Wait what? I'm just talking about this:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Top+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.google.com/search?q=Top+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Snow Leopard comes with... malware blocker???
- Thread starter heatlesssun
- Start date
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
There is no "App Store" for Macs, just the iPhone and iPod touch. What criccio meant was if you hit Google and do a search for "top mac applications" you're going to get results back that are lists of the most recommended and highly reviewed apps for OSX out there, which is a given.
There's tons of sites out there with tons of software for OSX... bleh, he beat me to it.
There's tons of sites out there with tons of software for OSX... bleh, he beat me to it.
There is no "App Store" for Macs, just the iPhone and iPod touch. What criccio meant was if you hit Google and do a search for "top mac applications" you're going to get results back that are lists of the most recommended and highly reviewed apps for OSX out there, which is a given.
There's tons of sites out there with tons of software for OSX... bleh, he beat me to it.
Right, which is what I said in my original post. I also said my uncle didn't have the internet back then.
soulesschild
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
I love it. I get to hit my co-workers back for telling me about how they don't need AV and stuff on their macs when I'm using Win7. Oh how payback's a bitch
And I agree with most people here on the Apple hating. It's not because it's inferior or anything, it's just Apple's marketing campaign is such garbage and full of BS, but people buy into it.
And I agree with most people here on the Apple hating. It's not because it's inferior or anything, it's just Apple's marketing campaign is such garbage and full of BS, but people buy into it.
YeOldeStonecat
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 11,330
All the WIntel PCs that I've had for myself since I started with PCs have not blown up on me.
Many years ago I worked at a maritime museum...most of the computers there were CrApples. Sorry..but support wise, they had approx the same failure rate as a decent brand WIntel. Hard drives are still hard drives, power supplies are still power supplies, RAM is still RAM, compare decent brands against equivalent decent brands and failure rates are still the same. Oh if I had a dime for every one I reinstalled the OS on due to staring at that animated watch.
The place I worked at 3x jobs ago had a big service department...that was Apple certified...their techs had just a big of a pile of 'em as the Windows side of the bench.
soulesschild
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Just because you say something doesn't make it reality. Apple has never said OS X was "hack proof" or anything similar. If you have evidence to the contrary, show it.
OS X security is worse than 7's. Is that consequential? No.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
Oh, I don't know...
There's an awful lot of Apple media, ads, and content out there that basically says as much... it might not say it word for word, but as Apple's marketing is counting on human stupidity to make money for 'em, they do know how to make a statement such as "Windows sucks and if you use it, you're gonna get infected with all sorts of nasty shit. Use a Mac with OSX and you won't have those problems..." makes a crystal clear implication, if there is such a thing.
It's as close to saying "You're safer using a Mac with OSX than Windows because we don't get viruses..." as you can possibly get.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Apple never lead Mac buyers to believe that their systems were hack proof? Proof! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K525x213r-0
Sure they never said that Macs were hack proof. They DEFINATELY implied it in this ad. There's just no doubt about that.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
PC: "There are 114,000 known viruses for PCs..."
Mac: "PCs? Not Macs..."
and the implication right there, without it even being said, is: "You're safer using a Mac with OSX than Windows because we don't get viruses..." as I just stated...
Mac: "PCs? Not Macs..."
and the implication right there, without it even being said, is: "You're safer using a Mac with OSX than Windows because we don't get viruses..." as I just stated...
soulesschild
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
I wouldn't hope you did... What about last year?
Nope!
And yes, while it's not directly SAID that macs are "hack proof" or "virus proof", the ads to a general/average user basically imply it. It'd be ignorant to think the general consumer can deduce that apple ISN'T saying that.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
There's just no way around this deception. Sure, Macs are safer because as it has been stated a 1000 times before the malware just doesn't exist not because of technical superiority.
While the practical implications of this deception are limited because the threat levels on Macs were indeed low, at least in terms of native client maware the reason for the "superiority" had nothing to do with technology, it had to deal with marketshare nothing more.
Apple used their vastly inferior market share to claim technical superiority! That's nothing but deception. And I have a REAL funny feeling that you're not going to see Apple air to many Mac ads making these claims. They's be ASKING for a class action ff they did and there was a bad outbreak.
While the practical implications of this deception are limited because the threat levels on Macs were indeed low, at least in terms of native client maware the reason for the "superiority" had nothing to do with technology, it had to deal with marketshare nothing more.
Apple used their vastly inferior market share to claim technical superiority! That's nothing but deception. And I have a REAL funny feeling that you're not going to see Apple air to many Mac ads making these claims. They's be ASKING for a class action ff they did and there was a bad outbreak.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
Sooner or later I'm going to open HardForum, and the top post in the News forum is going to be a thread about a "super virus" that wreaked havoc on almost every Mac on the planet running OSX (and oddly for those people using Windows with BootCamp they got away unscathed until they rebooted to OSX), and I'm just going to laugh about it.
It'll be a small laugh, not a huge one, just a small "hehe" kind of reaction, but it'll grow on me over the next few minutes, then the rest of the day. I won't even make a post of my own about it when it happens, not even an "I told you so" one or anything like it.
As Agent Smith said...
"It is inevitable."
It'll be a small laugh, not a huge one, just a small "hehe" kind of reaction, but it'll grow on me over the next few minutes, then the rest of the day. I won't even make a post of my own about it when it happens, not even an "I told you so" one or anything like it.
As Agent Smith said...
"It is inevitable."
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I think Apple pretty much agreed with this when they made this move. Apple is doing the RIGHT thing here folks. But it will be intresting to see when D-day comes. There's really nothing that can be done about it once someone decides to do it I'm affraid.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
I don't know if you recall, but Apple actually had a support article here a few months ago recommending anti-virus. It was a lesser-known page, and the tech media got wind of it. It became big tech news, and guess what? Apple took it down.
While they might not say it's "Virus proof" there's definitely enough evidence out there to prove Apple is selling its users into the belief that they're immune.
Heck, I'd circulate it to every user I know.
"Hey Bob... You still think OS X is immune to viruses and nothing can go bad? Open this file for me."
That'd be pretty dirty thing to do, but I'd sure get a kick out of it (Given it's not a destructive virus but something that's a PITA virus)
If D-Day happens... I bet Apple will patch it... immediately. Just like all responsible software makers.
But if it's possible for virus programmers to write the "big one" to attack all Macs... why don't they just freaking do it? You wanna get famous? Be the guy who took down all the Macs.
In the Mac commercial linked above, it clearly said, "there are 114,000 viruses for PCs." That's not a lie. There are many, many viruses for Windows... not so many for Macs. Apple is just pointing that out. That's one of the big selling point of Macs... you're less likely to get a virus.
Imagine you're deciding which computer to buy. Windows has 114,000 viruses... Macs have 0 viruses in the wild. (the premise of the Mac commercials)
That's good. Then someone responds with: "Oh yeah? Well, as Macs become more common, more viruses will come..."
Also a good point. But, will Macs get 114,000 viruses in the next 5 years you own your Mac? Or will you base your purchase on the data available now?
Sure... Apple's virus argument is perceived a lie. But is it really? I've cleaned many viruses out of many Windows machines over the years. I'm the tech guy that fixes friends and family computers. No one has ever called me to remove a virus or spyware from a Mac. My data says that Windows machines get infected with crap way more than Macs. And I'm just one guy.
Then there are the people who say they have never gotten a virus on Windows. So if Windows is 95% of computers, and you've never gotten a virus on Windows... and Macs are 5%... that's even LESS of a chance you'll get a virus on a Mac.
Any way you slice it... whether or not you think viruses are a big deal anymore... the Mac still has less chance of getting a virus.
There's always the future, when D-Day finally comes to Macs. But, are you gonna base your computer purchasing decision on the "threat" of Mac viruses in the future? Or on the fact that there are *already* a crapload of viruses on Windows?
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,610
I'll borrow one of the primary comments used against a Windows user who is dumb enough to think they don't need AV software....how would you know?
If you are computing away in ignorant bliss, thinking you are 100% safe because you have a Mac, with no AV software installed...how would you ever know that you have an infection, or that your personal data is leaking out to some hacker?
Well, you guys are certainly reaching. That was the best you could do, heatless?
...and?
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Yea.... OK......
Honestly Apple has 0 experience with this kind of stuff. Patching something is admittance they had an issue: that's not something they like doing.
Case in point: the dude that took that Apple flaw public a couple months ago. Said he notified Apple about a very bad bug, it was a month since he told them about it, and eventually took it public because they didn't do a darn thing.
This wasn't a graphical glitch bug or anything, it allowed a freaking attacher to take total control of the iPhone with a TEXT MESSAGE. That's a pretty severe design flaw.
And they sat on their ass. And did nothing.
Apple and "responsible"?
How about the dude made famous for the two minute hacks. Two years running? Oh, and by the way, it's also the same dude that came up with that serious flaw I mentioned above.
That guy openly tells you that security on OS X is worse than Windows. But he uses a Mac. Why? From his own mouth: security through obscurity.
Fact of the matter is nobody wants to write a virus that might affect 20 million laptops. Why affect such a measly number when you could write one that affects BILLIONS?
Which has more glory? The guy that discovers a serious flaw and submits the bug report (Good guys) or the guy that writes a virus for malicious intent (Bad guys). The Bad guys aren't going to openly proclaim who they are. When you've just pissed millions of consumers off, you're not going to stand up and shout "It was I!!!!"
I work in retail and I meet new people every day. computer users come to my store (which are mainly laptops) for us to install our products on them. I can't tell you how many PC to Mac converts I've met over the years but yet I can probably count the Mac to PC converts on one hand with a few fingers to spare.
Actually, Apple issued an update (OS 3.0.1) the very next day.
I would imagine that Apple could have released the update sooner, and they get points off for not having done that, but they certainly didn't just sit around, twiddling their thumbs. The exploit was public for a day. I've heard of no incidents of actual iPhone users being exploited by the hole. Much ado about nothing.
soulesschild
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
You're right... the Pwn2Own guy did manage to take over an OSX system by pointing a web browser at HIS website full of HIS code. In fact... all Windows and Mac browsers were Pwned that day. It says more about the web browsers than the OS itself, right? Would you recommend someone get a Windows machine instead of a Mac because the Windows machine is just as hackable as a Mac? You said the hacker even uses a Mac... what does that say?
It really says a lot that it takes a security conference to find flaws... and not people calling tech support saying: "My Mac has been hacked!"
But we're talking about viruses... not browser exploits. There are 114,000 viruses on Windows... and how many on a Mac?
Can you recommend an anti-virus program for a Mac? And, if so, what is the AV company working on... considering there have only been a handful of viruses in the wild?
You know the guys at Symantec have their hands full with Windows exploits... what is their Mac division doing all day?
Norton Threats: (guess who they are for): http://www.symantec.com/norton/security_response/threatexplorer/threats.jsp
Norton Vulnerabilities: (lots of Microsoft there too): http://www.symantec.com/norton/security_response/threatexplorer/vulnerabilities.jsp
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 11,610
I guess we'll throw logic and common sense out (that's been done already...it's a thread about Macs vs Pcs), but here goes anway.
If there are so few threats in the wild, please tell me why Apple suddenly decided to include malware protection? See, that's the thing....you can't explain it, without backing off all the other Apple drivel that's been spewed over the past few years. It's simple common sense. Are we really going to argue against common sense?
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
No, it took them 31 days to patched the damned thing. They knowingly put users at risk by pulling that crap. How about putting NO users at risk and doing some preventative patching?
Holy shit! You mean people that build websites code it themselves?
Stop the presses!
Exactly my point.
Flip it around: Mac is just as hackable as Windows.
Guess what? It doesn't look like Apple is so golden anymore in a truthful sentence like that, does it?
And, FWIW, the Windows flaw was due to a vulnerability in ADOBE coding. Not Microsoft.
Contrasted: The Mac bug was all Apple.
The rest of your post can be summed up in three words: Security Through Obscurity.
Yeah, it did. Thirty days after they were made aware of the exploit plus one day after it was made public. You curiously say "no" despite the fact that we're not in disagreement about the timeline (unless you're claiming Apple didn't release 3.0.1 the day after...?)
You mad?
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
I'm not disagreeing that they issued it the next day. That's besides the point. The point is it took them 31 days to patch a SERIOUS flaw... That's a service failure.
Neither, I'm going to base my computer purchasing decision on the fact that: If I don't download shit like celebpron.exe from random porn sites, modern windows systems are nearly unhackable, the choice of software/hardware/games/blu-rays, and price.
I'm not going to base my computer purchasing decision on: The promise that Macs will have software/games/hardware/blurays in the future, that security through insignificant market share is a legitimate form of staying safe, and pretty cases.
Basically, if you're not going to take into account that Macs will have much more malware with increased market share, why assume they'll have games/hardware/software/blu-rays "in the future?" Right now, macs don't have that stuff, and PCs do since you want to go there.
Ok... so looking back at all the YEARS of Windows vulnerabilities, spyware (WinFixer, CoolWebSearch, AntivirusXP2009, IE toolbars), ActiveX, viruses (100,000 viruses), trojans, keyloggers... all of that... and you say the Mac is equally as bad? Riiiight...
Safari on OSX got hacked at Pwn2Own. Show me the spyware that installed itself... show me the trojan that destroyed the system.... anything that will affect Mac users OUTSIDE the lab. Windows gets exploited all the time... should we stop using Windows too?
Look... I'm glad contests like Pwn2Own exist... it shows what exploits each OS has. And there are plenty. How many Windows Updates come every month? And how many OSX 10.X.X updates are there? But, the difference between Windows and a Mac is... Windows exploits are ALREADY BEING USED TO ATTACK US!!!
OSX has been around since 2001. And I haven't heard about any major, groundbreaking exploit that affects Mac users. Oh, that day may come... but while I'm waiting for that... I'll keep fixing Windows computers.
Pick the Golden phrase:
Mac: Security Through Obscurity
or
Windows: Insecurity Through Popularity
BTW... I'm a Windows XP user... but I admire the Mac because I can sit down at a friend's Mac and just use it... without feeling like I have to help them out by removing the 12 startup items in the tray, running a spyware scan, or using CCleaner to clear out 1GB of temp files. I've never had to fix a Mac... and never gotten a phone call that says, "My Mac is running slow."
I've never gotten a virus on Windows... so statistically, I would have even less of a chance of getting a virus on a Mac, right?
The probabilities don't change just because you haven't gotten a virus yet. If you've been infected 30 times on Windows, for example, the odds of you getting infected on OS X are the same as if you had never gotten a virus on Windows.
I think I understand what you're trying to get at, but you're getting there the wrong way
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
Obviously it's been proven if someone actually puts forth the effort to do so, it can happen.
Dude, the guy that's been the leader in discovering Apple's security flaws openly tells you Windows bests OS X security hands-down.
Here's some excerpts from his interview:
IE, security through obscurity.
Nobody knows that. He's under NDA not to disclose that one until Apple patched it. But here's the thing: he says he's not giving Apple free bugs anymore. So you aren't really going to hear much about that unless it's at a conference again.
Just because they aren't out there doesn't mean you'll never get one. PERIOD. It's been shown time and time again that OS X has vulnerabilities if anyone takes the time to exploit them. The problem is, again, that the people writing malware would rather do it for BILLIONS of customers rather than the 20 million units out there that Apple's got, or whatever that number may be.
If I'm going to advertise, I'd much rather go with the company that guarantees me BILLIONS of views rather than the one that just nets me 20 million views.
Apparently not enough. Reference my prior link. Not only does OS X have more vulnerabilities the past two years (this is going to be the third) running, but Windows gets the vulnerabilities patched quicker. Those results don't lie.
Yes, but what do you do when you use a friend's mac, write emails and surf the web? With Windows you have hundreds of Triple-A games to choose from. Malware writers follow the users, if everyone switched to macs and people started writing games, etc. for macs, then malware writers would switch too.
And OS X has more patches than Windows Vista, did you miss the once every other month patch release that fixes 40+ bugs in Mac OS X?
There's nothing magical about Macs, malware writers just don't care about them like just about everyone else doesn't. When you argue Macs are safer, you are basically telling everyone they should switch to macs, but if they did, they'd be in the same or worse boat than with Windows because of lack of security on Macs.
And I've never had any malware in Vista running it 24/7 for 2+ years, surfing the shadiest parts of the web all day (or 7, but I've only run that for a week or two).
A MS study said that only 2 out of a 1000 fully patched Vista computers had malware on them, from information they collected from MSRT. Yet you act like every Windows machine is full of malware, but that is hardly the case. Even though it's much more popular than Macs, Vista is hardly affected by malware, so you might want to update your information, and not just throw around the term "windows" when you mean old XP boxes.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
There is some truth on XP but not so much on Vista and so NOT at all an issue with 7. 7 does a decent job of taking of of itself. The only major issues I'm having are driver related. A couple of nags hear and there, nothing big. IE8 file dialog box will get sloe and you need to restart IE which can be done automatically. That's about it.
And if you want to see some Mac issues, look at the Apple forum here. There's PLENTY of people with questions there and this is a PC forum so the population is small anyway and they still have a fair number of issues.
For the average user picking up a computer even for the time doing basic stuff like surfing the web Windows and Macs are just as easy to use. There of course be little thing or that little thing and there a couple of major interface differences that you need to userstand but were still pretty much talking about standard mouse driven GUI's. They aren't RADICALLY different.
Is it not true that your safer using an Apple? Are your chances of infection not lower on an Apple merely due to the large differential in viruses targeting the platform? Does anyone have data on this? When you put that in quotes, are you actually quoting them (as quotation marks are used for), or are you paraphrasing and slightly altering the original statement? I would be shocked if they actually did say that because it's ostensibly untrue, and the FCC wouldn't allow it.
I've not used OSX for more than a combined duration of 10 minutes or so, and have no intention of doing so in the future, but it seems that the hack-proof claims that get talked about are merely inferences by angry internet nerds and not actually claims made by the company.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
It's more than an inference but also not a stated claim. If you look at the Apple commercials, take the one I linked earlier from YouTube for instance. In it the PC is sick with the flu because he had caught a virus. The PC warns the Mac to stay away from him so he won't get it. The Mac says that he doesn't have to worry because he can't catch it.
Hmmm... Now true a Mac wouldn't normally get infected with a PC virus unless its cross platform and that happens but fairly rare. But once again, its hard not to get the idea that Mac's just don't viruses, period. It is a VERY subtle distinction that only more technically inclined people would understand I believe. However to the average user they probably aren't going to make that distinction, they're just going to assume that Mac's can't get infected at all.
Perhaps some computer nerds are angry about this subject as frankly its not that big of a deal to me because I dont and probably wont deal with Macs. Its just funny to see less educated people buy Macs because they just work. Overall one could say that Macs are not as troublesome as PCs and are bit more robust. Macs though dont have nearly the size of the ecosystem the Windows PCs. A well put together PC can be just as solid and robust, perhaps even more so.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
I'm the wrong person to ask, to be honest. If you are asking me directly "Am I safer using an Apple? I would have to honestly say no, because as I've stated before, I purchased not one but 4 Macs in less than 2 months and they were all defective, both hardware and software-wise so... hell no I wasn't safe. And upon trying to return them they tried to hit me for that 15% restocking bullshit... on defective hardware so, you should be able to see why I pretty much can't stand Apple in any way, shape, or form.
Regardless, I'm the wrong person to ask because I've had one infection on the combined total of Windows PCs that I have personally owned over the decades (several hundred), and that was an infection that occurred when Symantec didn't offer an update to their AV product that they actually had but refused to post it on LiveUpdate for 6 more days (the weekly Wednesday update). Because of that delay, my own machine at the time got infected as well as many that belonged to the client I was working for at the time (as their I.T. spook).
So, in all the years I've used Windows, I personally have had 1 single infection on my own machines, that gives Windows a 1-0 record compared to 0-0 on the four defective Macs that I owned. Does it matter? Not really, and it wasn't the fault of Windows itself that I got infected - it was the fault of the AV software that claimed I would be protected and it failed, miserably, so... in my book, Windows still has a spotless record.
Told you I'm the wrong person to ask...
Apple markets their product as safe, untouchable, unhackable, impenetrable, easy to use, and a joy to use. Marketing is designed to get you to think specific things about a product without actually having to say so in the advertising, hence the implications of the marketing. If anyone out there watches an "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" commercial and doesn't get that right off the bat, then they're ignorant fools which is already true anyway.
Anyone that goes to buy a Mac strictly because they saw one of those commercials is just buying into the hype. It's been proven that they're not as secure (Secunia even says as much based on the sheer number of alerts) sooo...
Pwn2Own is an exercise that shows that Macs are quite vulnerable - and people take a position like "oh he was on a Mac and connected to his machine and downloaded the specific code, etc" well, they just don't understand how the damned contest works. The idea isn't necessarily to hack into the machine they're using, but more accurately to show that the machine they're using can be compromised by external sources, such as connecting to an HTTP server someplace as so many of us do every time we load a web page.
Bleh... I'm sick of these discussions. I think I'll just pass on participating from now on, this shit is like sweeping a fucking dirt floor, only worse, and nobody is learning a damned thing from any of 'em.
YMMV, and that's that.
And upon trying to return them they tried to hit me for that 15% restocking bullshit... on defective hardware so, you should be able to see why I pretty much can't stand Apple in any way, shape, or form.Regardless, I'm the wrong person to ask because I've had one infection on the combined total of Windows PCs that I have personally owned over the decades (several hundred), and that was an infection that occurred when Symantec didn't offer an update to their AV product that they actually had but refused to post it on LiveUpdate for 6 more days (the weekly Wednesday update). Because of that delay, my own machine at the time got infected as well as many that belonged to the client I was working for at the time (as their I.T. spook).
So, in all the years I've used Windows, I personally have had 1 single infection on my own machines, that gives Windows a 1-0 record compared to 0-0 on the four defective Macs that I owned. Does it matter? Not really, and it wasn't the fault of Windows itself that I got infected - it was the fault of the AV software that claimed I would be protected and it failed, miserably, so... in my book, Windows still has a spotless record.
Told you I'm the wrong person to ask...
Apple markets their product as safe, untouchable, unhackable, impenetrable, easy to use, and a joy to use. Marketing is designed to get you to think specific things about a product without actually having to say so in the advertising, hence the implications of the marketing. If anyone out there watches an "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" commercial and doesn't get that right off the bat, then they're ignorant fools which is already true anyway.
Anyone that goes to buy a Mac strictly because they saw one of those commercials is just buying into the hype. It's been proven that they're not as secure (Secunia even says as much based on the sheer number of alerts) sooo...
Pwn2Own is an exercise that shows that Macs are quite vulnerable - and people take a position like "oh he was on a Mac and connected to his machine and downloaded the specific code, etc" well, they just don't understand how the damned contest works. The idea isn't necessarily to hack into the machine they're using, but more accurately to show that the machine they're using can be compromised by external sources, such as connecting to an HTTP server someplace as so many of us do every time we load a web page.
Bleh... I'm sick of these discussions. I think I'll just pass on participating from now on, this shit is like sweeping a fucking dirt floor, only worse, and nobody is learning a damned thing from any of 'em.
YMMV, and that's that.