No, security experts said last year in a report that there's no reason why more viruses aren't being written for OS X. I can't remember if who actually wrote the report but I think it was Symantec. They said that Tiger's security features were not immune to attack, but for whatever reason, Macs were not being targeted aggressively. You're right that a virus author, for the sake of ego alone, would code a virus but it hasn't happened yet.
Y'know... I can't find the original article that I read and everything that I found so far are white papers written by Symantec or McAfee. You're right that a conflict of interest exists and it's likely that the "objective" source that I thought I read the first time was simply the Internet Security Threat Report XII by Symantec and so I'll attribute their evaluation to bias.
I would also argue that a computer user with any amount of basic sense would be free of viruses regardless of the machine they use. Download in moderation, don't click banners and random links, and you won't have a problem even in Windows. I've never had a virus on my Windows rig and I download more things more often than most people I know.
Well, they aren't.
What evidence do you have that warrants such a sweeping generalization?
The former is not a great idea. It's a violation of the licensing agreement to do so, so it'll be unsupported. They can't even get wi-fi to work on the hack yet, and installing OS X on unsupported hardware opens you up to other incompatibility issues. If you want the advantages of OS X, suck up the insignificant cost different and buy the real deal.
Yeah, and that's why so many people used the hacked version of Tiger, right?
One of the many reasons Apple is not interested in releasing OS X for use on non-Apple hardware is that it is able to test against a finite number of hardware configurations. One of Microsoft's challenges is having to test its OSs on only a subset of the possible permutations of hardware configurations.Last time I checked, Macs ran on intel chips, used DDR2 ram, and used the same hard drives as PCs. Maybe the two button mouse will overload the system
Are YOU serious? Suggesting that there is a $1000 price difference in comparable hardware only serves to reveal your ignorance about today's pricing. If it were 1995, you'd be spot on. It's not 1995.
If someone was tech savvy enough to build their own rig, they wouldn't be debating between Dell and Apple because they'd know what they'd want after doing the research and checking out the components. Besides, are we still talking about laptops here?
Yeah, and that's why so many people used the hacked version of Tiger, right?
Apparently your standards are much higher than mine.
$999. So, yeah, that's $650 more. If you're in the market for a $350 PC, then you're right: A Mac is not for you.
You must like really skinny girls.
1. Garageband
