My dad's computer has AntivirusGT!

The bottom line is that Macs *are* better at not getting viruses and malware. Even if the antivirus method is "cost more to keep the masses from buying them"-- it works. And it's a price I gladly pay for not having to mess with this crap.
 
Then go with Linux which has the same minority user advantage, but is free.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Then go with Linux which has the same minority user advantage, but is free.
Click to expand...

I dual-boot Windows and Linux on a PC too, but Linux has some hardware/software combination issues-- for example I can't sleep it without getting a glitching screen.

The Mac also just has a cleaner-feeling interface. I can do stuff faster on it, which means it's the one I'm happiest using, which is what makes it money well spent. As long as the majority doesn't figure this out (and thus make it a malware target), life is good.
 
THe MAC interface is way cool as is the fact that all their software talks to each other and you don't have to worry that some program needs a convertor to talk to the other programs. Allegedly PC is forcing third party vendors to meet security protocols for WIN7 the way that MAC does but I don't think it will do what as well as MAC does, because people will always go and get unsourced and bad freeware.

Allegedly the WIN7 package is more secure, but people hate the slow down that sandboxing and the like generates.
 
Travis said:
Well, my dad says he is probably done with that pc and went out and bought a new one. He'd been wanting to upgrade for awhile anyways.

I, of course, gave him a list of anti-virus programs to install right away.....in the end he went with one provided by his ISP. I guess they use CA.
Click to expand...

Having more than one anti-virus running at the same time can cause troubles and might actually leave the system more vulnerable to infection. This is something I've learned recently from persons more knowledgeable than I.
 
Last edited:
Steve001 said:
Having more than one anti-virus running at the same time can cause troubles and might actually leave the system more vulnerable to infection. This is something I've learned recently from persons more knowledgeable than I.
Click to expand...


Well, yes. I told him to only install one.
 
I actually got my first look at my dad's comp today. I gotta admit that Windows 7 doesn't look half bad.
 
Travis said:
I actually got my first look at my dad's comp today. I gotta admit that Windows 7 doesn't look half bad.
Click to expand...
It's not that bad. It seems faster to me than XP most of the time.

But Windows does suck for security, and not just because it's the big target vector. Partly MS has largely not cared about security as long as it moved units of the OS and Office suite; they've been unmotivated to write decent code. In fact, if they wanted a vastly superior version of Windows they'd do exactly what Apple did and write a proprietary version of BSD. But they don't really care because they own the market.

Unix was designed from day one to handle multiple users, so security was always a central part of the model, where you had an administrator with global rights and users with only local rights. A very simple sandbox policy. OSX (and BSD, from which it was derived) and Linux are safer simply due to OS design. Of course, that doesn't make them perfect, but they will never suck as bad as Windows in this respect.

Anyway, I use all three -- OSX for 2 years, DOS/Windows for 24 years, and Linux for 15 years, and I'm not a fanboy in any respect. I vastly prefer Linux -- it's fun and interesting and flexible and very functional for my purposes, and I think it really is the safest by design.

ETA: Putting Linux on your dad's retired machine would be a good idea if you want to repurpose it :cool:
 
Last edited:
I run Win7, I upgraded from Vista (quite possibly the worst OS ever written) and it's absolutely fantastic. Partner 7 with MBAM, Tune-up utilities, Reg-Cure and The Shield and you get a very fast, very stable machine. Lovely jubbly.
 
welshdean said:
Vista (quite possibly the worst OS ever written)
Click to expand...
Yeah, Vista was a real boner on many levels, especially the "Vista Ready" sticker scandals. I agree that Win7 isn't that bad, but it strikes me as too expensive for Pro, which many people would need for XP compatibility. I'd think the XP compatibility should be on the vanilla version, and some actual "Pro" stuff on the Pro version.

ETA: I think Win7 Starter is kind of scammy as well.
 
Last edited:
eerok said:
It's not that bad. It seems faster to me than XP most of the time.

But Windows does suck for security, and not just because it's the big target vector. Partly MS has largely not cared about security as long as it moved units of the OS and Office suite; they've been unmotivated to write decent code. In fact, if they wanted a vastly superior version of Windows they'd do exactly what Apple did and write a proprietary version of BSD. But they don't really care because they own the market.
Click to expand...

No doubt that MS is stupid in many ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom