I’ll tell ya what, I really wish 90% of the world would “switch” so that Apple would be the “Great Evil” and then they would get the brunt of all the “Monopoly!” complaints and as you imply, get all the virus attacks! Apple would be blaimed for all the virus’ floating around and would have to consider “forcing” updates on their users!

Sheesh!

What I find really amazing is all the Apple people completely forgetting that back when Apple Mac was really big (Mac 128K era), Mac’s were getting twice the number of virus’ that IBM PC’s were. I can remember quite well having to clean many a Mac at the Hospital I worked at due to a virus that spread when a floppy was inserted into the machine. It’s nice that Apple folks can forget so easily…

You are dead right about virus creators, and yes it is all about games.
Macs maybe nice and have a great OS but they are irrelevant because they have no market share.
They have no market share because Apple won’t let other create clones.

There are thousands of viruses for windows, yes...but the majority of them, if you notice, are VARIANTS of viruses already out there.
The very nature of open source software won’t allow a virus to last long at all in the Linux world.
The code is scrutinized and patched by people who know how to program and spot security holes...that’s why patches for announced severe security risks are available within hours (sometimes minutes).
“Script Kiddies” don’t know shit...except how to pick items from a drop down menu and fill in forms.
Microsoft’s methodology of “don’t fix it until they find out about it..then wait a few weeks to do it” is one reason Windows gets socked so many times.

Just a clarification, Apple’s OSX is secure way beyond having a smaller marketshare. It’s more connected to the way Apple ships OSX. If things were reversed, and Apple had 90% and Windows 10%, you’d still see 99% of the Viruses on Windows. The OSes are just BUILT differently, and SHIPPED differently. There is NO way to crack a mac unless you can gain root access, which is impossible the way Apple sells the boxes. OS6,7,8,9 were hackable and that’s why you saw 50 viruses over 15 years. Of course NONE of them caused data loss, but did attach themselves and “could” cause freezing. OSX is a different BEAST, it’s core has been network tested, FAR FAR longer than what MS is able to accomplish. I’ll place bets over the years when OSX has much more marketshare it will remain Virus Free. “The way Windows is designed and delivered is the Problem” not PC’s or Computers in General” If you think I’m wrong, be the FIRST to write a virus for OSX… We’re waiting… ha ha ha!!!

Just a clarification, Apple’s OSX is secure way beyond having a smaller marketshare. It’s more connected to the way Apple ships OSX. If things were reversed, and Apple had 90% and Windows 10%, you’d still see 99% of the Viruses on Windows.

I disagree. Most virus writers want their work to spread as far and as wide as possible, especially when it’s stuff that acts as a spam bot, and you don’t accomplish that by writing for the minority OSes, you do it by writing for what everyone’s using.

The OSes are just BUILT differently, and SHIPPED differently. There is NO way to crack a mac unless you can gain root access, which is impossible the way Apple sells the boxes.

Right, and the Titanic was unsinkable. The people who built it were certain there was no way it could ever possibly sink.

OS6,7,8,9 were hackable and that’s why you saw 50 viruses over 15 years. Of course NONE of them caused data loss, but did attach themselves and “could” cause freezing.

I’ve not looked into the history of viruses on the Mac, but I’d be surprised if none of the viruses ever released for it weren’t harmful beyond simple machine freeze ups.

OSX is a different BEAST, it�s core has been network tested, FAR FAR longer than what MS is able to accomplish. I�ll place bets over the years when OSX has much more marketshare it will remain Virus Free.

The folks at Macintosh Security Site seem to disagree with you:

Macs are Vulnerable, too…
Due to the potential vulnerabilities of Mac OS X, Macintosh computer systems are more susceptible to security breaches and threats than ever before. Many Mac users falsely believe that they are immune to virus and hacker attacks. It’s true that Macs are generally affected less by intrusions than PCs, but that’s only because Macintosh makes up such a small percentage of the market. In reality, with the growing number of viruses in existence and the increasing number of hackers on the Internet, there isn’t a computer in the world that is exempt from these kinds of malicious acts.

If OS X is completely virus free then why is there a version of Norton Anti-Virus that runs on it? Surely a virus-free OS doesn’t need an anti-virus application, does it?

“The way Windows is designed and delivered is the Problem” not PC’s or Computers in General” If you think I’m wrong, be the FIRST to write a virus for OSX… We�re waiting… ha ha ha!!!

I don’t have to. Someone else already has: Mac.Simpsons@mm. Granted, it doesn’t do much, but it is the first that affects Mac OS X and there are concerns that as popularity of OS X grows the threat of new viruses and other hacks will grow along with it.

The above comments to this post are totally bogus. The poster has no understanding of Unix operation or how Apple ships it’s OS. The bottom line is Marketshare has absoluting NOTHING to do with Virus penetration. Windows is badly constructed, poorly planned and is shipped with many com ports wide open. OSX is nothing like Windows. Norton Anti-Virus is a throwback to the 1980’s, it makes money on people’s fears, nothing more. The above post still wasn’t able to locate “1” OSX virus so my case remains the same. Enable “root” and you may have a story, but that requires PHYSICAL contact with the Machine, thus eliminating “chance replication” of viri, thus eliminating it’s ability to spread. There was nothing on the Security Mac Site that differed with my view. Maybe he should look into the history of Viruses on the Mac and learn why only 50 were ever created and NONE caused damage to data, or files. This is tighter programing folks, we’re not dealing with MS here.

OSX and Unix system are inherently more secure, because they have been dealing with multiple users an remote access for nearly 35 years, and has had a lot of time to deal with flaws in the system. The Open Source model of development has also helped throw far more man-hours into Unix than Microsoft has been able to with a closed source, and security holes and bug tend to be ripe targets for the community to focus on.

Windows is therefore inherently less secure for the reasons listed below:

1: Security of their software was not a significant issue until the popularity of the internet, and the arrival of broadband.

2: They have not spent nearly the number of development man-hours towards fixing these security issues and developing a secure system that the Unix community has. (Windows NT, the basis for 2000 and XP was started in 1989, and used, at the high-point of Windows 2000, 1400
programmers and 1700 testers, and this was for merging 9x and NT into Windows 2000)

3: OLE, VisualBasic, ActiveX controls are the tools of Virus makers, OSX keeps these types of tools seperate by design, thus eliminating doors for script kiddies.

4: They are attempting to compete with the online usability of Unix, without having it’s history of development to properly secure those “points of entry”

The above comments to this post are totally bogus. The poster has no understanding of Unix operation or how Apple ships it�s OS.

Of course I don’t have any understanding. That’s why I used to be a UNIX Systems Operator. They only use people who have no understanding of UNIX as System Operators because you wouldn’t want anyone understanding the system they are maintaining.

How Apple ships it’s OS may have some impact, but once it’s in place and running how it got there is irrelevant.

The bottom line is Marketshare has absoluting NOTHING to do with Virus penetration.

Sure it does and most industry experts, including a large number of Macintosh people, agree with me on that point. Why would you write viruses for an OS that has less than 2% of the market? Especially if that virus is supposed to act as a spam bot or launch coordinated denial of service attacks? There are still a lot of Amigas in use out there even though Commodore has been dead since 1994. When is the last time you heard of a major Amiga virus being released?

Windows is badly constructed, poorly planned and is shipped with many com ports wide open. OSX is nothing like Windows.

You’ll get no argument from me on this point. That doesn’t make OS X immune or invulnerable. If it were then sites like the Macintosh Security Site wouldn’t bother covering OS X. You also wouldn’t see Apple posting patches to security vulnerabilities if they didn’t exist.

Norton Anti-Virus is a throwback to the 1980’s, it makes money on people’s fears, nothing more. The above post still wasn’t able to locate “1” OSX virus so my case remains the same.

Go back and re-read that virus. It affects users of OS X. That’s one. Macintosh security experts are already cautioning that complacency isn’t warranted and that that one virus is only the beginning.

Enable “root” and you may have a story, but that requires PHYSICAL contact with the Machine, thus eliminating “chance replication” of viri, thus eliminating it�s ability to spread. There was nothing on the Security Mac Site that differed with my view. Maybe he should look into the history of Viruses on the Mac and learn why only 50 were ever created and NONE caused damage to data, or files. This is tighter programing folks, we�re not dealing with MS here.

Only 50 were ever created because the Mac has always been a niche market at best. The return on investment isn’t worth the effort. It’s called “Security through Obscurity.” If OS X does become more popular, and thus less obscure, then the virus writers may find good reason to start targeting it.

OSX and Unix system are inherently more secure, because they have been dealing with multiple users an remote access for nearly 35 years, and has had a lot of time to deal with flaws in the system. The Open Source model of development has also helped throw far more man-hours into Unix than Microsoft has been able to with a closed source, and security holes and bug tend to be ripe targets for the community to focus on.

And yet that still doesn’t stop people hacking their way in, and writing viruses for, UNIX based platforms. Is Microsoft less secure? Absolutely. Again, no argument from me on that point. I have no doubts that Microsoft’s products are bug-infested and riddle with holes. Is Open Source more secure and less bug-riddled? Based on what I’ve worked on I’d say that’s absolutely true as well.

Does that mean UNIX and OSes based on it are immune from viruses and hack attacks? Absolutely not.

The only reason I run Windows at home is because that’s where the games are and I’m a gamer. If I weren’t a gamer I’d have switched to one of the various flavors of Linux a long time ago. As it is I still maintain a Linux box on the side to teach myself more about the OS and I’m pushing to have my Windows based client at work replaced with a Linux based client. I currently use several Open Source applications (Mozilla Thunderbird, FileZilla) on my Windows box because they tend to be better developed and more secure.

Windows is therefore inherently less secure for the reasons listed below:

I have no quarrels with any of the points you listed, but I’m not saying that OS X is as insecure as Windows is either. I’m just saying that it’s not immune and if it becomes more popular it will attract the attention of people above and beyond the “script kiddies.” Their credo has always been “If you can make it, we can break it.” I’ve seen it happen enough times to know how true that statement is.

HEY!

I have 5, count them, 1,2,3,4,5 C-64’s complete with 1541 floppy drives an a 802, 803 printers, & monitors!  I have over 1,000 old C-64 5 1/4” floppy disk as well.  I think those are 192k each,:-D .

I even have one with a push-button switch towarm-boot the machine.