Closing the door on Vista

I spotted an article recently, entitled " Closing the Door on Vista." It explains how some companies' IT groups have decided to say no to Vista. For me, it sheds some light on how Vista has contributed to the recent success of Apple and OSX.

I've read quite a bit on using Parallels and Boot Camp but I've resisted the temptation to use anything but Crossover and even then only sparingly. I've made a clean break with Windows and I'm quite happy about it. We just got Office 2007 at work and it is beautiful compared to 2003 and earlier. I think it is quite possible I will break down and get Office 2008 on my macs some day soon. But that's about it for M$ software under my roof. I couldn't be happier with my transition from a half dozen windows boxes and one mac to a half dozen macs and one windows box underneath cobwebs in the basement.

I sincerely hope M$ discovers the advantages of leaving the network stack and filesystem to unix and focusing on the gui as a layer on top. This approach has helped bring Linux out of it's tiny niche as a server OS and this approach has brought stability and wider acceptance to OSX.

Meanwhile, I'm glad I switched. If the choice is new hardware to run Vista versus buying a Mac, buy the Mac. Parallels and Boot Camp provide an "insurance policy" in the event there is some windows software you simply cannot leave behind. I have chosen a clean break as a higher priority than clinging to a few old windows apps.

 

The "advantage" of doing that being....
- Incompatibility with existing Windows apps (which is the only thing keeping Windows afloat)
- Switching one set of working code for another.

No, I don't really see what they'd gain by doing that. The network stack and filesystems in Windows already works. What they need to do is fix all the things that don't work as well as in competing OS'es.

 

To be fair to Vista, a lot of medium-large sized companies, such as the one I work for, have only just recently upgraded to XP. I thought it was a joke but considering what goes on behind the scenes for a new OS roll-out I would say that even if Vista was the greatest OS ever built, a lot of these companies would still not be upgrading to it, not yet anyways.

Factor in the down turn in the economy and many companies are putting such plans on hold.

I do think that Vista was a little too heavy on resources for many corporate clients and MSFT has acknowledged that and said that Windows 7 will be much leaner. We'll see if that pans out.

For consumers though Vista hasn't been that bad IMO, especially if it's running on relatively new(er) hardware. I have taken XP off all my PCs at home and only run Vista now as it definitely has advantages over XP in many areas.

But I still prefer OSX for my own personal use and I think for most consumers OSX can meet their needs while delivering a much more pleasant overall experience, not having to deal with 3rd party driver/support issues which is the source of most complaints with Vista.

Has Vista been the driving force behind OSX's success? I'm not really sure but I think mac's recent successes have originated from the iPod explosion and peoples' renewed acceptance and openness to the "mac" platform.

It's also viral advertising; I have shown my MBP to my coworkers and almost all of them will be buying a mac as their next machine after seeing it in action through a colleague instead of a sales person. I think part of it is that many mac users appreciate and take pride in their macs and are willing to show it off to friends and family more readily than a typical PC user. I say this because I don't recall ever showing people a windows machine with the same enthusiasm as I did my mac.

 

Vista gets a lot of completely undeserved criticism. I haven't had a single major issue with it, and only a couple minor compatibility issues with older games. It's not that bad.

OS upgrades take a lot of time and work. The hospital where I volunteer just recently (within the last year) went from 2000 Professional to XP Professional and it was a ton of work and took a lot of time, they're in no hurry to switch to anything else regardless of how good it is.

 

Agreed... my roommate looked at me like I was retarded when I reinstalled Vista. He just goes off of what everyone else has told him and calls Vista a POS.

 

Serves Vista right! Microsoft made a bad move by rushing Vista to get it out, it had many bugs before SP 1 and still does. My brother uses it and tells me about all the problems with it. He now prefers Ubuntu over Vista even though Ubuntu does not have support for many thing he does. You can't tell me that is not sad.

 

You're amazing - it's like you can tell the future:

"Rushing Vista to get it out"...now that's sad.

 

seems to me that all OS's are rushed out, have bugs and are always better after the first big update like sp1 for windows..........the market demands it and manufacturers are pressed to release it before it's fully de-bugged due to market demands(as it's usually late).

 

Windows XP's release was just as problem-ridden, if not moreso, than Vista's. That's something the Vista bashers seem to conveniently forget. Further, it didn't help that hardware vendors weren't exactly on the ball when for providing driver support. This doesn't excuse MS from Vista's many annoyances (UAC, et al), but one needs to put this into perspective and look back at the history of Windows operating systems.

 

You mean like the way "Classic" mode disappeared from OS X? People will get over it. M$ needs to dump that legacy windows for workgroups 3.11 code and move on. Apple dumped their old legacy code and apps and even dumped powerpc processors and we are all better off for it.

Almost every app required a major rewrite to work with Vista and STILL you can't get proper networking up and running before the GUI. It's tough to port apps back and forth between windows and unix. But it can be done. With the deep pockets M$ has, they can afford to put a unix kernel underneath windows and even have windows kernel emulation for legacy apps (not unlike wine). And yes, not every app will continue to work. So what. Stability and simplicity are more valuable to the end user than backward compatability with code that is getting on 20 years old.

In the mind 1980's, when the personal computer was introduced, nobody was griping that they couldn't run their 1960's era COBOL code. But now in the "modern" era of computing, we get people whining about backward compatibility with code that was written to work with a gui wrapper that was loosely fitted on top of DOS.

 

If I am not mistaken OSx had a lot of issues when it was first released. It took some updates but it runs great now.

So all OS's get rushed out the door. Nothing new there.

 

I agree. You are not mistaken. OS X had its share of issues.

Nothing new about an OS getting rushed out the door but it did seem like Vista crawled out the door. I have been reading that MS learned their lesson and plans to release Windows 7 a lot faster after Vista than they released Vista after XP.

I experienced a number of those OS X glitches and while I found them annoying, they didn't waste a lot of my time or cause me to lose work. I accept updates on my OS X machines because I know OS X is still being tweaked.

 

happens every time a new os comes out... honestly Vista is doing about the same as XP did..... hell i remember running XP and having to turn off all the visual effects and settings to get it to run well...

Ive been using vista for well over a year now and my current set up out performs every operating system and set up ive used in the past..

Learning to weild vista effectively is worth it.. if you dont you will regret it once its the standard in a year or 2.

I guess i'm more of a hardcore user but i honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.. people are just 2 lazzy to learn. and honestly OSX is a operating system for simple people of older generations any one sub 30 using osx for the reason of ease of use has visual literacy issues.

 

Congratulations.

 

No, that's different, Mac OS X is completely re-written code from the previous Mac OS. System 6-9 was essentially the same OS. OS X had very good reason to have issues and the only real issues with OS X for the first couple of years is it was slower and of course the lack of software from developers that were still emphasizing on the older Mac OS.

Microsoft Windows has been the same since 3.1. Win95 began the true evolution but much of Windows is the same all the way to Vista. If MS totally re-wrote Vista like Apple did for OS X there would be no software available for it and that's a risk MS ain't willing to take like Apple did. It worked for Apple but MS is cowardly and still would prefer to put out a second rate OS because they know their die hards (fanbois) will buy it rather it's good or not.

 

Yea i agree with you on people not wanting to learn. I had my annoyances with vista when I first used it on my new laptop for the 1st time, but after reading this forum and taking a look at the vista tweak guide in the windows section, my vista experience has been very smooth. Ive used the guide to tweak some of my friends computers and they love vista now...people hate the UAC, but don't figure out how to turn it off...

 

That's a pretty ignorant comment, don't you think?

I don't consider myself "simple" by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I have any "visual literacy issues".

Atleast you got one thing right, the "kid" in your nickname. You've got a lot of growing up to do.

 

I was gonna reply to your post but the nice nurse came in and let me know it's medication time...

...there, that's better. Now I just gotta oil the wheels on my walker...

...there. All done. Now what was it we were discussing?

Oh, yes. Laziness. Hmmm. I pay for something and if it is awkward and poorly designed I'm lazy if I don't figure out my own workarounds so I can get it to do what I want? I think NOT!

There are plenty of comparisons of Windows vs OS X and this thread really isn't aimed at arguing one way or the other. The fact remains that a lot of IT folks chose to pass on Vista. Those same IT folks resisted XP for years, too. It doesn't make them stupid or lazy, just practical.

Are there things in OSX I absolutely had to turn off to make it work? Well, not by default. But I was annoyed by the default firewall configurations. I didn't have to touch them to get it working.

It isn't about intelligence, laziness or senility. It's about elegant design. How many clicks to get signed on to wifi? More in windows than in OS X. How many clicks to open a document? Generally more in windows than in OS X. How many clicks to install an application? Windows loses out on this one big time. How much interaction is there between versions of an application (dll hell)? Windows yes, OSX no. Can unauthorized users or process make unexpected changes to my settings without my consent? Windows yes, easily, OSX no. Viruses? Windows yes, OSX no (for now).

The best part of OSX for me is the unix command line. I can do everything there I once did for sys-admin on my old Linux boxes. It's extremely powerful and seldom necessary.

If I had a company deciding whether to deploy Vista, XP or OSX it would depend on who we had to collaborate with. In today's business market, OSX would win. A few years from now, I expect there will be a toss up between Windows 7 and OSX. I don't expect Vista to ever enjoy the success held by XP. This isn't purely because of issues with Vista quality but rather it is related to it's relatively short product lifecycle compared to XP.

M$ has promised to get us Windows 7 faster than they got us Vista. I think their decision was influenced by open rebellion of users against the steep hardware upgrades required for all that eye candy and bloated Vista kernel. It was also influenced by corporate IT balking on Vista indefinitely. This is different than the delay in embracing XP. XP didn't require a huge leap in hardware like Vista does and many companies are limping along on 3 year lease cycles. This means the absolute soonest they could get Vista capable hardware without early lease terminations will be some time after Windows 7 comes out. And windows 7 promises to be able to run on XP hardware. This is the reason Vista will be skipped. Not emotion. Not prejudice. And not geriatric, lazy users.

Now where did I put my Aricept?

 

People who have "no issues" with Vista are usually those who don't even realize the issues. For example, my friend just built a bad-ass computer with a top-of-the-line quad core and a 9800GTX with 4GB DDR-2 etc etc blah blah. He installed Vista, and was generally quite happy. I yelled at him to install XP and he refused at first. He said, "Why would I install XP when I have no issues with Vista?"

The thing is, when I finally convinced him to plug in a spare drive to just test-drive XP, he did, and XP is SO much faster doing the EXACT same tasks as Vista! He's since switched back to XP, and is happier, because while Vista did work "fine," it was slower doing the same thing XP does speedily.

That's about the best reason I can give you for using XP over Vista. That said, I don't like Vista for other reasons. It feels so unnecessarily bloated, the power management options are a MESS, and, really, DX10 is a big waste of time.

 

I'd switch back to XP for my desktop now that I've tried it with Service Pack 3 (virtually with VMWare Fusion) without any issues. Only four things preventing me from switching back:

1. Vista is running very nicely on my desktop.
2. I already filled up my 250 GB drive with lots of video's and music (of the legal variety), as well as a plethora of games, and the software I use for my day job (Visual Studio).
3. VMWare Fusion allows me to keep using XP for things that don't quite work the way they should under Vista, but those are being updated eventually anyway so I may find myself dropping XP altogether.
4. Mac OSX tops my list of OS's to use. Now that several critical applications are available for it to allow me to do my work, I'm beginning the transition to migrate more into using my MBP.

 

What, exactly, was he trying to do? And how much is "so" much? Did he have Service Pack 1 for Vista installed?

Check out this article for more info on just how much faster XP now is than Vista.

 

This thread (based on its content) doesn't qualify to be in "Apple and mac OS X" section.

 

Apple's own successes can be attributed to Apple. Lets start with the 8 core Mac Pro. This is actually a good deal compared to a comparably equipped Windows machine. The iLife software was also a huge hit with customers. The Ipod and the iPhone are themselves ground shattering devices that every company was scrambling to copy.

Vista's biggest competitor is XP, not OSX. The reason why few companies are switching to Vista is the same reason few companies are switching to OSX. It does not provide an improvement in productivity for the cost it takes to implement.

BTW, the unix command line is a nightmare for IT guys. Just another unnecessary toy for amateurs to play with. That's why XP machines have their RUN command disabled here.

 

Just ANYTHING. Opening Control Panel. Opening ANY application. Everything is faster in XP. I can't speak for gaming, which your link is indicating.

 

I don't know if XP is faster when you count the milliseconds, but it doesn't exactly take a lot of time to open programs in Vista. I didn't notice any difference in that regard when I went from my old XP desktop to my new Vista desktop.

 

get real
and with a quad, who the heck would even notice

and I agree, whats this doing in apple/mac section!!!

 

In my opinion, Vista is only a problem if you attempt to run it on inferior hardware (and by that I mean something that isn't a dualcore with at least 2gb of RAM). If you have at least those specs, then Vista is great and smooth.
The problem with your argument of saying that things could be faster and smoother again in XP, is where does it end? Things are great in Vista, but could be oh so much faster in XP, no? But why stop there? They would FLY in Windows 2000. Or you could roll back to Windows 95 and it'd be BLAZINGLY fast!
The only reason I don't have Vista bootcamped with OSX here (I have XP) is that my MBP has a 120gb HDD and Vista takes up more room than I'd like.
But really, if you have a decent computer I don't see a good reason NOT to use Vista.

 

Vista may have been a reason for some to buy a Mac for a while, but in the long run I see Vista helping the Windows platform. It greatly narrows the feature gap vs. OS X (built-in desktop search, gadgets/widgets, desktop eye candy, bundled photo and calendar programs) and offers security improvements over XP (UAC, ASLR, bundled Defender antispyware program, IE 7 protected mode). And Vista does a lot more for you automatically, like downloading drivers, defragging, and finding patches for applications that crashed.

Most of the issues at Vista's launch have either gone away or become less significant over time. Stability is fine with SP1 and current drivers. Vista's RAM, disk space, and GPU requirements just aren't as big a deal anymore as they were over a year ago when Vista was launched. Program incompatibilities have generally been fixed by now.

Sure, some people will still avoid Vista for a while because of the reputation it has due to earlier problems... but that should go away over time. And then it'll be time for the next version of Windows....

 

Your "if" statement is quite a big one. There's a ton of people out there who don't have top-of-the-line systems. There's currently no reason to use Vista over XP when XP is definitely faster on ALL hardware, anyway. That's the big deal. There are, however, many reasons to use XP over Windows 95.

But let's stay on topic.

 

You keep saying that XP is faster on all hardware, yet the only evidence provided in the thread shows that is not true. Repeating something over and over again does not make it true - it just shows that you're a fanatical fanboy which rejects evidence to the contrary.

 

Wow. Talk about ad hominem. Gaming scores do not contradict anything I've said, and I'm not in the business of fanboyism, but thanks for caring. My opinion is just as valid as anyone else's, and those that know me well enough know that I call things as I see them, not how I want to see them.

And just to cite some websites so I can be one of the cool cats....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/microsoft

http://www.bauer-power.net/2008/02/why-is-windows-vista-slower-than.html

But no doubt this just my rampant fanboyism at work.

 

Dot be and ignorant, arrogant, fool. We don't like those types of people here. If people like something that is simpler and more effective for them, it makes sense doesn't it? I am frankly sick of Windows XPs glitches and bugs causing me to restart my computer every week or manually have to go through settings to fix an issue. I am dead set on moving to OS X with my next machine, and nothing is going to stop me.

In case you didn't notice, computers were made as tools that would make our lives easier. So EASE OF USE is looked at when getting a computer. If Microsoft just happens to suck worse at it than OS X that is their problem, not the consumers. Quit being a Microsoft fan boy and accept the facts.

 

Meaningless links. No benchmarks, no testing methodologies. And you never answered my question about Service Pack 1 being installed.

 

I agree with the person that said that Vista will run just as fast as XP will if you have at least a fairly modern computer with decent enough specs and you feed it enough ram.

I have used XP with 1GB of ram and it did not feel any faster to me than Vista does with 2GB-3GB of ram. The first time i ever used Vista i had the indexing turned on and things seemed to run a little slower but after the indexing was completed a few days later my computer seemed to run much faster.
Also, with IE if you turn of the Phising filter web pages might load a little bit faster.
You can also turn of Aero with Vista and run it in classic mode.

I prefer Vista to XP. It looks better to me and the overall package is better. I have also used Panther, Tiger and Leopard and for the most part i felt that Tiger was a better overall OS than Leopard is (the only improvement in Leopard for me really is Preview).

Leopard also does not run as well on older Mac computers and i have found that MacOSX also runs better with at least 2GB of ram.

 

I have Leopard running on an old G4 mini with 1 gig of RAM and it's not fast but it's fine. I didn't anticipate this thread focusing so much on Vista because for me the best way to close the door on Vista was Leopard. I still have XP at work. I call it hourglass heck. From recognizing a usb stick, to mapping a network drive, to virus scanning every document I open or create, there is an ongoing litany of delays that gives me the feeling what I'm doing is somehow getting in the way of more important tasks my OS and IT department think need to happen.

Perhaps another way of looking at this question is to consider the ratio of meaningful data to fluff. How much cpu is involved in responding to my needs now versus providing entertaining fluff. Examples of this fluff are aero in Vista and some of the visual effects in Leopard. I hope for the return of sanity to the windows world with Windows 7. While there's plenty of eye candy available in Leopard, I don't get the feeling the eye candy is setting the agenda. In Leopard, I have the feeling that the agenda is being driven by my data, my tasks and my priorities. I do see the spinning beachball from time to time, but really only when something has gone wrong and that isn't very often compared to my constant hourglass companion in windows.

Edit: I just stumbled across a list of the most annoying software on windows. Who took #2? Apple for forcefeeding Safari to windows users. I use Firefox on my Macs but I found that some things didn't work if I didn't leave Safari as the default browser. How M$ of Apple to do this Still, I'll keep my Leopard despite Apple dabbling in being annoying.

 

Wow, that article is spot on! Except that RealPlayer should've come before Windows Update, IMO, and Flash should certainly be higher on the list.

 

Yes it is, but a dualcore and 2gb RAM are hardly top of the line anymore. Vista is a modern operating system meant for modern computers. Installing it on XP-era hardware is only asking for trouble. Would you install XP on hardware that was new when Windows 98 was new?
There ARE plenty of great features in Vista that would get me to use it over XP, such as far increased security, the user-friendliness of the system, prettier UI, better included software etc etc.

 

I agree completely. (But I think Vista should run just fine on a single-core processor if you have enough RAM, no?)

Anyway, plenty of $500-$600 budget laptops are powerful enough to run Vista well. It's only really an issue for legacy hardware, or people who want to run Windows under virtualization. I have to admit, if I had a Mac and wanted to run Windows under virtualization, I might consider XP for the smaller memory and disk footprint.

 

I would not compare a corporate computer that has mandatory policies and software set on it to a consumer computer. It is not the same.

Both my xp and vista machines flies at home, however at work it is a different story. I have the privilege to have linux, mac/leopard and tiger, xp and vista machines. With the exception of linux, all others feel sluggish. Although I would say if the Mac was in its own environment, this may be a different story.

FYI apple's AD plugin and wireless support is just buggy. getting them to fix it is another story....

 

I remember these articles when XP first came out. People everywhere declared they would hold onto their copy of 98SE like lifejackets. It sounded like people would have to be dragged clawing with tooth and nail to use XP.

Honestly, Vista is miles ahead of XP. For one, you can setup a TRUE touchless unattended install. But I do agree. The damage has been done. Vista is damaged goods. When Microsoft delayed its release and missed the holiday season, it was downhill from there. Too many changes at one time for people. I guarentee you Windows 7 will have LESS changes than XP to Vista.

 

No.

Actually, it depends on what kind of software.

In my case, I like to use music production software that requires a reasonable amount of real-time performance.

With my single core HP's with 2GHz AMD Turion and 2G RAM (Max for these machines), using this software under Vista (even when Vista compatible) gave me glitchy performance at best, causing lots of pops and ticks in the resulting output.

Under XP this same software worked a lot smoother without the unwanted artifacts.

Still, I enjoy using standard office and developer tools under Vista on these machines. Luckily these types of applications are generally free of real-time considerations.

I also have a couple of modern macs (< 1 yr). that I purchased in the midst of my funk about Vista. To the person who said that Leopard closed the door to Vista for them, I would counter that Leopard opened the door to Vista for me, thanks to Leopard bugs and arbitrary removal of features I found useful. Seeing that Apple is capable of the same foibles as Microsoft has softened my view of Vista some.

That said, I have grown accustomed to Leopard, but I am also pursuing getting Vista installed on at least one of these apples for my development work.

Basically, all operating systems have their bugs and annoyances. It's a matter of finding which set you can live with and can host the applications you find most useful.

cycloptic

 

One of the things I like about Apple is that Windows (and Linux for that matter) can run natively on their hardware if you so choose. OS X is a toy for me, I use XP with Boot Camp to run some older games and applications, as well as my Nintendo DS Wi-Fi adapter. My main gaming PC runs Vista x64. For a larf I might install Linux on my MBP, either natively or through VMWare.

 

I must agree. Most of my hourglass time is waiting for mcaffee to virus scan everything, including word documents I created in the first place. This is something I would never enable on a machine if I was the admin. Back when I had windows boxes, I used zonealarm and avg free antivirus and I never set up scan of every single file on open.

As for AD, what I have found is that Leopard had some bugs when it first came out and these dealt with windows shares and probably with AD. I have had less than pleasant experiences with windows networking over the years and based on my experience, and I'm not even trying to be objective about this, I would more quickly suspect some issue with Active Directory itself rather than Apple's implementation.

 

My sister needs a computer for Drexel university. I told her nooo vista. And Drexel recommends Vista. The minimum requirements for your laptop for drexel are enough to get you through vista but still anti virus software and anti trojan software is a big negative for us. Yeah it does help get rid of viruses and trojans but macs are not prone to that ****. I told her to get the macbook.


I saw this on cnet this morning.

http://www.download.com/8301-2007_4-9949668-12.html?tag=cnetfd.mt


She uses im alot and well who knows what could happen on a network with so many tech geeks. (it is and engineering school)

 

My old boss now runs an all Mac network at his workplace and I can tell you Macs are just as prone to malware and viruses.

You should get an antivirus and firewall regardless of what platform you have. This is because Social engineering > OS security.

 

Huh?

There really aren't any viruses targeting OS X right now. Zip. Yes, it's a good idea to have a strategy to deal with them but they simply are not a credible threat today. I have clamxav but it never finds anything. Interestingly enough, I ran windows xp for years without any virus software because I never download and run anything from questionable sources. Toward the end of my windows usage, I did get avg free av because my kids had brought several thousand viruses in so they could play their freeware games.

There probably are or will be worms that target mac, but turning on your firewall along with keeping up on your system updates should ward them off effectively. What is more critical than antivirus software on OSX is to turn on your firewall before you head over to that free wifi hotspot. This is especially important if you have enabled apache or ruby on rails as there are many known exploits when you run a web server.

 

There are TONS of viruses and malware out there that target macs. Heck you can probably google a list. Ask a SOBER Mac system administrator (Good luck finding those) and they will tell you. Heck, many Linux exploits will work on OSX.

Malware has been attacking Macs for ages. Not the kind of viruses that randomly show up on your computer, but they ones that attack Safari and are loaded through email attachments. In fact, the vast majority of malware enter systems not through software exploits, but through through email attachments or just plain ol Javascript. No exploitations or hacking necessary.

 

I took a trip over to google and found TWO pieces of software to attack OS X. One was a harmless prank and the other requires the user to install and run the thing so it can hijack their dns for phishing. Two is not tons. Your sig indicates you are a windows user. Your assertion that there are tons of viruses when in fact there are exactly 2 taken with your (apparent) lack of first hand experience with OS X is not very convincing. I see you popped over to another thread dealing with keyloggers to attempt the same thing there.

The thing is, while I'm annoyed with your approach I don't want to put so much energy into correcting you that I obscure the fact that OS X will not remain safe forever. OS X will get attacked. Eventually. As OS X market share grows and as it has been around longer, more and more people will figure out ways to compromise it. But for now OS X is relatively safe. On windows, every little process runs with root priviledges. On unix, very few things run as root.

Here are a couple of sites that seem deal with real OS X security issues and not rumor, inuendo and wild speculation...

why osx is relatively virus free

securemac

 

If you want you to waste your hard earned money get a macbook. If you want value for your dollar get a PC. Macbooks are also prone to viruses and spyware. Safari has many vulnerabilies. Then don't come back to this forum searching for "How to run windows in a mac?"

 

I don't pretend one operating system is safer than another. Nor do I pretend any system is invulnerable or less likely to face downtime. While my personal machine is a Windows system, my first job was a junior assistant administering an Apple Network. My old boss and I have gone back and forth on the security merits of both systems (this was back in the days of the Power PC) and I have seen all the views and angles of the "which one is safer, Mac or PC." The fact of the matter is, neither one is safe. Both will face downtime. Both will face threats. And without proper measures in place, both could face potential disasters. For example, a virus could take control of a computer, send so much spam that certain ISPs ban traffic from your IP address. Or say, a virus tries to flood your SMTP server (the firewall shut it down before that could happen). My approach is to instill a readiness, an edge to anyone who wants to secure their personal computer or business. There is a good quote I ran across playing Rainbow Six.