$10k Prize Won for Macbook Hack

On the first part we agree that it is a security vulnerability. What I was trying to say (and you've misinterpreted, which is ok--I reserve the right to be vague sometimes) is that it isn't something Mac-specific (it is cross platform), yet people (in other places on the Internet) are screaming "OMG OS X SUXX0RS IN SECURITY, WINDOWS IS BETTER!!!!!" It's THEIR spin that is forcing me to put things in perspective.

And of course people in your own community are even saying it's not an OS X vulnerability because it's cross platform. That is spinning it. Nothing more. So now we agree, it is a vulnerability in OS X. Even though OS X isn't the only platform it is effected on, none the less OS X is effected by it.

Using the MacUser article, if I were attacked by a bear, would you say only Mac users are affected by bear attacks, since I'm a Mac user and a bear attacked me?

Mac users and bear attacks have nothing in common with each other. But if the thing the bear attacked was part of the OS by default, I'd call it an OS vulnerability.

Should people be concerned with this? Of course they should, but it needs to be all computer users, not just OS X users. Should I be worried? Well, since I'm using Opera (an unaffected browser thus far), I'm not worried as much as the rest of this Firefox-using forum.

 

In putting things in perspective, the thing to remember is this is something that can affect every computer user, not just Mac users.

Well good for you then. But don't try to down play it by saying it's cross platform. It still effects OS X users.

I don't know if anyone posted this, but Daring Fireball posted an interview with this rather nice gentleman. He is a Mac user and gives some good ideas for protecting a Mac. Plus, he is a nice fellow, so let's not bash him personally.

Very well indeed. But they did get a lot of flack from the mac fan boys saying the security vulnerability found was improper because of the loosening of the rules, completely ignoring that one had even been found and saying that it wasn't proper because the user had to go to a website and click on a link first before it could effect them. So many excuses for this one vulnerability that was found. Really shows how bad it really is with that many coming to apple's defense.

And it appears to effect IE7 as well. But there's a difference. Quicktime doesn't come with windows by default. You have to go out and install it before this can occur.

And nice taking my quote out of context EFI. Way to make yourself look better. Do you feel better now?

And of course people in your own community are even saying it's not an OS X vulnerability because it's cross platform. That is spinning it. Nothing more. So now we agree, it is a vulnerability in OS X. Even though OS X isn't the only platform it is effected on, none the less OS X is effected by it.

No, it's called being truthful. We KNOW no OS s 100% secure, but to say it's only an OS X vulnerability is inherently deceitful and is spinning.

Mac users and bear attacks have nothing in common with each other. But if the thing the bear attacked was part of the OS by default, I'd call it an OS vulnerability.

Yes it does. This bear can attack any OS but because it attacked someone using OS X, people are saying vbears attack only OS X users.

Well good for you then. But don't try to down play it by saying it's cross platform. It still effects OS X users.

OK, I went back to my original posts here. The first one was saying how i was happy this was accurately reported using the facts available at the time (which pointed to the apparent fact that the rules were relaxed to avoid embarrassment). It said nothing else, so anything you're trying to point to me is pure conjecture on your part and I deserve an apology. The second post here was to state this is a cross-platform bug and not something Mac specific (it is Apple specific in that QuickTime is needed). Again, anything you're reading into is pure conjecture on your part and an apology is needed.

Very well indeed. But they did get a lot of flack from the mac fan boys saying the security vulnerability found was improper because of the loosening of the rules, completely ignoring that one had even been found and saying that it wasn't proper because the user had to go to a website and click on a link first before it could effect them. So many excuses for this one vulnerability that was found. Really shows how bad it really is with that many coming to apple's defense.

OK, pretend it was a Windows Vista (or your OS of choice, whatever it may be) vulnerability then where the rules were apparently relaxed so something could be found. Can you honestly say you wouldn't be screaming about how the rules were relaxed to find something and avoid embarrassment? I honestly don't think anyone would.

And it appears to effect IE7 as well. But there's a difference. Quicktime doesn't come with windows by default. You have to go out and install it before this can occur.

Which most people do since they use iTunes. Or if you're using a musi cprogram, you're most likely installing QT.

And nice taking my quote out of context EFI. Way to make yourself look better. Do you feel better now?

You asked if I feel any safer...and I said No. How the hell is that taking it out of context and making myself look better?

No, it's called being truthful. We KNOW no OS s 100% secure, but to say it's only an OS X vulnerability is inherently deceitful and is spinning.

I never said it was only an OS X vulnerability. Quicktime just happens to be included by default in the OS X install. That's why it's an OS X vulnerability. Because it uses something that is included by default in OS X right out of the box. But on Windows, it's a quicktime vulnerability because when you install windows the first time, quicktime isn't their and therefore Windows isn't vulnerable unless you go ahead and install quicktime or itunes. That is the difference between the 2.

Yes it does. This bear can attack any OS but because it attacked someone using OS X, people are saying vbears attack only OS X users.

I'll put it simpler for you. The piece that is vulnerable, OS X includes by default on a fresh install. On windows you have to actively go out and install that piece in order to be vulnerable because on a fresh install, it doesn't have it.

OK, I went back to my original posts here. The first one was saying how i was happy this was accurately reported using the facts available at the time (which pointed to the apparent fact that the rules were relaxed to avoid embarrassment). It said nothing else, so anything you're trying to point to me is pure conjecture on your part and I deserve an apology. The second post here was to state this is a cross-platform bug and not something Mac specific (it is Apple specific in that QuickTime is needed). Again, anything you're reading into is pure conjecture on your part and an apology is needed.

Apologies are only needed when a genuine mistake is made. You on the other hand deliberately are trying to say that quicktime isn't part of OS X. It's installed by default when OS X is installed. So is IE7 when you install Windows Vista. Does that mean if there is a vulnerability found in IE7 that it's not a Windows vulnerability? Choose your words carefully here.

OK, pretend it was a Windows Vista (or your OS of choice, whatever it may be) vulnerability then where the rules were apparently relaxed so something could be found. Can you honestly say you wouldn't be screaming about how the rules were relaxed to find something and avoid embarrassment? I honestly don't think anyone would.

Which most people do since they use iTunes. Or if you're using a musi cprogram, you're most likely installing QT.

I'd have no problem with it then. The way they relaxed the rules was exactly the way the typical user could be exploited. And in the interviews afterwards, they had planned this all along. It wasn't because no one was getting the prize.

And EFI I was referring to this statement you made:

So just user level access, which means they can do anything to your user files. Feel safe still?

So Microsoft has caught up.

That's what you took out of context.

I never said it was only an OS X vulnerability. Quicktime just happens to be included by default in the OS X install. That's why it's an OS X vulnerability. Because it uses something that is included by default in OS X right out of the box. But on Windows, it's a quicktime vulnerability because when you install windows the first time, quicktime isn't their and therefore Windows isn't vulnerable unless you go ahead and install quicktime or itunes. That is the difference between the 2.

 

I'll put it simpler for you. The piece that is vulnerable, OS X includes by default on a fresh install. On windows you have to actively go out and install that piece in order to be vulnerable because on a fresh install, it doesn't have it.

 

Apologies are only needed when a genuine mistake is made. You on the other hand deliberately are trying to say that quicktime isn't part of OS X. It's installed by default when OS X is installed. So is IE7 when you install Windows Vista. Does that mean if there is a vulnerability found in IE7 that it's not a Windows vulnerability? Choose your words carefully here.

So it's an OS X vulnerability when it's actually QuickTime related, but it's an IE vulnerability when there is a problem with Internet Explorer (which is bundled with Vista)? There is no logic to this kind of statement.

So it's an OS X vulnerability when it's actually QuickTime related, but it's an IE vulnerability when there is a problem with Internet Explorer (which is bundled with Vista)? There is no logic to this kind of statement.

There is no logic to your lack of understanding of the english language. I don't know if you have a hard time reading or if you are misreading what I'm saying on purpose not to make yourself look stupid. Anyone else notice this with A Nonny Moose?

Here is what I said. Any quicktime vulnerability that effects OS X is an OS X vulnerability. Quicktime is installed when OS X is installed. Any IE 7 vulnerability that effects Windows is a Windows vulnerability. IE7 is installed when Windows is installed, atleast Windows Vista that is. I'm not gonna say it any different. How are you going to get around it this time?

First off, you've been reported for attacking me AGAIN, so I'm asking you nicely to stop it. Every time I see a post by you on here, it seems like you're on the attack and I'm pretty sick of it. If you want to go and personally attack someone on an internet message board, it just shows how ridiculously immature you are. This is all I'm going to say about the personal attacks.

Secondly, I'm glad you feel like it runs both ways. The problem though lies with the following question: "If I were to completely uninstall QuickTime, would it seriously screw things up to the point that I have to reinstall?" Most users here would agree that Internet Explorer can't be removed from Windows without serious consequences, because it is REALLY woven in to Windows. I don't know if anyone has even tried to completely uninstall QuickTime from an OS X install (or if it's even possible to not install it with the core OS).

Let me put this another way. iMovie was included with OS X.2 and completely uninstalling it caused no harm and not even installing it caused no harm. So is an iMovie flaw an OS X flaw? Not to me, but it is to you, since you believe that everything that is installed with the OS by default is a bug. I guess it's a matter of perspective on that notion.

So can I uninstall QuickTime without seriously screwing up OS X? If I can, then it's a QuickTime bug. If I can't, then it's an OS X bug.

People, please knock it off with the personal attacks. Go argue on AIM or IRC or something if you need to duke it out, but don't spam up the forum with your elementary school behavior.

First off, you've been reported for attacking me AGAIN, so I'm asking you nicely to stop it. Every time I see a post by you on here, it seems like you're on the attack and I'm pretty sick of it. If you want to go and personally attack someone on an internet message board, it just shows how ridiculously immature you are. This is all I'm going to say about the personal attacks.

Sounds like someone who can't take any sort of criticism. A typical fan boy

Secondly, I'm glad you feel like it runs both ways. The problem though lies with the following question: "If I were to completely uninstall QuickTime, would it seriously screw things up to the point that I have to reinstall?" Most users here would agree that Internet Explorer can't be removed from Windows without serious consequences, because it is REALLY woven in to Windows. I don't know if anyone has even tried to completely uninstall QuickTime from an OS X install (or if it's even possible to not install it with the core OS).

If you want to run itunes you have to have quicktime installed. So yes you would have to reinstall it if you uninstalled it, as says here. Just like many programs require IE7 installed like Eudora in order to function properly. So if you want to use iTunes, you gotta have quicktime installed. Anyone care to refute this?

Let me put this another way. iMovie was included with OS X.2 and completely uninstalling it caused no harm and not even installing it caused no harm. So is an iMovie flaw an OS X flaw? Not to me, but it is to you, since you believe that everything that is installed with the OS by default is a bug. I guess it's a matter of perspective on that notion.

iMovie is part of the iLife suite, not part of the OS when you do a bare bones install. Quicktime is installed however when you do just an OS install.

The update for this flaw was recently included and was this still an OS X flaw? Well it requires that you have OS X 10.4.9 installed, otherwise it won't be installed. Sounds like part of the OS to me.

So can I uninstall QuickTime without seriously screwing up OS X? If I can, then it's a QuickTime bug. If I can't, then it's an OS X bug.

Now you're gonna say it's not a bug in the OS because you can remove the application. How many mac users do you know go ahead and remove quicktime right away as soon as they finish installing OS X? Not many I bet. In fact most people don't even bother customizing the OS much at all. So would they have been effected by this? Of course. And here's another example for ya. In Windows 2003 I can remove IIS 6 from it so that it's not installed. Without it effecting the stability of the OS at all. And if a flaw is found in IIS 6, do you still consider it a flaw in Windows 2003?

You seem to be running out of ideas. Careful now. If you back up too far, you'll eventually hit that wall you keep getting closer and closer to.

every OS vulnerability is The user sitting behind the keyboard ...

in this topic case ... what happens if user dont open this malicious website link ??

is there any problem with that ?

pyrates, I'm through trying to have a discussion with someone who has nothing better to do than to call someone a poopy-head all day. Real mature, man...

Sounds like someone who can't take any sort of criticism. A typical fan boy

Quoted from: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?act=boardrules

Please don't make inappropriate or "clutter" posts similar to:

• "reported!"
  
• "first post!"
  
• "[name] sucks!"
  
• "[os] fanboy"
  

Since you missed that one, I suggest you read the rest of the rules.

Now that we have that cleared up, please guys, lets carry on the discussion without silly, immature debates arguments in the process.

Quoted from: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?act=boardrules

Since you missed that one, I suggest you read the rest of the rules.

 

Now that we have that cleared up, please guys, lets carry on the discussion without silly, immature debates arguments in the process.

Very well, my apologies. But I still stand by my comment that he can't accept criticism.

pyrates, I'm through trying to have a discussion with someone who has nothing better to do than to call someone a poopy-head all day. Real mature, man...

Way to avoid my very critical points their. Nice dodge on your part. Now you get to look good AND get to avoid having to counter anything I've said to you.

And here's another example for ya. In Windows 2003 I can remove IIS 6 from it so that it's not installed. Without it effecting the stability of the OS at all. And if a flaw is found in IIS 6, do you still consider it a flaw in Windows 2003?

 

why the hell u think this cant be done with quick time in mac os installation setup ????

 

the only problem in windows is windows itself !!

 

IF! u know PERFECT OS

use it

 

i'm using windows vista, xp, mac os, linux and freebsd every day, if u try to speculate with that

but prefer mac os

do u know why ?

I'm perfectly aware that you can go in manually when installing OS X and remove quicktime their so u don't have it at all. But it is ticked by default. And my example was exactly what A Nonny Moose was saying. That if you can remove it from the OS without it effecting the stability of the OS, then according to him, it wouldn't be an OS vulnerability. Yet even though you can this with IIS6 in Windows 2003, people who prefer Apple over Microsoft, notice I didn't use the word fan boy in their, will call this a Windows vulnerability. A Nonny Moose, do you agree then that according to you this wouldn't be a windows vulnerability? I'm waiting for your answer.

The only problem in windows is windows itself? Now there is another fallacy in itself. You claim to know what the problem is without saying what the problem is. How about more detail then that? It doesn't work if you don't give any details as to what the actual problem is.

I'm not sure why you use OS X, as I prefer Windows which it has the greatest irc client ever, mirc, fully scriptable. Not to mention other great apps like eudora, firefox, emule, the ability to listen to any internet stream out there with winamp, avisynth, etc. As well as the interface, I prefer a document centric interface, as well as where I can maximize a window. No idea why Apple doesn't let you do that. I've been using PC's since dos 3.0. Used windows from 3.11 all the way up to Vista. And before anyone says anything, yes Windows ME was a disaster. Wasn't OS 9 a disaster as well? I also use linux as a workstation and server.

And this actually came as a private message to me from CryoGen.BG. Keep the discussion in the open. It's more fun that way.

every OS vulnerability is The user sitting behind the keyboard ...

in this topic case ... what happens if user dont open this malicious website link ??

is there any problem with that ?

Technically no. But how are you going to stop every single computer user from clicking that link? You can't. Hence why it's in this case an OS X vulnerability. Because all the pieces that enable this vulnerability are installed in OS X by default. Again, how many users are going to go in and uninstall quicktime from OS X if they weren't aware of this? None. And for those that are aware, did you uninstall quicktime when you first heard about it? And are you going to recommend that quicktime be uninstalled from now on so that this kind of problem doesn't occur again?

I'm not sure why you use OS X, as I prefer Windows which it has the greatest irc client ever, mirc, fully scriptable. Not to mention other great apps like eudora, firefox, emule, the ability to listen to any internet stream out there with winamp, avisynth, etc.

mIRC is a great IRC client, no doubt, and its windows only, however the other apps you name, such as Firefox, eMule, Eudora, are also avaliable for OS X as well, and Colloquy is ok as an IRC client too. OSX has pretty much most of the applications that Windows has...especially the bigname ones, so I dont think your making a fair comparison here.

As well as the interface, I prefer a document centric interface, as well as where I can maximize a window. No idea why Apple doesn't let you do that. I've been using PC's since dos 3.0. Used windows from 3.11 all the way up to Vista. And before anyone says anything, yes Windows ME was a disaster. Wasn't OS 9 a disaster as well? I also use linux as a workstation and server.

You can maximize the window fully in OS X as well. In fact maximizing in OS X is more smarter than maximizing in windows, because it will maximize to the amount that will best fit the complete view of the document. If your on an internet browser, and you maximize, it will maximize to the full screen, just like in windows, so your argument is flawed there. Plus you can manually drag the bottom right corner to expand to whatever size you want, so its not like your on a fixed windowed viewing space the whole time, like what you are implying.

See, before anyone even asks whether ME was a disaster, you state it yourself, and then cover it up by putting the shift of focus on OS9, and I dont think thats right. This clearly shows that your not open. There was a reason why OS9 was poorly designed, and this reason is much more reasonable and understandable than why Windows ME's failure was. OS9 development was lead by a completely mindless, poor, narrow-minded, bunch of executives...and this was the stage in which Apple was almost on the brink of collapse. There were a lot of structural imbalance in corporate Apple, and this ultiamately reflected on what was important to the company the most. OS9 (at that time). Microsoft on the other hand, was on a success role with Windows 95, and then Windows 98....so there was no reason for them to fail...but they did. Which sounds more worse to you?

mIRC is a great IRC client, no doubt, and its windows only, however the other apps you name, such as Firefox, eMule, Eudora, are also avaliable for OS X as well, and Colloquy is ok as an IRC client too. OSX has pretty much most of the applications that Windows has...especially the bigname ones, so I dont think your making a fair comparison here.

And avisynth? Not available for OS X, but it is being ported to linux. Otherwise it's only available for Windows.

You can maximize the window fully in OS X as well. In fact maximizing in OS X is more smarter than maximizing in windows, because it will maximize to the amount that will best fit the complete view of the document. If your on an internet browser, and you maximize, it will maximize to the full screen, just like in windows, so your argument is flawed there. Plus you can manually drag the bottom right corner to expand to whatever size you want, so its not like your on a fixed windowed viewing space the whole time, like what you are implying.

Sorry, but that is not what I call maximizing. I want it to fill the screen. Because not every website is the same size. And this is what I do NOT like about OS X. I also don't like how I have to go through multiple folders to launch an application. And the application menu doesn't count because not all applications you install are put their. Unlike Windows which does do that with all applications you install. To me it makes it a lot easier when you have a lot of applications installed to be able to browse them like that through one menu.

See, before anyone even asks whether ME was a disaster, you state it yourself, and then cover it up by putting the shift of focus on OS9, and I dont think thats right. This clearly shows that your not open. There was a reason why OS9 was poorly designed, and this reason is much more reasonable and understandable than why Windows ME's failure was. OS9 development was lead by a completely mindless, poor, narrow-minded, bunch of executives...and this was the stage in which Apple was almost on the brink of collapse. There were a lot of structural imbalance in corporate Apple, and this ultiamately reflected on what was important to the company the most. OS9 (at that time). Microsoft on the other hand, was on a success role with Windows 95, and then Windows 98....so there was no reason for them to fail...but they did. Which sounds more worse to you?

I only gave OS 9 as an example to say that Microsoft isn't the only OS company out there that has a failed OS since many apple users will conveniently forget to mention that. Plus we all know Windows ME was just a stop gap measure until they could release Windows XP. But to the outside they were both failed OS's. It doesn't matter what the reasons were. So then we're both in agreement they were both failed OS's. Thank you. And Microsoft definitely recovered with Windows XP and Apple definitely recovered with OS X.

But back in the day of BeOS, it was definitely a more multimedia enabled OS then anything OS X or Windows had. It had a fully searchable file system through metadata that now Microsoft and Apple are beginning to get back. And it lost out. Which is too bad.

And avisynth? Not available for OS X, but it is being ported to linux. Otherwise it's only available for Windows.

Yes, Avisynth is not avaliable for OS X.

Sorry, but that is not what I call maximizing. I want it to fill the screen. Because not every website is the same size. And this is what I do NOT like about OS X. I also don't like how I have to go through multiple folders to launch an application. And the application menu doesn't count because not all applications you install are put their. Unlike Windows which does do that with all applications you install. To me it makes it a lot easier when you have a lot of applications installed to be able to browse them like that through one menu.

Most of the time, unless the application is not contained in a single package (which most of OS X apps are), you only have to click twice. Once on your HD icon, and once on the application folder, and your alread there. But see, I'm too lazy to do that, so I use Quicksliver, the best app launching program there ever is. I can launch any application (provided I can remember it) it under 2 seconds. All I have to do is hit cmd+space, and the quick silver menu comes up, here is a shot:

You can also do apple+space to bring out spotlight and do the same thing, but quicksilver is faster. In windows however, it becomes very difficult when you have multiple folders, in order to reach the application icon, and if your start menu has two vertical rows...it takes a long time to find the application you need.

I only gave OS 9 as an example to say that Microsoft isn't the only OS company out there that has a failed OS since many apple users will conveniently forget to mention that. Plus we all know Windows ME was just a stop gap measure until they could release Windows XP. But to the outside they were both failed OS's. It doesn't matter what the reasons were. So then we're both in agreement they were both failed OS's. Thank you. And Microsoft definitely recovered with Windows XP and Apple definitely recovered with OS X.

Yes, we are.

But back in the day of BeOS, it was definitely a more multimedia enabled OS then anything OS X or Windows had. It had a fully searchable file system through metadata that now Microsoft and Apple are beginning to get back. And it lost out. Which is too bad.

Yes, I feel bad that BeOS went out as well.

If you don't like going through the applications folder, put it in your fragging dockbar!

And yes, BeOS was the best OS I've ever used. Long live Haiku!

www.haiku-os.org

yea i must say that quicksilver is the best program for mac osx. it has made using my mac 100 times easier

Most of the time, unless the application is not contained in a single package (which most of OS X apps are), you only have to click twice. Once on your HD icon, and once on the application folder, and your alread there. But see, I'm too lazy to do that, so I use Quicksliver, the best app launching program there ever is. I can launch any application (provided I can remember it) it under 2 seconds. All I have to do is hit cmd+space, and the quick silver menu comes up, here is a shot:

 

Yes if you are aware of all the applications on your systems. If not, then using the start menu where you can browse to the one you want is much easier I find. Just like multiple choice tests are easier to pass compared to written tests.

You can also do apple+space to bring out spotlight and do the same thing, but quicksilver is faster. In windows however, it becomes very difficult when you have multiple folders, in order to reach the application icon, and if your start menu has two vertical rows...it takes a long time to find the application you need.

It doesn't take me that long at all. It's even better in Vista because I can use my mouse's scroll wheel to have it move up and down. No accidental closure of the programs menu in case my mouse wondered off.

Yes, I feel bad that BeOS went out as well.

I remember BeOS at it's time could do smooth graphics such as turning the pages of a book with the graphics being rendered perfectly in real time as well as the only OS that could play an mp3 file backwards.

If you don't like going through the applications folder, put it in your fragging dockbar!

 

And yes, BeOS was the best OS I've ever used. Long live Haiku!

 

www.haiku-os.org

It can only hold so many applications. And not all applications are added their automatically. But all are added to the start menu. Hence why I prefer Windows approach.

It can only hold so many applications. And not all applications are added their automatically. But all are added to the start menu. Hence why I prefer Windows approach.

In OS X, if you put a shortcut of your Applications folder on the dock, you can then (if you have programmed a two button mouse) right click on the Applications folder shortcut, and a menu will open that looks and acts just like the Program menu on the Start button in Windows, but it only takes one click to make it appear. You can use the scroll ball on the Mighty Mouse (or a scroll wheel on other mice) to scroll up and down the menu. One more click on the app name launches the app.

I'm always just two mouse clicks away from any app, without installing any additional apps on my system.

Works great.

In OS X, if you put a shortcut of your Applications folder on the dock, you can then (if you have programmed a two button mouse) right click on the Applications folder shortcut, and a menu will open that looks and acts just like the Program menu on the Start button in Windows, but it only takes one click to make it appear. You can use the scroll ball on the Mighty Mouse (or a scroll wheel on other mice) to scroll up and down the menu. One more click on the app name launches the app.

 

I'm always just two mouse clicks away from any app, without installing any additional apps on my system.

 

Works great.

Nice tip. They should put that as a default though.

pyrates if it makes you feel any better (and I doubt it will) I can think of at least a dozen ways to completely destroy your winblows vista system (without going to google). Not to mention how long has OSX been out before we saw a security issue.. and how long was vista out.... You need to take your windows and toss it out, by a mac and learn what a real computer is.

pyrates if it makes you feel any better (and I doubt it will) I can think of at least a dozen ways to completely destroy your winblows vista system (without going to google). Not to mention how long has OSX been out before we saw a security issue.. and how long was vista out.... You need to take your windows and toss it out, by a mac and learn what a real computer is.

Not exactly the most convincing post to convince people that scrapping Windows is the way forward.

They both have their uses, though XP is still my primary OS- I find the Mac more appealing for my study and video work.

where can i find that OS X theme on the laptop with oranges wallpapers?

Oh now this is just the kind of comment that I expect from some mac users. Not all though Now lets tear it apart.

pyrates if it makes you feel any better (and I doubt it will) I can think of at least a dozen ways to completely destroy your winblows vista system (without going to google).

Well you said it, now put them down. I can tell you right now I run as a normal user, not admin, and I don't use IE 7.

Not to mention how long has OSX been out before we saw a security issue.. and how long was vista out....

Whats with those security updates then that Apple releases 4 times each year then? Are they fixing non-existent security holes? Are you saying that OS X has no security holes, that it is perfect?

You need to take your windows and toss it out, by a mac and learn what a real computer is.

Let's see:

cpu? check

ram? check

motherboard? check

dvd-rw drive? check

psu? check

case? check

hard drive? check

keyboard? check

2 button mouse? check

monitor? check

ethernet port? check

video card? check

Seems like a PC is a real computer to me. Or perhaps you were imagining that all the parts that are in a Mac aren't in a PC? Come on now. Now if you meant use a Real OS, then according to the linux folks, you should be running a linux distro like Debian instead of OS X.

But clearly you just have your head in the sand here and have your mind made up. Use what you like, but remember, your opinion isn't the only one that matters.