Would You Go To Monaco Gp?

[yurp 0]

I actually thought Cav's post was pretty funny.

Kaspersky, like McAfee and others, is basically malware itself. Sucks up an assload of memory and does absolutely nothing of use to anyone. Every time I consider going back to PC for my laptop for school, I remember the time I opened a legitimate research PDF from a credible university's website (on Firefox no less) and got one hell of a virus despite having three anti-virus programs installed. The next day I bought an iMac, not because I'm a big Mac guy, but because I was sick of paranoid web-browsing. My anti-virus actually works, too, though I've never needed it to. I don't think they have bad intentions, but the biggest responsibility a consumer has is putting **** in its place, so unless Kaspersky et al want to make a program that even half-way does what it's supposed to do, I feel obligated to not give them free advertising by liking their page on Facebook.

Besides, I'm 18 and look like I'm 12. I'd be out of place on a yatch.

I agree with everything you wrote - and you're not even a girl! I actually thought Cav's post was funny too (just in a different way). I was just ribbing him as usual. He still took it way too seriously. Perhaps when he learns not to, I might stop.

As for the current state of windows anti-virus - this is a far more interesting conversation...

I think the main problem with all these bloated anti-virus softwares is that they are built to 'theoretically' protect windows. Windows and microsoft office/other microsoft products are built on dodgy foundations to start with. The termites got in years ago and the whole edifice is crumbling. When code at it's very core is as suseptable as microsoft products are - it's impossible to patch every hole. Really they need to stop making things backward compatible, start from scratch and produce a solid OS, but that would ruin their business.

That's not to say I'm sticking up for Kaspersky - it's a crap load of crap too. The http protocol is also flawed - but that's another discussion.

One thing though Eric - don't be too sure of your apple security. Apple's software isn't really any more secure than microsoft's, it's just that not many viruses get written for macs so it's easy for apple to keep on top of them. Why bother writing mac viruses? Generally people don't use macs for storing important data and there is simply way fewer macs to target on the interweb. If the world ever switches over to predominently mac usage apple will have just as hard a time keeping up with new viruses as windows anti-virus softwares do now.

Apple has a slight advantage in that they produce the hardware and software, but I have read various reports of apple operating systems being cracked within hours of release just like windows.

I actually run 1 mac and 2 PC's at home. 1 of my PC's is dual boot - ubuntu distro of linux and windows XP (yes XP!). the other PC is running windows 7. (I tested every windows release between XP and 7 and didn't like any of them). I also run a LAMP server (linux/apache) from my school.

To be fair, I don't use every computer for the same functions, so it's not entirely fair to compare, but by far the most hassle-free are the linux server and linux side of my dual boot PC. The issue with desktop distros like ubuntu etc, is that there is simply not so much software out there. Having said that, the library has grown massively over the last 5 years. And it's all free - Yay!

Using the mac is a pleasure, but I keep running into the same problem. I want to do some simple file conversion or something and apple wants me to fork out way too much money for a piece of software that does way more than I need. So I end up sending the file to my PC and doing the conversion there on a free piece of software downloaded from the web.

Windows - well yes - I have to keep on top of anti-virus and not click 'yes' every time I see a download option on the internet. But with sensible browsing, I don't really have many problems. The nice thing is that there is so much free software out there to do whatever you want to do.

In short - every system has it's positives and negatives. Depending on what you want to do and what matters to you, every setup might be best. My wife still clings to her XP machine, while I switch from the mac (video / music / graphics / CAD) to the linux boot on her machine (web development mainly) to the windows 7 PC (office stuff / network hub / stringing everything else together / all the small things that the others can't do easily). The windows 7 PC is my laptop - so that travels well too.

I could go on for ever, but I'll stop there.

[Rainmaster 7]

I actually thought Cav's post was pretty funny.

Kaspersky, like McAfee and others, is basically malware itself. Sucks up an assload of memory and does absolutely nothing of use to anyone. Every time I consider going back to PC for my laptop for school, I remember the time I opened a legitimate research PDF from a credible university's website (on Firefox no less) and got one hell of a virus despite having three anti-virus programs installed. The next day I bought an iMac, not because I'm a big Mac guy, but because I was sick of paranoid web-browsing. My anti-virus actually works, too, though I've never needed it to. I don't think they have bad intentions, but the biggest responsibility a consumer has is putting **** in its place, so unless Kaspersky et al want to make a program that even half-way does what it's supposed to do, I feel obligated to not give them free advertising by liking their page on Facebook.

Besides, I'm 18 and look like I'm 12. I'd be out of place on a yatch.

Yeah, I saw nothing wrong with Cav's post and certainly no need to create some big conflict about it.

As for anti-virus I think it does just depend largely on the user, i.e. what sites you go on etc, and how wary of attachments and other scams you are. I had Norton once which made an already slow computer even more terrible (although maybe Norton improved since..), so some of them can definitely be memory hogs. I have Mcafee now which I've had no problems with.

I agree with everything you wrote - and you're not even a girl! I actually thought Cav's post was funny too (just in a different way). I was just ribbing him as usual. He still took it way too seriously. Perhaps when he learns not to, I might stop.

As for the current state of windows anti-virus - this is a far more interesting conversation...

I think the main problem with all these bloated anti-virus softwares is that they are built to 'theoretically' protect windows. Windows and microsoft office/other microsoft products are built on dodgy foundations to start with. The termites got in years ago and the whole edifice is crumbling. When code at it's very core is as suseptable as microsoft products are - it's impossible to patch every hole. Really they need to stop making things backward compatible, start from scratch and produce a solid OS, but that would ruin their business.

That's not to say I'm sticking up for Kaspersky - it's a crap load of crap too. The http protocol is also flawed - but that's another discussion.

One thing though Eric - don't be too sure of your apple security. Apple's software isn't really any more secure than microsoft's, it's just that not many viruses get written for macs so it's easy for apple to keep on top of them. Why bother writing mac viruses? Generally people don't use macs for storing important data and there is simply way fewer macs to target on the interweb. If the world ever switches over to predominently mac usage apple will have just as hard a time keeping up with new viruses as windows anti-virus softwares do now.

Apple has a slight advantage in that they produce the hardware and software, but I have read various reports of apple operating systems being cracked within hours of release just like windows.

I actually run 1 mac and 2 PC's at home. 1 of my PC's is dual boot - ubuntu distro of linux and windows XP (yes XP!). the other PC is running windows 7. (I tested every windows release between XP and 7 and didn't like any of them). I also run a LAMP server (linux/apache) from my school.

To be fair, I don't use every computer for the same functions, so it's not entirely fair to compare, but by far the most hassle-free are the linux server and linux side of my dual boot PC. The issue with desktop distros like ubuntu etc, is that there is simply not so much software out there. Saying that the library has grown massively over the last 5 years. And it's all free - Yay!

Using the mac is a pleasure, but I keep running into the same problem. I want to do some simple file conversion or something and apple wants me to fork out way too much money for a piece of software that does way more than I need. So I end up sending the file to my PC and doing the conversion there on a free piece of software downloaded from the web.

Windows - well yes - I have to keep on top of anti-virus and not click 'yes' every time I see a download option on the internet. But with sensible browsing, I don't really have many problems. The nice thing is that there is so much free software out there to do whatever you want to do.

In short - every system has it's positives and negatives. Depending on what you want to do and what matters to you, every setup might be best.

I could go on for ever, but I'll stop there.

Yup. It'll be interesting to see what Google comes up with for an OS too, as they are building it from the 'ground up' with the modern, porn internet focussed computer user in mind.

[lewisthegreat2 0]

It was the browsing decisions that made me give up on Windows. While everyone was pirating movies, downloading music, installing programs, opening emails and their attachments, filling their System32 folder with porn, and throwing around personal information just for ****s and giggles, I avoided all downloads of every kind (and, to be honest, even on the Mac I still don't download things, and I don't even put apps on my phone. I'm still paranoid about viruses, and extremely committed to protecting private information, which is the main reason I avoid apps). And while those people seemed to get away problem-free, I got a virus doing research for a history project by opening a PDF on harvard.edu, which I'd say is pretty far from myfreepornositecreditscore.co.cc. There should have been 0 risk in doing that. It felt like driving 30 mph in a 30 mph zone your whole life and getting your license suspended for doing 30.5 while the car ahead of you was doing 60. I was, and still am, pretty ****ed about that...

...but then again, there were so few files on my computer since I was mostly download-free that I barely lost anything.

[Caesar 0]

It was the browsing decisions that made me give up on Windows. While everyone was pirating movies, downloading music, installing programs, opening emails and their attachments, filling their System32 folder with porn, and throwing around personal information just for ****s and giggles, I avoided all downloads of every kind (and, to be honest, even on the Mac I still don't download things, and I don't even put apps on my phone. I'm still paranoid about viruses, and extremely committed to protecting private information, which is the main reason I avoid apps). And while those people seemed to get away problem-free, I got a virus doing research for a history project by opening a PDF on harvard.edu, which I'd say is pretty far from myfreepornositecreditscore.co.cc. There should have been 0 risk in doing that. It felt like driving 30 mph in a 30 mph zone your whole life and getting your license suspended for doing 30.5 while the car ahead of you was doing 60. I was, and still am, pretty ****ed about that...

...but then again, there were so few files on my computer since I was mostly download-free that I barely lost anything.

about myfreepornositecreditscore.co.cc. I tried it and it did not work, is it because of that virus you had or what?

[Delta 0]

I think the main problem with all these bloated anti-virus softwares is that they are built to 'theoretically' protect windows. Windows and microsoft office/other microsoft products are built on dodgy foundations to start with. The termites got in years ago and the whole edifice is crumbling. When code at it's very core is as suseptable as microsoft products are - it's impossible to patch every hole. Really they need to stop making things backward compatible, start from scratch and produce a solid OS, but that would ruin their business.

That's utter rubbish, Windows actually has far better security underpinnings than OSX, in fact Apple don't even have a fully working ASLR implementation yet. And OSX is always the first OS to get exploited at pwn2own

[Kopite Girl 0]

Hi! Before anyone says I'm making a thing or causing conflict, I'm not. I honestly at first thought the seasickness stuff I said upset someone, and then me and Eric get a mention and I was all like WTF? What day is it? What planet is this and am I breathing underwater cause I like the way it feels? (I said it to Jay before, I say it again - you can't tell me off due to the memory loss and recent brain operation. That's my trumpcard and I'm going to use it! ) So, just wanted to explain myself (more to George cause I'm not sure if you thought I was starting trouble. I'm not. I got fuffoodled lol) and now I have finished explaining, please continue. You desperate lonely fat loser twatfaces. Right Craig?

[HandyNZL 1]

er......yes, Your Imperial Hotness.

???

[yurp 0]

That's utter rubbish, Windows actually has far better security underpinnings than OSX, in fact Apple don't even have a fully working ASLR implementation yet. And OSX is always the first OS to get exploited at pwn2own

Erm - I think you should read my full post to get this paragraph in context. I'm no apple supporter either. As I said - there are problems with apple too - their OS's regularly get hacked shortly after release too, so indeed they are not very secure either - they just don't get attacked as much (as there are fewer viruses written for macs) so they are perceived as more secure.

However - to say that Windows has good security underpinnings is not really true either.

My opinion - pretty much every system has plenty of holes. Many windows weaknesses come as a result of backward compatibility. If Microsoft were to write a new OS from scratch now (knowing what they know) they would do a much better job. They have got better in recent times, which is good to see. The grunt put into new PC's these days makes it easier to get away with inefficient OS's since the power of the new processors overcomes any potential lag.

A note on ASLR - it was originally a linux patch and microsoft adopted a kind of ASLR for vista onwards, but it's not actually a full implementation. Still, it's a step in the right direction yes.

So - once again - being balanced - every hardware and software solution has issues - security isn't the only thing to be considered when buying a computer. But again - if we're only talking about security, apple gets attacked less than windows, so appears stronger when in fact it's probably just as weak.

[LabradoRacer 2]

Kaspersky Motorsports? So, if the car's electronically limited to 250 kph, will it require a super virus to break the limit? Kaspersky Motorsports will then lose face even if it wins.

[Rainmaster 7]

Hi! Before anyone says I'm making a thing or causing conflict, I'm not. I honestly at first thought the seasickness stuff I said upset someone, and then me and Eric get a mention and I was all like WTF? What day is it? What planet is this and am I breathing underwater cause I like the way it feels? (I said it to Jay before, I say it again - you can't tell me off due to the memory loss and recent brain operation. That's my trumpcard and I'm going to use it! ) So, just wanted to explain myself (more to George cause I'm not sure if you thought I was starting trouble. I'm not. I got fuffoodled lol) and now I have finished explaining, please continue. You desperate lonely fat loser twatfaces. Right Craig?

Nah not you! If I was talking to you or about you I would use the '' icon, of course. (<< see)

[Delta 0]

Erm - I think you should read my full post to get this paragraph in context. I'm no apple supporter either. As I said - there are problems with apple too - their OS's regularly get hacked shortly after release too, so indeed they are not very secure either - they just don't get attacked as much (as there are fewer viruses written for macs) so they are perceived as more secure.

However - to say that Windows has good security underpinnings is not really true either.

My opinion - pretty much every system has plenty of holes. Many windows weaknesses come as a result of backward compatibility. If Microsoft were to write a new OS from scratch now (knowing what they know) they would do a much better job. They have got better in recent times, which is good to see. The grunt put into new PC's these days makes it easier to get away with inefficient OS's since the power of the new processors overcomes any potential lag.

A note on ASLR - it was originally a linux patch and microsoft adopted a kind of ASLR for vista onwards, but it's not actually a full implementation. Still, it's a step in the right direction yes.

So - once again - being balanced - every hardware and software solution has issues - security isn't the only thing to be considered when buying a computer. But again - if we're only talking about security, apple gets attacked less than windows, so appears stronger when in fact it's probably just as weak.

Windows does have good security underpinnings. Since the release of Vista, there have been significantly less problems caused by design flaws, it's very hard to compromise modern Windows machines in the way XP used to get compromised, nowadays most intrusions are performed through web browser flaws, and drive by malware installers, and the problem is not the design of Windows, it's that regardless of the OS, you can't design it to account for user stupidity. I know what I am doing, and I haven't had a security related issue in Windows for quite some time.

[yurp 0]

Windows does have good security underpinnings. Since the release of Vista, there have been significantly less problems caused by design flaws, it's very hard to compromise modern Windows machines in the way XP used to get compromised, nowadays most intrusions are performed through web browser flaws, and drive by malware installers, and the problem is not the design of Windows, it's that regardless of the OS, you can't design it to account for user stupidity. I know what I am doing, and I haven't had a security related issue in Windows for quite some time.

I feel like we're going around in circles here. Please read my entire posts.

You keep pointing things out that I've already said as though I'm supposed to disagree.

Yes - Windows is better (security-wise) since vista. But isn't that to be entirely expected? When your bench mark is XP, it's hard not to improve.

Yes - they have caught up significantly with other OS's. Yes - they have implemented a limited version of ASLR. (About 10 years after the original linux patch!)

The fact remains that you're more likely to get a virus running windows than if you're running any other OS.

As I said before - most viruses are written for windows, so it's not surprising. If we all used macs, apple would be having the same problem.

I'm not bashing windows, supporting macs or linux or anything here. I use all three for varying purposes. They are all better for one thing or another.

Obviously you want to defend windows to the hilt - that's fine. I tend to see the flaws and positives of every OS. For windows backward compatability still remains a big issue and a lot of their weekly patches are specifically to fix security issues arising from this. That's inevitable - they've been around a long time and released so many versions that it's impossible to account for everything.

You are also entirely correct - ultimately people clicking the 'download' button whenever they see one is the cause of most infections. But saying that - which browser is the least secure of them all? Which browser performs worst of the top 5 in terms of the acid test, speed etc etc etc? Which browser is consistenly sited as a royal pain in the arse of every web-designer? That's right - IE.

IE is constantly exploited because it is so poorly written. While not strictly being part of the windows bundle any more it still provides the favourite way for hackers to break into windows systems.

Do you think internet explorer would be so utterly rubbish if it hadn't originally been part of a fundamentally flawed (security-wise) windows bundle?

Leaving IE aside - The fact is that if windows had "good security underpinnings" microsoft wouldn't have to send out weekly security patches cheifly aimed at patching newly found vulnerabilities in their OS. Check the update log and see for yourself.

Furthermore - Linux distros like ubuntu are open source. When you make your code available to everyone and still suffer from very few security vulnerabilities, I would say that your OS has fundamentally good security. When you keep your code to yourselves and people still find new cracks every day, I would not call that a secure OS.

How about server OS's? My school runs three Windows servers and I run 1 linux server on their network. In the 2 years since I set that up I have had not one issue with the linux server while their windows servers fall down every couple of months. Again - not what I'd call a secure OS.

Now listen. I'm NOT a windows hater - I'm just pointing out the facts and history of windows/other OS's. It doesn't make windows the worst option. In fact windows remains the best option for most computer users. BUT - If you don't think there's anything wrong with windows security implementation then you are mis-informed. I would say exactly the same to any mac or even linux user who claim that their OS's are secure. None of them are and windows remains behind the game - apple isn't much better either - probably just as bad, but they don't get attacked as much, there are fewer OSX viruses, and safari is way better than IE - so you're still generally safer than if you use windows.

PS - my mum hasn't had any security problems with her windows XP machine ever. Does that show she knows anything about computer security? No. Does it show that XP is utterly secure? No. When she only uses email, it's unlikely that she'll download any viruses.

[cavallino 2]

What did I do? Nothing to do with me. I've done nothing wrong here.

Oh it was open season on Cav again, your invitation must have got lost in the mail.

I was just ribbing him as usual. He still took it way too seriously. Perhaps when he learns not to, I might stop.

I take maure's views on climate change more seriously than I do your posts.

I don't know which one of you is more pathetic - you on one hand acting like an idiot and then being so concerned about your 'image' here that you try to pass off an attempt at playground bullying as gentle ribbing.

Or Gropeclaw who after famously announcing how he is putting me on ignore is back attacking my posts - a bit hard to do if he wasn't reading them don't you think (if you actually want to ignore someone you just do it, if you need to announce it you're just an attention seeker).

I guess you and Gropeclaw got bullied at school and this is your redemption?

[Kopite Girl 0]

Oh it was open season on Cav again, your invitation must have got lost in the mail.

That isn't fair and you know it. I thought we'd sorted our differences out by PM. I accepted your apology, you accepted mine. I've tried hard not to get involved with disputes and a few times I've actually defended you (for instance the German comment you brought up, over MSC, etc) I've never unfairly or without good reason picked on anyone here.

I don't want to fight with you. You're better than this. Your comment was unfair as I saw what was said and purposely stayed out of it, as I explained in my PM, I saw your point about cliques. Yeah, I talk to Chris and he's a part of my life. I banter with him. But I never got involved with this because of the points you made and I'd agreed with.

I'm not angry at you. Just confused. I'm trying real hard here Cav, least you could do is extend me the same courtesy.

[Delta 0]

The fact remains that you're more likely to get a virus running windows than if you're running any other OS.

Yes, because most viruses are written for Windows, and most of them do not get installed via OS exploits. The problem is not a technical flaw in the OS, it cannot tell malicious code from non malicious if the user OKs it's execution.

IE is constantly exploited because it is so poorly written. While not strictly being part of the windows bundle any more it still provides the favourite way for hackers to break into windows systems.

IE isn't that poorly written any more, since it was given tab process isolation and protected mode it's become very secure, the only browsers more secure are Chrome and Opera.

Do you think internet explorer would be so utterly rubbish if it hadn't originally been part of a fundamentally flawed (security-wise) windows bundle?

So a browser being buggy is somehow the fault of the OS? funny, but wrong.

Leaving IE aside - The fact is that if windows had "good security underpinnings" microsoft wouldn't have to send out weekly security patches cheifly aimed at patching newly found vulnerabilities in their OS. Check the update log and see for yourself.

Most of those are low danger vulnerabilities, not even that serious, and patching is not a bad thing, it means the developer is serious about security, unlike Apple and their smug and arrogant "our OS is unhackable" propaganda.

Furthermore - Linux distros like ubuntu are open source. When you make your code available to everyone and still suffer from very few security vulnerabilities, I would say that your OS has fundamentally good security. When you keep your code to yourselves and people still find new cracks every day, I would not call that a secure OS.

You mean like the random number generation flaw that was present in the Linux kernel for about 4 years, and allowed root elevation that wasn't fixed because someone altered the code and didn't document the change?

How about server OS's? My school runs three Windows servers and I run 1 linux server on their network. In the 2 years since I set that up I have had not one issue with the linux server while their windows servers fall down every couple of months. Again - not what I'd call a secure OS.

Or maybe the admins are just idiots that don't know how to manage the OS correctly?

Now listen. I'm NOT a windows hater - I'm just pointing out the facts and history of windows/other OS's. It doesn't make windows the worst option. In fact windows remains the best option for most computer users. BUT - If you don't think there's anything wrong with windows security implementation then you are mis-informed. I would say exactly the same to any mac or even linux user who claim that their OS's are secure. None of them are and windows remains behind the game - apple isn't much better either - probably just as bad, but they don't get attacked as much, there are fewer OSX viruses, and safari is way better than IE - so you're still generally safer than if you use windows.

Your facts aren't facts, they are fallacious. For starters, if you think Safari is better than IE, you're horribly misinformed, pretty much all of the hacks done at pwn2own are done through Safari. You have just made it clear, regardless of your claims that you are a mindless Windows basher. I have beta tested a lot of Microsoft software, I know a couple of highly skilled programmers (including one that actually works as a development lecturer at the University of the West of England), and I have a lot of friends that work in IT. I know what I am talking about, you are just throwing Apple propaganda about like it's fact, and regurgitating nonsense that stopped being applicable about 4 years ago. So if anyone's got to get their facts straight, it's you, not me.

[Quiet One 15]

Funny. Since memory inmemorial, these arguments have been known as "religious issues" (Windows vs MacOS, Linux vs Windows, DOS vs UNIX, Pascal vs C++, you name it...)

Do you still wonder why?

[Rainmaster 7]

Funny. Since memory inmemorial, these arguments have been known as "religious issues" (Windows vs MacOS, Linux vs Windows, DOS vs UNIX, Pascal vs C++, you name it...)

Do you still wonder why?

Cos Adam is a Windows basher!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11112

[yurp 0]

Good grief!

We agree that a user is far more likley to get a virus running windows than any other OS. We agree that this is mainly because most viruses are written for windows and exploit IE and windows vulnerabilities.

In the face of this you insist that windows has 'good security underpinnings'. I disagree.

How about google?

They banned windows from their offices last year after the chinese hacking case and now offer only linux distros or OSX to their employees.

Why?

They said security.

Please don't just tell me that google is just dishing out anti-windows propaganda. Google and apple do not have a good relationship, so it's unlikely they'd try to boost apple market share is it.

Please don't just quote microsoft's security blog at me. Windows is good for many reasons, but it isn't the most secure OS. It's better than it was, but it's still vulnerable. OSX is vulnerable too, but less exploited.

I have beta tested a lot of Microsoft software.

That explains a lot - best way to indoctrinate.

Last - if you think I'm just a windows hater, get someone who thinks OSX or linux is best at everything on this forum and watch me argue with them too.

[yurp 0]

Funny. Since memory inmemorial, these arguments have been known as "religious issues" (Windows vs MacOS, Linux vs Windows, DOS vs UNIX, Pascal vs C++, you name it...)

Do you still wonder why?

Yep - every OS has has an equally annoying crowd of die-hard supporters who will hear no wrong about their beloved OS.

There's no space for atheists - if you're not with us you're against us.

*sigh*

[Quiet One 15]

Yep - every OS has has an equally annoying crowd of die-hard supporters who will hear no wrong about their beloved OS.

There's no space for atheists - if you're not with us you're against us.

*sigh*

Yup. They are all idiots.

Because none of them recognize the true power of Android, of course.

[Rainmaster 7]

The traditional OS debate is odd. At least with sport for example it's easy to understand why people identify with one team/individual or another, and are determined to defend/bash others. Strange that some people are compelled to do it with things like technology which seems a weird thing to get irrational about. Maybe it shows the power of marketing and brand associations.

[yurp 0]

Yup. They are all idiots.

Because none of them recognize the true power of Android, of course.

I know 658.5 programmers and they all agree.

The traditional OS debate is odd. At least with sport for example it's easy to understand why people identify with one team/individual or another, and are determined to defend/bash others. Strange that some people are compelled to do it with things like technology which seems a weird thing to get irrational about. Maybe it shows the power of marketing and brand associations.

People loose their objectivity over all sorts of things - even ice-cream flavours - obviously mint chock chip is the best - but you'll hear some idiots defending chocolate! It's all about feeling part of one team or another - with OS's and software in general, beta testing is a great way to get a bunch of people to think their part of your 'inner circle'. Then they defend your software unquestioningly - far cheaper than a marketing department and you don't have to take responsibility for any of their claims either.

But what do I know - I hate windows and love apple - ergo, even if I'm saying the sky is blue I must be full of Sh#t.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

But what do I know - I hate windows and love apple - ergo, even if I'm saying the sky is blue I must be full of Sh#t.

Typical - A blue sky fanboy! We all know that cloudy skies are better.

My mate's a meteorologist and he agrees. Plus I've been looking at the sky for the last 45 years and know what I am talking about.

Like you, I use multiple OSs Ubuntu, Mac OSX, Windows, iOS, Android - don't see what the big deal is about...??? Or, in other words.... If you get that passionate about an OS - get a life!

Pah, you're ALL wrong anyway - OS2 - now that was a manly operating system; no, no wait - AmigaOS!

And if anyone argues, I'm an IT Director for an organisation with 20,000 users and have worked in IT for 21 years....

Ergo - I'm the Best

[dribbler 6]

I like Monaco. It's twisted too.

[Delta 0]

Good grief!

We agree that a user is far more likley to get a virus running windows than any other OS. We agree that this is mainly because most viruses are written for windows and exploit IE and windows vulnerabilities.

In the face of this you insist that windows has 'good security underpinnings'. I disagree.

Well in that case, no OS has good security underpinnings because no OS can tell the difference between malicious and normal code being executed, as you're obviously such a genuis maybe you should phone Microsoft and tell them.

How about google?

They banned windows from their offices last year after the chinese hacking case and now offer only linux distros or OSX to their employees.

Why?

They said security.

Please don't just tell me that google is just dishing out anti-windows propaganda. Google and apple do not have a good relationship, so it's unlikely they'd try to boost apple market share is it.

Oh please, you really are ignorant, aren't you. I actually love Android, and own an Android phone, but Google has a vested interest in FOSS. The reason their machines were attacked was because some moron didn't patch their machines.

Please don't just quote microsoft's security blog at me. Windows is good for many reasons, but it isn't the most secure OS. It's better than it was, but it's still vulnerable. OSX is vulnerable too, but less exploited.

I'm quoting facts, if anyone's quoting propaganda it's you, with Apple propaganda

Last - if you think I'm just a windows hater, get someone who thinks OSX or linux is best at everything on this forum and watch me argue with them too.

I don't think you're a windows hater, I think you're an argumentative, ignorant troll.