Ummm... Ok... That's enough... Stop buying macs...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 25 2007, 08:26 AM) [snapback]530264[/snapback]</div>

Exactly. MOST home users would have no idea how to configure a router, and have no idea that with Windows a router is essential to security.

And BTW, my tiny little 7-ounce 5-inch-wide Nokia N800 lacks ethernet capability. The travel router I bought is so I can use the N800 where ethernet is provided but wi-fi is not, as is the case in some hotel rooms. I don't mind the tether. But it's not an option in this case. I give up ethernet in order to save five pounds of weight in my suitcase or knapsack. I can now do everything I need to do on the net while traveling, all for 3/4 of a lb, computer and router together. The N800 is a remarkable device. And now that a Netscape browser is available, and installed, the few browsing compatibility issues seem to be gone.

 

One of these days I'll have to get a Apple, the network interface with AppleTalk looks easy.
I just read a PC mag that anti virus programmers complaining about how hard it was to get their programs to work with VISTA do to the new security, so that's not true then?

My point is this all routers have to be configured regardless of the OP system or skill level. For example does apple have a apple friendly router the you just plug in and poof it works with no configuring?
I don't even thing people with apples would connect their computers directly to the net without some firewall or router between them and the internet.
B)


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 25 2007, 12:24 PM) [snapback]530286[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 25 2007, 01:08 PM) [snapback]530305[/snapback]</div>

I hear you.. I have a laptop the rocks, back in the day, with everything a desktop has right down the RAID with two hard drives, WIFI, TV card and camera and 17 inch screen. But back then I was using it onboard ship to do some college work not for moble use. Now it a pain it has to weigh over 10 lbs with the power supply and the battery is dead... :angry:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Oct 25 2007, 10:08 AM) [snapback]530308[/snapback]</div>

How about AirPort (and the newer models)? The only thing that must be done is to enter the IP address information and the wireless security level you want. But that little nuance comes with an 800 number for technical support that is completely familiar with set-up for the OS X environment (and is based in the U.S. for calls originating in the U.S.). (I know from personal experience about their knowledge for set-up with OS X.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Oct 25 2007, 01:18 PM) [snapback]530315[/snapback]</div>

Like anything else we get smarter about the technology and the devices get easer to use.. but I have not used the newer devices yet.. mostly stick with the CAT5.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Oct 25 2007, 12:15 PM) [snapback]530308[/snapback]</div>

First, Microsoft locked the antivirus makers out of Vista, refusing to give them the hooks they needed to implement their products. They had to go to court in order to force Microsoft to make Vista anti-virus friendly.

As for the routers... Every router i've ever owned has been plug and play. You plug in the cable modem and the computers, and out of the box it'll query the cable modem for an IP and assign IP's to all the computers connected to it. If you want to use any of the advanced features (firewall, port blocking, secure wifi, etc) you have to go into the configuration. But they want their products to be easy to use, and the easiest way is when it works right out of the box.

The point is, your average user doesn't know they need to take these security measures. They check the box that turns on Window's firewall and maybe install an antivirus program... thats it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 25 2007, 01:30 PM) [snapback]530322[/snapback]</div>

You just made my original point, which is the windows operating system is not to blame when it comes to routers and their difficulty of use. The original discussion was the security features or perceived lack of, in windows, requires complex router configurations to make up for windows lack of security features. So if you want those extra features you need to do more than plug it in and use, that was my point. But the high end routers such as my CISCO 800 series is far from plug and play, but that's why I bought it. :wacko:

 

Which actually seems to agree with the point Daniel and i were trying to make in that the basic security concepts Windows uses are inadequate. i won't hook my windows box up to just any network - but i feel perfectly fine taking my Macbook to starbucks or where ever and hooking it in to their wireless networks - it's an inherently much safer system. Even if i do get a virus on it (which is extremely UNlikely, whereas it's actually extremely LIKELY for a windows box), i know there's very little the virus could actually do to my computer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 25 2007, 02:12 PM) [snapback]530350[/snapback]</div>

Windows is the predominate operating system that people are learning to use and consequently abuse and hack into.
Apple is a very good system, so I’m told, but Apple is not constantly being targeted to the level as windows so any security flaws that may be in the system is not exploited and exposed like windows.
But if you feel good about apple and safe using it then go for it..
Apple hackers take note… B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 25 2007, 11:12 AM) [snapback]530350[/snapback]</div>

You might be surprised at how many viruses do get on the Mac; it is just that they can't execute. When I first switched to the MacBook Pro, my paranoia from the Windows world made me get an anti-virus and firewall solution (Intego NetBarrier and VirusBarrier). Periodically, VirusBarrier finds a virus on e-mail attachments.

My biggest complaint about the Windows world is the amount of effort that is required to stay 'safe' compared to the OS X world.

 

Mac OSX has build in firewall. It's in the system prefs along with all of the network stuff. All Macs have built in ethernet that you configure in the network prefs in the system prefs. If you have built in WiFi you configure that there too.

I don't enter any IP into my network prefs. It finds whatever I'm connected to. I do need to enter a password if there is one or name the system if it is a closed network. It's all pretty easy.

Now when I bought my cable modem, I did have to input info and configure that. Pain in the a$$ and had to call Cox several times. But that had nothing to do with my computer or the OS.

I can configure everything through system prefs and the Airport Administrator. I have my airport on a password. I also have file sharing turned off and firewall turned on.

You can also connect WiFi direct from the Internet Connection if the wireless is open and has no password. Like at Starbucks. Just choose 'find anything and connect to it' and there you go.

And you don't need any special OSX systems for different or more applications like iWork. If the computer you bought didn't come with iWorks, just buy it. You don't need a different operating system or a beefed up operating system to use iWorks. You're talking about software bundles. I prefer shopping for just what I want and avoiding bloated stuff I don't want and will never use. BTW our school computers came with iWorks already loaded on them.

One operating system.

Unless you want to run Windows cr@p

I use a PC at work and a Mac at home.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Oct 25 2007, 10:15 AM) [snapback]530308[/snapback]</div>

Take a look at the Nokia N800. It lacks some of the features/hardware of a laptop, but it's a surprisingly powerful computer that can do internet and email and Skype. It's got Bluetooth and Wi-Fi (not ethernet, unfortunately, but the Linksys Wireless G Travel Router WTR54GS is a lightweight companion that works fine with the N800, even though Linksys customer service says it won't).

7 ounces for the N800; 5 oz for the travel router; for a total of 3/4 lb. And if you know your destination has wi-fi you don't even need the travel router. (But I find that some hotels have ethernet but not wireless, so the travel router bridges the gap.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 25 2007, 06:01 PM) [snapback]530458[/snapback]</div>

Everything Daniel said... but I'd just like to add that if you have a bluetooth cellphone, you can go online nearly anywhere*.

*Assuming your provider has decent plans and allows you to do so. In other words, anyone but Verizon.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 25 2007, 03:01 PM) [snapback]530458[/snapback]</div>

Until you get the hotel with wi-fi that everyone decides to use at the same time and your throughput drops to less than 36 kbps.... That was what caused me to upgrade my Blackberry service to an 8703 broadband-capable unit. Windows XP Pro is still a resource pig, however.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 25 2007, 04:48 PM) [snapback]530246[/snapback]</div>

First, you are (deliberately?) misinterpreting my words. I never said that you must buy a router if you want to run Windows safely. You can also use the Windows built-in firewall if you configure that one properly.

Second, in virtually all home configurations, there is a router already in place. It just comes with the broadband modem as a single package and does the NAT translation. You have to have such a thing or similar to be able to connect to Internet. Why don't the manufacturers of modem/router combo's configure their devices more secure by default? The first rule about network protection is to properly secure the perimeter, and create a trusted LAN zone. That's the strategy you find in any book. For a home network, the NAT translation at the modem/router is the obvious place to do this. The manufacturers of SOHO internet access devices are equally guilty by not enabling the required security by default, which they could easily have done. The same situation with Wifi. Virtually any out-of-the-box Wifi base station is totally insecure unless you dramatically change it's settings.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 25 2007, 04:48 PM) [snapback]530246[/snapback]</div>

That is true. Fortunately, Windows doesn't require that to be configured safe.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 25 2007, 04:48 PM) [snapback]530246[/snapback]</div>

No operating system can enforce a proper procedure. You have to allow an admin login for system maintenance. You can enfore strong passwords in Windows, but you can't avoid people leaving post-its next to their screen with their passwords. This is just equally true for any operating system.
But you still don't get the difference between Microsoft and Apple. MS doesn't ship computers. Dell, HP or similar ship computers. They decide how Windows is pre-configured. And, in the past, they usually opted for the easiest, least secure configuration by default (just like the manufacturers of modems and wifi stations). In fact, all MS has done in Vista is make it much more attractive not to use the admin login all the time. They can only hope that (1) vendors will adapt to that and change the installation and (2) users will adapt to that and not return to using admin logins all the time.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 25 2007, 05:26 PM) [snapback]530264[/snapback]</div>

Is this "previous poster" you are referring to me? If so, could you please show me where I said that? All I said was that a properly configured router was sufficient to protect against the vast majority of attacks. But if, for some reasons, you can't rely on that, you can just use a software firewall (Windows has one built in since XP). I have connected my Windows laptops to LAN's all over the world, including some quite obscure places. They have always been secure and I never had any single incidence.

Your second comment actually made me laugh a bit. Any decent protection of a network of some significance relies heavily on "external and separately sold and configured pieces of hardware". Protecting the perimeter is by far the most important aspect of network protection. It is the only way to keep things in control, and to address certain issues that go beyond individual desktop computers. For example, if you want to enable file sharing in the LAN, you need to open up some ports on the desktop computers that you definitely don't want to be exposed externally. And what will you do with NAS? No OS can solve these problems without a dedicated protection at the perimeter (which might actually consist in a dedicated PC with two network cards if you want).
The idea of having a number of computers in a LAN somehow directly exposed to the internet has been abandoned 15 years ago.

P.S.
Let me take a moment to make my point of view on this whole issue a bit more clear. First, I'm by no means a Microsoft groupie. But I know quite a few people who seem to be obsessive about the evilness Microsoft and the badness of Windows. I can only give them one recommendation: get over it. MS indeed made mistakes, and has been lazy from time to time. But so has virtually every company in the field, including venerable companies such as Sun or SG. They are no better or worse than the majority of the pack.

In contrast to Apple and many others, their business model of a (semi) open platform, their obsession with backward API compatibility and support for legacy applications, and their long tradition of industry partnerships made them the dominant software provider. In this way, they contributed to shaping the structure of modern IT more then any other company (and I'm not talking about GUI's here). They were never very innovative and were sometimes very clumsy, but always understood the heartbeat of IT and what it needed. This is why they are in their current position, and not because they somehow have a better marketing department.

As a consequence, their software is making the world go round today. Lots of industries rely on MS products for their activities every day. An order of magnitude more than Apple has ever realized. And it works. IT specialists all over the world know very well how they can turn Windows into a stable, secure and versatile workhorse. There is a tremendous choice of 3rd party Windows business solutions, ranging from broad applications such as CRM, to the most specialized nice product. And there is a huge offering of specialized partners and consultants that assist companies with their Windows IT demands. This is an open, networked platform of commercial knowledge transfer that makes IT what it is now. Would Apple have done better? Maybe, maybe not. But there is a reason why they haven't achieved this: there closed business model wasn't equally well suited to this challenge. In fact, Apple has been sitting on their products for a very long time, being almost paranoiac about anyone who wanted to participate in their story. Ironically, the open system that made MS dominant also makes it less secure and more clumsy. That's just the way it is. Apple has the luxury of being able to control every single aspect of their computers, and doesn't has to care about legacy and 3rd party issues nearly as much as MS has.
Being in that position, MS takes a lot of wind. Every mistake they make (and they do!) is magnified by the scale of their market share. Added to that, there is a strong bias against the arrogance of a market leader (and they have been arrogant).

I like Macs. As a general applications home computer, I think they are superior to PC's. Easier to configure, more user friendly, and more fun. For many years already, I advice every non-computer-oriented friend or family member to buy a Mac if they ask my advice. But people who think that PC's and MS Windows are just inferior, crappy pieces of junk that just happen to be dominant because of some better marketing, don't understand a single bit of how IT works.

 

That is an outstanding assessment of the PC/MAC relationship!
are MAC safer becuse less people know how to hack it or is it the OP system.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Oct 26 2007, 04:39 AM) [snapback]530624[/snapback]</div>

 

vtie, you're confusing a home network with "any network of some significance". I'll agree - larger networks (like universities and the workplace) need to have protection at their borders - but they also have a atrained IT staff to make sure that happens. What about your 70 year old grandpa that has a single PC at home? Even assuming he has broadband, he's not going to be concerned with protecting himself at the modem - protecting the PC alone does just fine. And even for people on LAN's, you need to have protection for your individual computer - Can you trust that your friend/child/spouse down the hall isn't going to accidentally download something that infects their computer?

For a long time now, Windows has been lacking in some pretty big security areas, while OSX has provided a much better approach to security. The Windows "firewall" is a pretty big pile of crap, and has a ton of holes in it (not to mention it's a serious pain to configure properly). Before Vista, your default screen name had admin privileges - a horrible security concept but something that Microsoft had been doing since their first OS! Unix/Linux had moved away from that model a long time ago, and even Apple has been using limited accounts for a while!

Don't think that Microsoft got to where they are by having a superior product. They didn't. What they did do is provide an OS that works with hardware from pretty much all vendors but Apple. Back in the day, Apple was extremely strict (they still are in many ways) and pretty much drove any attempts at Apple knock-offs out of business. Thus, Apple didn't have any cheap computers that could run their OS, which severely limited their penetration and allowed Microsoft to gain dominance. From there, Microsoft really focused on the business world, and through offering some really great package deals to businesses positioned themselves as the defacto standard across most industries for your typical productivity apps. And because of this, it's been extremely difficult for anyone to break into the space - they have to ensure that everything the write is and always will be compatible with Microsoft's formats and programs.

Bill Gates is a genius when it comes to business and marketing decisions - and thats what positioned Microsoft where it is today. You can find a better replacement for any piece of Microsoft software - the only problem is you usually can't guarantee that you'll continue to be compatible with all the documents and files you get from people using the latest and greatest Microsoft programs.


The question here isn't what works for the industry - Yes, IT professionals can turn Windows into a decently secure workhorse that everyone is familiar with. The question is whats going on at home when you don't have those experts to do your setup for you. For home life, people really need an OS that enforces basic security principles that keep them safe. XP and before certainly didn't do that - I don't know much about Vista yet, as it still has a lot of compatibility issues. Which brings up another good point for OSX - everything just works. I've never plugged a printer, scanner, camera, keyboard, mouse or other device into my laptop and not had it work instantly with no interaction on my part. Windows isn't like that.

And before you go off thinking that I'm just a Mac fanboy with blinders on... I've only had my laptop for less than a year and its the first Mac I've ever owned. But in that time, i've had to do several orders of magnitude less work in maintaining it and securing it than i had to with my Windows based desktop.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 26 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]530676[/snapback]</div>

Good god.... that's so wrong it's amazing.

Back in the day, Apple sanctioned clones. They allowed other companies to build computers that ran MacOS. Seriously, they did.

Apple did put an end to that when people stopped buying Apples and started buying the clones. And the main reason people did that was because the clones were cheaper, more expandable, and just as well built as Apple's hardware (in some cases, better than Apple's hardware). Once Apple killed the clones, they set themselves on the path to becoming the mini-Microsoft that they are today.

I don't use Windows. I don't like Windows. But ironically enough, given a choice, I'd take Windows over a Mac just because I have more choices with Windows. It's not Jobs's Way or the highway with the PC.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Oct 26 2007, 09:17 AM) [snapback]530679[/snapback]</div>

I was pretty much just referring to the killing of the clones - the fact that there were clones in the first place was what actually allowed them to be killed The statement still stands if you look at it from the point of view starting when Jobs adopted his stance against clones and towards a more closed and controlled system.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 26 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]530676[/snapback]</div>

In fact, my point of view is that every LAN should have protection at it's borders. Maybe tomorrow your 70 year old grandpa receives an ethernet hard disk as a Christmas present to store all his pictures of grandchildren, and a little UTP cable to plug it in one of the 4 connections on his ADSL modem/router box. From that moment on, you need a perimeter protection. It is very easy to do at the level of the router, and yet many vendors have failed to activate it by default. Exactly the same situation with Wifi. Both are results of laziness of vendors.
But I agree with you that this should not be considered a 100% substitute for protection at the computer level. Both should be active in any network, everywhere.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 26 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]530676[/snapback]</div>

To my knowledge, starting with Windows NT, MS had a decent login mechanism with different levels of authentication. And on any system I know, the first account that exists after installation has admin privileges. It's up to the user to create limited user accounts afterwards. So I don't see how the Windows model is any different here. The only problem is that they did not actively guide you towards creating a limited user account, which they now do in Vista.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 26 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]530676[/snapback]</div>

Indeed not. But they had a superiour insight in the needs of the IT industry. They cared more for compatibility and legacy support. And they were much more open to partnerships. They always have encouraged the model of 3rd party value adders, which has been of huge importance in the development of modern IT. Apple has never really thought about anything else than themselves and their direct relation to their customers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 26 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]530676[/snapback]</div>

That could in theory explain why they can keep their dominance (although in today's web world this is much less of an issue). But it doesn't explain at all how they came there.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 26 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]530676[/snapback]</div>

I fully agree with that. This is why I always advice Macs to computer-illiterate people who ask about a home computer. MS Windows is an inferiour product for home computers, and has always been. But what actually happened is that MS gained dominance in the home world through their dominance in the business world (where they achieved dominance for several valid reasons). People used computers at their work, got familiar with MS products, and then the decision for a home computer was easy: the one they knew already from their work. This is how Apple even lost the battle for the home computer, although they always had a superiour product.
In fact, the modern web-centric home computing world has broken this circle, and I am curious to see if Apple will be able to take advantage of this. There are some signs that they are doing right now already.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 26 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]530676[/snapback]</div>

First, as I argued numerous times already, Apple is in a much simpler position here, because they have much more control over the entire system. MS doesn't control anything about the hardware. Not the computers, not the interface bus, and not the peripherals. And there are much more vendors for PC's then for Apple.
Second, I have to say that I think those bad days of troubles with new PC hardware peripherals are gone. During the last couple of years, every single piece of hardware add on that I installed worked flawlessly under Windows right after connection. And that included quite a some exotic stuff that you would never find for OSX. The only thing you need to do is make sure that the manufacturer's CD is in the drive. But, since Windows can't possibly know anything about those devices, that is quite logical.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Oct 26 2007, 04:10 PM) [snapback]530676[/snapback]</div>

I don't think that... In fact, I can perfectly imagine why many people prefer Macs over PC's. But I always try to encourage people to look at all aspects of the issue, and stay far away from blind brand zeal. Whether you like it or not, but MS has delivered a tremendous positive contribution to the (corporate) IT world with their superiour business model.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Oct 25 2007, 06:53 PM) [snapback]530532[/snapback]</div>

Any network that's overloaded will slow down. One must hope that the internet provided at a hotel will work properly. I've had several hotels where my wi-fi-enabled laptop would not connect to their hotspot. Usually, after much lost time, I find a tech person who admits it's the fault of their system. I've never had that happen when they provide ethernet.

I don't know anything about the Blackberry or "8703." But I chose my Nokia N800 because it runs Linux, rather than windows, and therefore does not require half a day of downloading patches before every trip.

There was a firmware upgrade, and because I don't have a Windows PC I had a hard time figuring out (with Jonnycat's help) how to do the upgrade. But once figured out, it took only minutes to do it, so from now on it'll be a snap.

I don't know if the Blackberry requires as many security patches every month as regular Windows. But I don't need my computer to be a phone. And I only use the N800 for travel. (Though if I did want it to be a phone, it's Skype-ready since the latest firmware upgrade.)