r505Matt said:
Security is a state of being, not something situational. You can't just change up the variables just to suit your purpose, you have to keep consistencies or there's no point. So a well locked bankvault which people know to contain billions or a fairly poorly locked bankvault which people know to contain billions of dollars. There's a difference in 1 variable, not 2. A well built castle defending a vital point or a poorly built castle defending a vital point. Again, the only different there is a variable in security. Otherwise you an say whatever you want to suit any purpose, and has no bearing on validity, and doesn't contribute to a discussion. The fact of the matter is that Windows suffers repeated continuous attacks at all times, whereas Mac OSX doesnt. However you interpret that is up to you. As someone put it, MS has gone through a trial by fire, and has come out stronger and better for it. If Apple were hit by the same force, I'd imagine their security could fall apart. |
But in the Mac/Pc debate there are two variables - you make a lot more money from kacing PC's than you do macs, because more people use them. So thanks for admitting my comparison is perfect :)
And this is why I said that you would be better off reading my first post properly
"2) Whatever the reason, Mac is more secure. This guy, as a computer hacker, defines security purely in terms of the strength of the code. I would define security in terms of how much threat viruses pose to your system. A bad castle in the bronze age is more secure than a good castle in modern times. However, it's not a hugely important point, because neither definition is inherently right, and really it comes down to semantics."
