"Gordon Burditt" <gordon@hammy.burditt.org> wrote in message
news:12u5dbh46qg3f4d@corp.supernews.com...
> >Talk about prank! The fallacy that Macs are immune from viruses and
>>exploits is so much bull-hocky. Macs (and OS-X) are absolutely no more
>>impervious to these attacks than are PCs; it is simply that almost all the
>>exploits are against the PC, which account for 96% of all computers sold.
>
> Macs are certainly NOT immune. However, there are a number of
> features of Windows that certainly don't help the situation. One
> of them is being able to double-click on executable code that came
> from an outside source (email, web site, USENET) and RUN it without
> even having to save it as a disk file. Another is Windows hiding
> file extensions so you can't tell the difference between a piece
> of malware and an image.

Irrelevent to the thread. The discussion is whether Macs are immune to
viruses or not. The thread is not about what you think makes PCs more
vulnerable.

>
> Also, Windows usually gets set up (fixed in Vista, I think) with all
> users having administrative privileges. That's not a good thing for
> viruses being able to write on and infect system files (at least on
> systems with more than one user, other users get infected when the first
> one does. That's less likely if users can't write on each other's files.)

And again this is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.
>
>
>>If Macs were 97% of the computers sold, it would be Macs being attacked
>>and
>>PC users saying "get a PC". I love the look on the face of a Mac owner
>>that
>>has brought his/her machine in for a problem, and we tell them it was
>>infected...they actually believe that their machines are "impervious".
>>This
>>false sense of security is laugable, and dangerous.