsense. No one outside of Mac users would give a fuck
and the typical virus writer wannabe probably thinks as much about
Macs as Americans think about Canada. You have no concept of what
motivates script kiddies or the virus writer energumens. Most just
want to cause disruption. And just how do you think someone is going
to write a Mac virus if he doesn't own a Mac?

You know nothing about computers, viruses, operating systems...every
time you branch off into a new topic you show us how little you know.
What is your aim here?

>> And would the virus spread?
>> An email binary for example is only going to run on the OS it was
>> designed to, so if you send it out to 5000 people but only 100 of them
>> use Macs and only a further subset are clueless enough to launch it,
>> it's not going to propagate very quickly. In fact most PC viruses
>> written have no ability to spread into the wild due to programmer
>> error.
>
>Mac users would be much more likely to launch it because they don't see
>attachments as a risk.

Listen, kid. This isn't interesting. Every time I bring up some
question you answer it like a robot. There's no reason AT ALL to
believe that a higher percentage of Mac users launch email
attachments. You can't and won't back it up. You'll just go on
repeating it as if everything supportive of your thesis MUST be true.

It's circular reasoning and its sloppy. I could spend the rest of my
life watching you squirm but it sounds boring. So. Stop. Doing.
It.

>In 1989 you could send a virus out to 100,000 email addresses and get maybe
>10,000 Mac users - most who have virus protection. Today you could send out
>to 10 Million email addresses and get 100,000 Mac users who don't have virus
>protection or any sense of fear of attachments.

No, when I ask for numbers I'm afraid I meant something other than
made up hypothetical numbers. Viruses don't spread like spam YOU
KNOTHEAD, the vector is the host system they infect. Not just one guy
sending out his bulk virus, which if it didn't hit a significant
number of compatible systems would go nowhere. WHY OH WHY OH WHY CAN
YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE POINT?!?

>>> The assertion of there being fewer viruses on the Mac because there are
>>> fewer Macs also fails because there are NO viruses released on the Mac.
>>> There hasn't been a single outbreak of a Mac virus in several years. It's
>>> been about a decade since the last wide-spread Mac virus.
>>
>> It's unlikely that anyone even attempts to write viruses for the Mac,
>> or that the attempts work, for reasons already clear. It's a moribund
>> platform uninteresting to hacker types, who mainly write exploits for
>> systems they know. The Mac attracts a distinctly nontechnical and
>> marketing-influenced user base. I'm surprised they can even get their
>> computers to do any work, let alone hack the system.
>
>
>Unix

Did you just like typing that word or what? Care to explain or should
I even ask at this point? If you have a point it's ambiguous. OS X's
BSD underpinnings have nothing to do with the fact that Macs attract
nontechnical users and that writing a virus would require a fair
amount of knowledge about how to best exploit OS X. Unix demostrates
that even with a highly technical base, the lack of network effect
makes viruses much less common. There are probably as many people
using Unix variants as Macs. Most of the same arguments apply.

>>> Go back to around 1989. Go to any Macintosh lab and find one of two
>>> scenarios... Either all the Macs are running Disinfectant, Virex or
>>> Symantec/Norton, or all the Macs have a plethora of viruses.
>>>
>>> Now keep in mind, there were fewer Macs in use back then, and only a small
>>> percentage were connecting to the Internet.
>>
>> Now keep in mind that they had much larger marketshare back then and
>> therefore attracted a greater variety of users, the key difference you
>> seem oblivious to. No one who only uses PCs is going to write a
>> successful Mac virus, you idiot.
>
>They had a larger market share but not much larger. There are more users
>today, and more programmers today. Macs are more connected and are running
>with less anti-virus software.
>
>>> Viruses were widespread during this time, although they weren't much of a
>>> problem.
>>
>> Wait, widespread *and* not a problem? ROTFLMAO
>
>Yes.
>
>Take a look at the viruses back then. They spread like crazy,

They spread rather slowly "back then" if you mean back when Macs still
had 10% of the market. Mostly at businesses where you could count on
people sharing floppies (Form was far and away the most prevalent
virus infection). The first Word virus, which came out after
Microsoft already had some huge monopolistic percentage of the office
suite market, showed that the next wave was viruses not written as
infectors of apps bur rather as infectors of scripted docs. Even this
virus was relatively slow to spread compared to today. In the advent
of email viruses we now seem them spread dramatically in one day.

You are so far off base here it isn't funny. It's fair to say you're
the opposite of correct.

> but the
>overwhelming majority did nothing or did very little. You were much less
>likely to be infected by a virus that would cause data loss or do something
>like send those stupid emails that keep clogging my mailbox.

Most viruses of any type are relatively harmless. It has no relevance
to this discussion. If you could stay on point for a microsecond this
might not be such a grueling (and exasperating) exercise.

>Furthermore, the viruses were mostly very easy to remove. Usually hold down
>command option on startup. Some perhaps just delete some pref files. There
>was never a Mac virus that couldn't be eliminated by a simple method like
>this or in an extreme case using something like Disinfectant which was a
>free and simple download.
>
>So yes, widespread,

No, you failed to support that, in fact the opposite is true from a
general computing perspective.

>and yes, not a problem.

Depends on the virus and what it did and whether or not you thought it
was a nuisance that it was stealing computing resources. Most viruses
are "not a problem" from the point of view of "do they irreparably
harm my computer system". Again you are blabbing without having any
point. Do you get paid by the word or something?

>>> Contrast this with the expensive, difficult to use, difficult to maintain,
>>> and constantly interfering anti-virus software for the PC today.
>>
>> Yeah, truly. My home system has never had anti-virus software and my
>> work system is updated over the network without my involvement. Truly
>> a fucking nightmare to deal with.
>
>Ok, there are no PC viruses...nope, no viruses there...no need for
>anti-virus software at all for the PC, but if you do feel like running
>something like Norton, then don't worry, it's free and no work whatsoever!
>
>R-i-g-h-t!

You know what *doesn't* go well with being stupid and ignorant? Being
a smart-ass. Using common sense the risk of viral infection has
always been low. If you don't mindlessly run foreign programs or root
about in high risk areas (cracker & warez sites) or boot off floppies
all the time you are as safe as a kitten. The A/V industry says
otherwise, but they would, wouldn't they? It's in their interest to
make people panic rather than educate them. They are selling the
equivalent of computer fallout shelters.

I do not advocate that people buy A/V software for their home systems
unless they are simply too retarded to use their computers properly.
Then I would, but let's face it, it's the equivalent of training
wheels. (Companies should though because they have real resources at
risk and internal networks which can speed the rate of infection
dramatically.)

>My mailboxes have over 20 infected emails so far today.

Good for you, so you're clueless enough to be heavily spammed. Do you
really download 20 infected email attachments every day? You must be
on some kind of moron mailing list. I think I got an email virus once
about three years ago. So let's just say I find you a bit hard to
believe.

>>> Now skip forward to 1991. System 7 comes out and Apple did something really
>>
>> Wait, we were taling about the PC today. Now we're jumping ahead to
>> 1991? Shit, I've entered a time warp!!!
>
>
>I was talking previously about the virus situation in 1989, and then I said
>to skip forward to 1991. Sorry, I thought people here would have the
>reading retention greater than that of a monkey.

It would help if you had the writing skills superior to that of a
monkey.

>>> Imagine an OS upgrade that eliminates the ability of known viruses to
>>> attack, what a concept!
>>
>> It's because their design was poor. That's called a security patch,
>> dipshit, you might have noticed that every other system has them too.
>
>I love it when my Windows XP machine automatically installs virus
>protection. I'm so glad that Microsoft includes this in their software.
>Remember way back when...when Microsoft would release OS upgrades worth the
>$100+ because you knew that you wouldn't have a virus...oh wait, that was
>fantasy world.
>
>Microsoft releases security patches...so does Apple. There's a gapping hole
>in .NET that's larger than your ass that Microsoft has yet to fix in the
>past 2 years. Oh well.

..NET isn't even two years old, is it? What's the gaping hole? You're
always long on vague, unproveable statements and short on anything I
should waste my time reading.

>The point here is that Apple released upgrades to their OS that eliminated
>known virus threats as well as the ability for viruses to attack the same
>way. Microsoft has not.

Yes, they have. They've patched Outlook and other programs, and the
newer versions of Word now disable the autostart mechanisms that
allowed viruses to spread through Word docs.

As dumb as you are you should try getting your facts straight.

>"Their design was poor" is a lame argument. The viruses took advantage of
>what was possible to do on the Mac OS back in 1989, but was not possible
>later because of changes Apple made in the OS.

Their design was poor. In fact it was lame. What's worse, a lame
argument or a lame operating system?

>Why can't Microsoft do the same?

They have. Stop jerking off to your Mac for a moment.

>> Yeah, they borrowed some neat ideas from Windows and Unix. Good to
>> see it. No, wait, I forgot, Apple *invented* passwords! Cool!
>
>Whatever...it seems to be working on the Mac and not on Windows.

What seems to be working? Not your brain. Windows has had ACL
permissions long before Jobs even dreamt of implementing them on the
Mac, and they work just fine. Is this another case of you steering
off into a side discussion because you can't hack it in the main
thread?

>>> Propagating a Mac specific virus today would be much easier than ever
>>> before, although creating the virus would be much more difficult.
>>
>> No it wouldn't, idiot. You don't know anything about computer
>> viruses. They spread from host to host and therefore must meet up
>> with a compatible host.
>
>Really, who would've thunk?
>
>As I think I've stated repeatedly, the point is that with more Macs in use
>and better connected, it would be much easier to spread from host to host.

Not if a greater percentage of the hosts they see are incompatible
systems, idiot.

>Market share is totally not a factor at all. Does a virus look at sales
>figures before deciding to infect a host?

Hopeless.

>What is important is how easy it is to meet up with a compatible host and

How easy is that when there used to be 10% of them and now only 2%? I
know you're not good with numbers, but reflect on that for just a day
or two.

>receive could say something like "Funny joke, but requires a Mac" and PC
>users would forward it to Mac users. Don't say they won't, have you seen
>the stupid emails that do propagate viruses?

First of all the PC user would have to know a Mac user to send it to,
and odds are he doesn't.

>> No they don't, most can't even make a virus or worm that runs
>> properly. You have no idea how many viruses are examined that are
>> found to be incapable of spreading.
>
>Newsflash, if a virus doesn't spread, and is incapable of spreading, then it
>isn't a virus now is it? If you're a virus creator who can't create a
>virus, then you're not really a virus creator now are you?

I weep for the future.

>> Yeah, that will get you respect in hacker circles. "I wrote an OSX
>> virus!" When the snickering dies down in #V1ruz_L0rDz they'll
>> probably ask you where you live so they can buy you a drink.
>
>The story would be a huge traffic boost for AOL, CNET, ZDNet, etc... Anyone

No, it wouldn't. Why would anyone care?

>wanting headlines, this would be the best way. Assuming that it's just as
>easy to create a Mac virus as a Windows virus...which my whole point is that
>it's not.

It most certainly isn't easy to create such a virus, because the small
percentage of Macs susceptible to it would prevent effective
propagation.

>> What is your point?
>
>That it's a myth that the lack of Mac viruses is the result of decreased
>market share as opposed to active steps Apple took to prevent infections to
>its OSs.

Well you haven't come near to proving it.

Eddie Wood <eddie_wood[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>Just to toss in a grenade here.... Why should coders write a virus for
>an operating system that Adobe and M$ can't be bothered to write
>applications for? ;)

Oh, you must be referring to Linux... :)

-- Erick

Eddie Wood wrote in <bffc2c02.0307080141.34399e65[at]posting.google.com>:

>keved <kevedAFRAIDOFSPAM[at]pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<BB2F4D9F.13DCA%kevedAFRAIDOFSPAM[at]pacbell.net>...
>>
>> The number of Macs in use is much greater today than it was in 1990. Units
>> in use would have a much greater impact on viruses than percentage of sales
>> figures.
>
>I agree. Indeed to take the point further...
>
>Nobody cares; they can't be bothered to write the code, the perceived
>Mac market share doesn't make it worth it. The perception is that
>there are not many Mac's compared to M$.
>
>There are many "secure" operating systems, how many Novell Netware or
>IBM OS/2 attacks do you hear of compared to M$? Is Netware secure? Or
>is it nobody can be bothered to attack it?

There were a tiny few, and Netware was most certainly not secure, but
you'd have to write NLMs and this just never caught on. No one who
had the skill to do this would be interested--better to hack a
backdoor into the system if you're going to go the malware route.
Virus writers can't even hack assembly these days, they just write
script or high level viruses. Well back in MY day...

>Just to toss in a grenade here.... Why should coders write a virus for
>an operating system that Adobe and M$ can't be bothered to write
>applications for? ;) How long is it before Apple cuts its wrists and
>decides to squeeze Adobe out of publishing and images like they have
>with video...?

Jobs is egomaniac enough to try it, too.