Real Costs of Win7 upgrade.

oh that's got to be sweet news. That commercial of PC users upgrading to Macs instead of Win7 might be spot on !!

Gartner's VP of research, Michael Silver, believes that -- in a hypothetical organization with 2,500 Windows users -- the cost of upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 7 will run $1,035 to $1,930 per user. Silver's cost estimate of migrating from Vista is a fraction of that number: from $339 to $510.

If that's not bad enough try THIS !!!!


close fight but I don't think we'll see any upgrade to Win7 until 2012 or later... whereas I bet OS 10.7 will emerge late next year or early 2011.... Apple seems to upgrade their system about 2 times for every new MS OS. You can bet that since SL was all functionality, the next upgrade will most likely have some dazzling new features and tools.

Whadda think ?

"I could push things even further and point to today's "PC vs. Mac deathmatch: Snow Leopard beats Windows 7" as evidence that the Mac will eventually become the default corporate desktop."

That would be a major, major coup for Apple!
But, it makes me think that the MacOS would then become the target of all those viruses and mal/spy/etc ware, and that is not something I wish for. I kind of enjoy the security of the 'underdog' OS.

From the Win7vs SnowLeopard Deathmatch link:

Windows 7 even includes a virtual "XP mode" for running legacy programs.

Snow Leopard also has a virtual "XP mode". It's called Parallels.

And OS X had Classic Mode once upon a time. Is Win7 about 8 years behind OS X now?

LOL !!

I tend to agree Mike

I think Apple sweet spot would be around 20% market share - strong enough to keep innovations coming and still not be the top target for hackers

iPod should be 90% and whose gonna hack that ?

iPhone should hover around 60% , after all it is already been attacked by hackers at 23%

iTunes should be at 95%

App Store 80% = Apple built apps

Apple TV - is a dead dog - I mean that is muddy waters - Apple should come up with a TV thats wireless syncs with anything and play any game from any vendor -> You should see what I got in my living room , try and hook all those up to a TV , well wide screen .

Mobil.Me should be more wide spread like maybe 40% - seems to me Apple is slow on this future of could base initiative --> Maybe combine iPhone with a Vonage kind of service ?

Lets look at what MS has to sell ?

Win7
Xbox
Zune
Mobile apps and OS
Renewing licensing fees <-- MS biggie , IMO

Hey Steve....

you left out Microsoft Orifice !!

Can we officially give up on this idea that the only reason the Macintosh operating system has no viruses is that it is the small market share?

Five years ago that might have held water but now the Mac OSX is a very popular operating system. Any hacker who could actually get something out there would do it.

They cannot because OSX is much less vulnerable. That is the reason the OS is clean. Not market share.

I will agree that the "market share" going over 20% might not be a good thing but it is the egg coming before the chicken. If it went past 20% then the Mac would be changing into a boring corporate computer. If that happens it is likely that Apple can produce both a boring corporate OS as well as the system we want.

Well - ahhh I don't agree with all of that . Sure there are viruses for OSX . But think about it

1 - You want to steal people IDs to rip them off - only an idiot would spend the time writing a virus for 10% of the market that would be a the dumb arse of the world

2 - You want to spread a virus that really hurts the government or economy - only a dumb arse would write one for the Mac and leave the other 90% safe

Simply
MS has had 95% of the market share for a long time and them (criminals) learned X86 code , their not about to switch gears and learn Unix to stab at 10% of the market

I think if all the banks and government switch to Macs - then yes you will see a big shift

There are viruses on OSX? Could you name one? Could you also imagine the fame of a hacker successfully making a virus which spread in the Mac community?

You think all viruses are made to hurt the US economy?

You think hackers don't know Unix?

Answer me these questions four.

I will answer those questions - just right now I am not in the mood to search for articles that went way passed Sorry Pal ya just gonna have to wait or read the news more often

You can start with this

You want me to read a website dedicated to writing antivirus software? If I go to an AA meeting I will likely find a reformed drunk or two.

Name one virus that has been successful on Mac OS X. To be even a tiny bit successful it would have been mentioned in this forum. Do a search.

Then next you have my questions three.

Viruses spread without any user interaction, there have been none for OS X.

Now trojans can be spread but only by user interaction, that's why they are called trojans. There has been the QuickTime video codec thing that hijacked the DNS so web browsing got slow, but that's all it was able to manage. No data loss, no destroyed operating system. With that one you had to download and install a plug-in to supposedly be able to watch a movie from a site, and the sites get shut down quickly. It wasn't something that could spread by email, or by just going to a web page.

Not a virus, a trojan.

Feb. 2006. That thing's spread like . . . like . . . molasses in January?

That's one, who's hole has been plugged. I call it a trojan, yes I read the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_virus

For the worm to take effect, the user must manually invoke it by opening the tar file and then running the disguised executable within...Two common methods of protecting against this type of Trojan horse are avoiding launching files from untrusted sources, and using a non-admin account on a daily basis.

Of course all it did was attach itself, it had no payload. Why? It's too hard to attach a good payload, the root of the system is protected, even from an admin.

Leap does not delete data, spy on the system, or take control of it, but it does have one harmful effect: due to a bug in the virus itself, an infected application will not launch. This is helpful in that it prevents people from continuing to launch the infected program unawares.

So it was only meant to attach and spread, the only reason it had a payload was because of a bug in the programming of it.

Okay, name another in the 9 years X has been out. You said viruses, you named only one, and it was wimpy.

Wimpy? Wimpy eats burgers on Tuesday. This thing can't even tie its shoes.

Leap cannot spread over the Internet, and can only spread over a local area network reachable using the Bonjour protocol. On most networks this limits it to a single IP subnet.

It's not a virus. It's a used Trojan with no soldiers, no wheels, and that isn't molasses.

Sorry, that was an insult to Wimpy I guess.

Sorry Carp, but they are right. No viruses for the OSX. If there were, you can bet your ass that it would be news.

And I would be willing to bet you that there are kids out there that do know UNIX and would LOVE to be the 1st one to write a virus for the mac just for the publicity.

At least he didn't say virii!

I would tend to disagree, because a user can install an app in the application directory in OS X and write over it, which means a virus or trojan can too. That by default makes OS X less secure than it really should be. OS X at the core is an open source system and the flaws and vulnerabilities are widely documented and available for all to see. Typically at security conferences Macs are normally the first to get hacked, and at the last one I think the Vista laptop didn't get hacked at all.

OS X is typically no better than other operating systems in terms of number of advisories, or severity of advisories if you track them by companies like secunia. OS X has had 11 advisories, 78% of them highly critical and 18% of them remain unpatched. Vista had 26, 38% critical, and 100% are patched.

No, I think the reason you don't see as many viruses is simple economics. A hacker can toss together a PC for $250 to blow up to their hearts content, but an iMac will set them back $1200. Of course now with hackintoshes that's changed, but until OS X went intel there wasn't any route for a virus writer except buying a real Mac, which simply wasn't going to happen.

I would agree except for one thing Sarge.


Getting a virus into OSX and getting it to spread like in the Windows world would be a big feat. Someone would do it if it were so easy just for the ego trip and the news attention. Too many loonies out there...

Speaking of Loonies . .
If nothing else, Steve Ballmer would pay someone to do it !!

Bored tonight Sarge?

I just thought of this:

Microsoft is already known worldwide for it's Malware !

It's called Windows !!

In responding to Carp... the fact of the matter is that there are no viruses for OS X in the wild. Yes, security companies that also happen to sell you "solutions" have mistakenly classified a Trojan or two as a Virus. If you take the time to investigate any of the specific issues, that point will be made clear. I've blogged about it in more detail here.

http://technicalconclusions.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/the-reality-of-macs-and-malware/



Sarge, I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here. The Application directory may be open, but the existing apps generally are not. The application directory is open because any user can install an app, provided it doesn't need to install anything into the system folder (which is protected for a reason). Running a trojan from your home folder is no different from running it in your application folder. Now, having the ability to install something into the system folder is a legitimate security issue that you have not addressed.



Unfortunately, you're skipping many critical details when you make these claims. For starters, none of the systems were hacked on the first day. The Macs are only hacked after the relax the rules to the point where reality doesn't matter. That is, they couldn't just hack the Mac as is, they had to have the user do something specifically. As to the hacks themselves, they are not just discovered that day. The researchers come to the even with exploits they've already proven to work. Finally, I'm not aware of the event you refer to where Vista was not also eventually hacked. Please provide details on that one. Black Hat event, right?



Unfortunately, you're quoting meaningless statistics. You only know the percentage patched based on what Microsoft tells you. How do you know they haven't been contacted about an exploit but haven't patched it yet?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140704/Unpatched_SMB_bug_crashes_Windows_7_researcher_says



I believe there is partial truth in what you are saying, but I don't agree with the reasons you've presented. In fact, with the hackintosh example, you've already contradicted yourself. The fact is, Apple as been on Intel for years now and that hasn't changed a thing. There have been multiple Virus attempts, but none have been successful.

I will say this, Microsoft has done some things right. Their implementation of ASLR is currently better than Apples. However, Apple's BSD background has proven to be more effective than NT. Apple also doesn't have known gaping holes like ActiveX in their browsers for a reason.

Thanks for the link SteveS

No, those numbers are from secunia, a security company that actively researches and tracks such issues. Unpatched critical flaws aren't meaningless statistics, they're poor security on Apple's part.

I think we're arguing about two different things here. Yes, I agree with you that publicly known issues that companies like Securina are tracking should be patched by Apple on a more timely basis.

However, I maintain the notion that the statistics you're quoting are largely meaningless. For example, when an exploit is found, the researcher/hacker has a choice on how to proceed next. Some might try to use the exploit in the form of a virus, trojan, etc. Some will contact the manufacturer (Microsoft, Apple, etc.) and some might also choose to make it more publicly known such that companies like Securina can track it. The point is, exploits are found on all systems on a routine basis. At no point in time can you confidently say "all exploits are patched". That's simply not the case, regardless of who makes the claim. Though, to your point, it's never a good thing when there are publicly known issues that are not patched.

From/what/Ive/seen,most/OSX/threats/require/direct/physical/contact/with/the/targeted/machine,or/require/some/action/on/the/users/part.
Of/course,there/was/the/QT/exploit/which/was/easily/disabled/simply/by/switching/off/auto/launch.
The/Flash/and/Adobe/PDF/exploits/which/were/application/specific/rather/than/OS/specific.