Why Microsoft's Windows is Safer Than the Apple's Mac

Mac users have long gloated that the Mac OS is safer than Windows. The gloating should stop: There's plenty of recent evidence that Vista is, in fact, a safer operating system than Mac OS X.

The most public piece of evidence is the recent "Pwn to Own" challenge, in which security pros were issued the challenge of trying to break into three laptops, a Mac, a PC laptop running Vista SP1, and a laptop running Ubuntu.

[fenderputty]

aren't this back and white though. There's this gray section in which the Windows OS owns most of the market. Hence ... more hacks/viruses are made for Windows since that's where most of the PC users are. This might all change if Mac's continue to gain private market share but, the business market is still going to be dominated by MS for a while.

[decapitator]

"This might all change if Mac's continue to gain private market share but, the business market is still going to be dominated by MS for a while."

Completely agree with you. They seem to be gaining it at a much faster rate than while Microsoft their share at a much quicker rater.

[sloth4urluv]

I agree, who is going to waste there time to annoy the minority?
As macs become more popular osx will develop just as many exploits as windows.

I dont really see what this has to do with gaming. I do find it funny though that the majority of the sony fans in here are quick to talk smack about windows just because its a microsoft product. Im sure a large majority of them are running some version of windows right now.

Im not too sure about macs, they run pretty solid and stuff, but thats mainly because they dont really have to worry about compatibility. Making a stable os that is compatible with a wide range of hardware is rather difficult. If I got a mac im not really sure what I would do with it besides surf the internet and type some documents, most of the software I would be interested in using is for windows, so why would I want to pay more money for a product that im going to get less out of?

[xhairs]

It's called N4G, News 4 Gamers. However, this article is under INDUSTRY if you look at the top, meaning Operating Systems Industry. Wow, people like you are incredibly ignorant. You made a great point and then had to throw in the "you know people who are such sony fanboys blah blah." And the funniest part about this whole thing, SONY ISN'T EVEN MENTIONED!!! Not even someone in a comment mentioned Sony. Jesus you make me glad I'm still in college...

[mirroredderorrim]

I dunno about Mac. But because of Vista, I had to disassemble my entire computer, twice and I had to send back and reorder the same parts just to make sure it wasen't the parts. Vista was really F'ed up when it came to clean installs on new parts bought with consideration for the next as well as for Vista/SLI compliance.

Point being: not even carefully planned events are safe from B.S.
I'm now using an Imac that I bought during the frustration.. I think I'll wait on a stable OS from windows or just switch to XP:SP2,
Edit: - before I put my PC back together.

[Adriokor]

If you got a mac, i doubt you will want to go back.

[wow4u]

If you have that much trouble, perhaps you should buy a Lenovo, HP, Dell or other machine.

I've built 3 machines with Vista (i build boxes for family/friends) and have never had a stitch of an issue. Of course, in the early days, Nvidia was neglecting their Vista drivers, so I avoided them.

But, Nvidia is finally starting to take some ownership for the problems they have been causing. They're promising better things w/ their next drivers.

[Bleucrunch]

everyone knows that windows aint safe who are you tryin to kid???

[IntelligentAj]

Well if you take the time to optimize and protect your PC it's just as safe as Mac's.

[jaja1434]

*According to the article* by everyone, you mean those who are either so biased against MS they can't see the truth or are so in the dark about information they just follow the crowd...

[drewdrakes]

Ive never got a virus, maybe youre retarded?

[Valin]

OSX is much harder to program hacks for, therefore it takes hackers more time and since they have a smaller market share, less penetration. E.g The reason hackers go for windows is because it's easier to infect more people. Also with leopard I don't have to click 'Yes, I want to proceed with this action' every minute.

[Rice]

u kno u can turn it off...

[jaja1434]

How does it take more time/effort if the system was hacked in 2 minutes?

[K1ng0fG4m3z]

Just to clear the fact when you said "Yes, I want to proceed with this action" you dont need to press it everytime if you look is clearly has a box that you can checking saying "never ask again".

[DJ]

Well it asks Permission to do something every 5 seconds, so I'm sure it's secure. Hell, sometimes it even asks permission to ask permission. =P

[wow4u]

You can turn that off. Secondly, OSX is simply a FreeBSD fork, it you wish to run UNIX on the desktop, GNU/Linux is a much better option.

Save much $$$. No $130 yearly 10.x updates. No overpriced hardware.

[thewhoopimen]

The PWN it to Own competition wasn't a relevant test for the security of MacOSX. The authors of the hack had prepared the hack months in advance and thus were able to perform the hack as needed for the money. The blog is misleading in that sense.

[illizit]

Then why wouldn't they just create a hack for the windows machine in the same way? Thats right, because Vista is safer.

[ITR]

Wrong 6.1, if you would've read the contest site you would've found out the hackers did not anticipate SP1 Vista. So they had to do a rewrite and do a work around. They had plan to do the same thing to OSX as to Vista...only this one got patched.
The same scenario would have played out for OSX too if it too would have been patched a few weeks prior.

[illizit]

Which further proves my point, because of SP1 it is more secure than OS X.

[DailyAddict]

What's usually typical about Windows and insecurity is usually found in Third Party applications. Part of the main reason Macs are typically considered safer is part what a few of you mentioned above (more people simply target Windows since it affects more people), as well as the fact that you can't really install anything on the damn machines.

Even in this contest, they broke through Vista THROUGH third party applications. Before that, they couldn't just get through on the system itself.

In reason, it actually makes sense. The more stuff you allow to be loaded onto your computer the more insecure it will be. Mac will barely let you install 90% of accessories with software attached let alone pure applications.

It's a simple give and take.

[Jen5en]

A large percentage of OSX is open source, Linux is completely open source... these are the forces that Microsoft can never deal with. Windows will always be inferior in terms of functionality, stability and even security, though this artucle argues otherwise. 500 engineers can't outsmart a userbase of 5,000,000 geeks. When you switch from Ubuntu to Vista, it feels like going from Vista to 3.11 in terms of functionality. Suffice it to say, with implementations coming in every day and a userbase updating the software with accelerating speed, MS can only dream of being on a somewhat even level with both OSX and Linux... unless they too jump the open source bandwagon, which they won't.

PS: "The Ubuntu machine was never successfully breached." It's right there gentlemen... Linux is the answer, if you can afford to lose PC gaming that is. :)

[Bladestar]

typical anti microsoft... linux geek wanna be.... dude this article is about windows vs Mac OS.... did you noticed that?

And what the hell are you talking about in term of functionality? copy/paste? view folders? PIN another computer? please talk to me... what do you mean about linux having functionality not available on Windows?

last time I checked OS are made to run programs (i.e. Games) and windows for the most parts run almost everything available on linux since most programs in linux are written on C, C++ or Java which are all cross platform and supported by windows.

Here... can you run DirectX 10 on linux?... but but... but... OpenGL is better.. yeah... Windows Can run that too.... can linux run .net framwork 3.0? no... I can name thousands of programs and games that windows can run that linux cant...

that should be enough to shut any argument you can come up with... unless you are a network admin or company running linux servers doing a specific task... like hosting a site, MySQL database linux is not even an option for someone trying to do something other than looking at how nice the icons on the desktop look.

Hell.... last time I went to gamestop, target, or any major store... I didn't see any section where I can buy linux software... or games... until linux support as many programs and games as windows... it's irrelevant... ohh and by the way... I took a few CCNA courses and written a few VOIP applications on linux (do to free nature of linux) to parse and process SIP protocols between servers in different regions. I can use linux more than most and know details... just in case you think I don't what i am talking about.

Linux has its place... just like a car can replace a toilet... linux is not a mainstream OS... it sucks that some people that just learn how to change a plug and play memory stick... try to use the little they know to talk against windows and pro linux as if linux can be use by anyone... the whole linux will kill windows cause is better is being going on for ever... but it never will...

WE have a better chance of windows being distributed for free and partically open source than linux being free... not every company find linux model finantially worth it. and not every company like saving $1000 by not buying windows servers... installing linux and then pay $200/hour when something goes wrong.

[Jen5en]

...I was wondering when you would show up... really... I was.

First off, yes, Windows runs Direct X 10, yes, it runs games. I respect these arguments. However, I would dare to say that none of them have anything to do with my comment. I argued that Linux was superior provided that you could LIVE WITHOUT PC gaming, and I find Direct X useless with gaming out of the question.

Secondly, I agree that Windows is a more widespread OS and I certainly wouldn't recommend Linux to 'noobs' who wouldn't bother with the terminal and all that. What I say though, is that since Microsoft's dev-team is nowhere near the size of the armies of geeks fixing bugs and adding to the Linux experience, the end result is a better product. The cube, for example, is a brilliant example of the sophisticated solutions Linux offers. Put shortly, Vista doesn't offer a thing that Linux hasn't. 3D flip, Aero, live video in the taskbar... it's been there forever in Linux.

Thirdly, Linux has conquered a great share of the server market. Debian Linux seems to be on everyone's lips when it comes to server reliability, security and modification... oh... and it's free. Which leads me to my final argument;

PRICE. It costs zero dollars... as in nothing. At all. I wish to be clear on this. There is little to no reason why a company should fork over 2 grand on a server solution that's less reliable with extremely expensive licenses. 2 grand PER LICENSE. Now, consider the banking manager looking at his 50000 servers... don't you think he would 'bother' to hire a few Linux nerds? Millions of dollars can be saved.

All in all, if Linux becomes as easy to use as Windows, MS will face a product that's free, more reliable, prettier (oh yes, you should check out those new Ubuntu skins) with tons of functionalities and secure. If none of this makes sense to you... then I don't know what will. Judging from your previous posts, I fear it won't.

[wow4u]

"Thirdly, Linux has conquered a great share of the server market."

GNU/Linux is replacing older UNIXs (HPUX, AIX, SunOS). Further, Windows is still actually gaining more of that Big-Unix marketshare than GNU/Linux is.

Look it up.

[mirroredderorrim]

And bubble for the enjoyable read.

@6
I agree there too. It would have been much more exciting and interesting to see these people do it on the fly. No preperation or anything.

[NIN64]

April Fools (damn this is getting old)!!!!1!!.....

[myke6699]

with windows i had to install anti-virus program which in turns screw my other programs (like iTunes). i remember having to spend hours fixing the computer so it would run at a decent speed. spyware, tons of viruses. last week i bought myself a macbook pro. it's a nice machine and i will never ever use microsoft products again. I do fear, though, with a lot of people jumping to os x, it's a matter of time before it becomes as vulnerable as windows.

[Sprudling]

I haven't used anti virus or firewall for about 4 years. Neither do I have a router, so my ip is my external ip. The best way to be safe is simply to be smart.

Still using XP btw, cause some of the applications and tools I need (for development) still isn't compatible with Vista.

[PS360WII]

April Fools!

[hunter21]

hahaha.... dang thats why i dont like april.

[Pain]

Ask your self this...Can u run your windows OS 2+years and NOT run any form
of Virus/Spy/mal or Script software and Have the Thing Run like u just bought it?

lolwindow's
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13... <- truth hurts.

[JasonPC360PS3Wii]

They are talking about "Vista" you idiot.

[HondaSIRowner]

The world of Windows is crap! Too many bad things to talk about that Operating system. To much! Microsoft's time has come.

[TheExodus]

Of course Vista is more secure than Tiger for the simple fact that "they" can't hack it if you can't boot it ;)

[pshizle]

give me a break Vista is more secure than OS X

[zonetrooper5]

I would rather use Vista/XP and Linux than the OSX. They have more software and hardware support plus games etc so I'm more likely to use that OS rather than a Mac which in the first place is way overpriced like most Apple products.