Windows 7 or vista..?

[Jaymz9350]

Anyway, I would definitely say 7 is a nice improvement over Vista. I think Vista is fine but 7 improves upon it and is ready to be released since the beta and RC were both great and Microsoft has worked out most of the bugs.

I agree that 7 definitely improves upon Vista especially on lower spec machines. But for me it wouldn't be worth the upgrade from vista as I don't really have any issues or performance problems in vista. but that said I would without a doubt go 7 on anything new.

 

[willied]

I agree that 7 definitely improves upon Vista especially on lower spec machines. But for me it wouldn't be worth the upgrade from vista as I don't really have any issues or performance problems in vista. but that said I would without a doubt go 7 on anything new.

I wouldn't upgrade either, but luckily I bought a laptop with a free upgrade to 7 once it came out, but I don't have it yet.

 

[Nhaz]

Since I am old enough to remember and use DOS 2.1 in early xt's. And pretty much everything Microsoft has come out with as a OS. From these experiences I have learned Not to upgrade Any OS Ever if it already works. When I am finally forced to upgrade usually due to a hardware upgrade I aim for the OS that's been around long enough to prove to me that its a viable OS.

For me this is currently windows xp profession x64 edition. In my eyes even though Microsoft has gone through over a year of streamlining vista into windows 7. I still will not use it until its actually been released for at least a year and gone through the first two service patches.

Heck I still have dos games that work =>

 

[brandonwh64]

i have a NEW NEVER BEEN USED copy of Windows 7 Home Premium for sale for 50$ if anyone is interested

 

[CJREX]

One of the main reasons Windows has more virus's and attacks than OSX/Linux is more user base. why write a virus to attack a small percentage of users when you can go for the majority? I'm sure if it was worth it to people they could write more attacks for systems other than Windows, it's just not worth the hassle.

Exactly. I hate it when people say Macs don't get viruses, while they certainly can, it's just that less people make viruses for them since so few people use them compared to computers running Windows.

Sorry, the "not enough out there" argument doesn't fly. There are millions more sold every month.

Since most viruses are written merely to cause mayhem, and not for $$$ gain, why would any virus writer bent on destruction want to attack those smug, cocky, virus free Mac users? sarcasm. Virus writers are like thieves. They go for what's easy.

The hacker who wrote the virus that caused widespread havoc in the Mac world would be a deity to other hackers.

And yes, Macs can be hacked. They are simply a machine. But they are more difficult to hack because of Unix underpinnings. Since the root account is disabled by default and it takes a particular order of steps to enable it, the widespread self-replicating viruses that attack Windows machines have yet to materialize in the wild.

As far as not worth the hassle, if they are out for money the Mac base is where that's at.

The Mac vs PC argument will never end, but this line of reasoning doesn't work anymore.

 

[fastpakr]

Yep, while the user base is a small factor, the underlying security architecture makes it much more difficult for virii/trojans/malware to do anything terribly interesting on Linux/Unix relatex systems.

 

[Doom's Day Custom]

Thats why th government is switching system to something other than windows because of the problems and some many update you have to do with windows!!!

 

[Jaymz9350]

Sorry, the "not enough out there" argument doesn't fly. There are millions more sold every month.

Since most viruses are written merely to cause mayhem, and not for $$$ gain, why would any virus writer bent on destruction want to attack those smug, cocky, virus free Mac users? sarcasm. Virus writers are like thieves. They go for what's easy.

The hacker who wrote the virus that caused widespread havoc in the Mac world would be a deity to other hackers.

And yes, Macs can be hacked. They are simply a machine. But they are more difficult to hack because of Unix underpinnings. Since the root account is disabled by default and it takes a particular order of steps to enable it, the widespread self-replicating viruses that attack Windows machines have yet to materialize in the wild.

As far as not worth the hassle, if they are out for money the Mac base is where that's at.

The Mac vs PC argument will never end, but this line of reasoning doesn't work anymore.

I do still have to disagree to some extent. I didn't say there weren't alot of macs, but they are still a small percentage of computers available (as best I can find less than 10% and I don't think that counts self built pc's which you can't self build a mac) take out some for the linux crowd and while yes that may be millions of users it is still a small percentage of users.

And Yes it is true that mac's and linux os's are more secure in general than Windows but as you even pointed out they are not immune.

 

[CJREX]

No one ever said that they were immune. What was said was that the reason there are no viruses is because there weren't enough out there which is untrue.

And the Mac base is generally more affluent and therefore a richer target for potential thieves. That much of the Mac base believe they are living behind an impenetrable wall is gravy. Most Mac users don't even have the firewall adjusted.

If a virus writer came up with something that could cause widespread damage in the Mac world it would be front page news. With Windows, it is just another day.

The likely MAIN reason there are no viruses for the Mac is because of the required skill.

Most Windows viruses are written by "Script Kiddies", people who use already written code and just attach some more stuff to it to make it malicious.

To write a virus for the Mac requires skill that can be traced to an author who then gets to spend quality time in a cell with Bubba.

 

[CrackerJack]

All comps now are standard with Win7, and if you bought a laptop with Vista since June like, 16th I think, you get a free Win7 upgrade. Highly recommend it.

 

[Tony Raine]

hmm, just found out I can get a free upgrade to 7 through my work.

But I haven't had any problems with Vista, so its a toss-up.

 

[Tommy]

No one ever said that they were immune. What was said was that the reason there are no viruses is because there weren't enough out there which is untrue.

And the Mac base is generally more affluent and therefore a richer target for potential thieves. That much of the Mac base believe they are living behind an impenetrable wall is gravy. Most Mac users don't even have the firewall adjusted.

If a virus writer came up with something that could cause widespread damage in the Mac world it would be front page news. With Windows, it is just another day.

The likely MAIN reason there are no viruses for the Mac is because of the required skill.

Most Windows viruses are written by "Script Kiddies", people who use already written code and just attach some more stuff to it to make it malicious.

To write a virus for the Mac requires skill that can be traced to an author who then gets to spend quality time in a cell with Bubba.

I disagree with you're original idea that Mac users are richer especially when you consider how many young kids own Macs today. However, it doesn't really matter, it's 100% a numbers game. The MAIN reason there are only a few known viruses for the mac is because it's not worth the time. Even if Mac users were richer, it would still be more beneficial to get 100 windows computers versus 1 mac computer.

Most windows viruses are actually written by multi-million dollar organizations, they have the time, expertise and resources to develop new virus variants NUMEROUS times a day; script kiddies do not.

And I have no idea why you believe programming "skill" is something that can be traced down to an individual, especially in this day in age of teenagers from all across the world being talented programmers.

 

[CJREX]

I disagree with you're original idea that Mac users are richer especially when you consider how many young kids own Macs today. However, it doesn't really matter, it's 100% a numbers game. The MAIN reason there are only a few known viruses for the mac is because it's not worth the time. Even if Mac users were richer, it would still be more beneficial to get 100 windows computers versus 1 mac computer.

True, but the ratios are not 100:1. They are more like 10:1

And this quote from CNET

Those who surf the Web using a Mac tend to be better educated and make more money than their PC-using counterparts, according to a report from Nielsen/NetRatings. "With above-average household income and education levels, the Mac population presents a very attractive target for marketers, both online and offline," the research group said.

Most windows viruses are actually written by multi-million dollar organizations, they have the time, expertise and resources to develop new virus variants NUMEROUS times a day; script kiddies do not.

I disagree with this comment, though there are plenty of things from that area as well mainly due to Spammers. And I must confess that I wouldn't be overly surprised to find out that Macafee and Norton may have had a Black Project to help sell their junk.

http://computersight.com/communication-networks/security/who-writes-computer-viruses/

And I have no idea why you believe programming "skill" is something that can be traced down to an individual, especially in this day in age of teenagers from all across the world being talented programmers.

Because whenever something is authored, it reflects the author. And the skill required to do something on the Mac is higher than for Windows. I can't find the news link to a Mac malware author who was caught within 2 weeks due to his writing style. I'll edit and add it when I find it.

 

[Tommy]

True, but the ratios are not 100:1. They are more like 10:1

You're right but even 10:1 is quite a big difference IMHO.

And this quote from CNET

Those who surf the Web using a Mac tend to be better educated and make more money than their PC-using counterparts, according to a report from Nielsen/NetRatings. "With above-average household income and education levels, the Mac population presents a very attractive target for marketers, both online and offline," the research group said.

The Nielsen/NetRatings doesn't say anything about mac users being richer, just that the family as a whole is richer, which I agree with entirely. Macs are more expensive, so the college students who are using Macs probably are not the same college students living off of ramen noodles while swamping themselves in debt. While it does mention higher education levels I would theorize that it is due to the number of recent college graduates who continue to use macs.

I disagree with this comment, though there are plenty of things from that area as well mainly due to Spammers. And I must confess that I wouldn't be overly surprised to find out that Macafee and Norton may have had a Black Project to help sell their junk.

http://computersight.com/communication-networks/security/who-writes-computer-viruses/

Virus creation and distribution has created a multi million (maybe billion) dollar industry, there's simply no way around that. The script kiddies do not have the talent, time, or resources to manufacture and distribute their product the same way professional organizations do. It's like saying an individual holding a weekend garage sale can outproduce Walmart.

Because whenever something is authored, it reflects the author. And the skill required to do something on the Mac is higher than for Windows. I can't find the news link to a Mac malware author who was caught within 2 weeks due to his writing style. I'll edit and add it when I find it.

I'm curious to see this as the only way I can see this being plausible is if the author has previously posted similar code in public and associated their name with it. 99% of the time though this will never happen. It's like as if a random individual creates a painting, the only way you can claim it is a certain individuals painting based upon the painting alone is if you have previously seen this exact persons painting before and see the similarities. The most prominent virus writers are those who make a ton of money doing it, and there is no way they would publicly post their private code (that would be like a company posting their trade secrets), especially in a fashion that can be tied back to their real identity. Instead, what you have are many viruses which are known to be authored by the same organizations, but their exact identity unknown. Part of the reason this holds true is because these activities are either legal, or not enforced, in other countries.

Example: Conficker virus. Was being held as one of the most advanced viruses written in a long time, whoever wrote it was extremely talented and extremely sophisticated. Tons of media attention. Tons of analysis of the code. Tons of rewards being offered for the persons identity. End result? The organization behind it is still operating fully and still profiting off of it (probably millions of dollars a year).

 

[brandonwh64]