June 20th, 2005 01:22 AM
I guess by now we are way OT... But this has turned into a semi-productive discussion in spite of itself.
Okay, I believe you when you say that there is an article in a magazine that says something positive about Windows security. I am a bit jaded about things like the validity of what some tech writer says in a magazine. Magazines tend to spin everything in a very positive light for the 'theme' that the magazine is about. You say 'PC Magazine', and I think 'Pro-Windows'; but maybe I'm wrong.
It also matters which version we are talking about since there have been 10.1 (Cheetah), 10.2 (Jaguar), 10.3 (Panther), and now 10.4 (Tiger). Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the OS X is perfect; no OS configured to be this easy to use can be truly 'secure'. But comparing Mac OS X to Windows, Solaris, Linux (especially Gentoo), FreeBSD; I'd have to say that it has a pretty good security record so far for being an OS that doesn't 'require' the user to know sh*t about computers.
XP/2003 is something I have never even used, so any comment about it's security from me is strictly a prepetuation of the ugly rumors about it on sites like this one and others on the internet. Yes, I am guilty of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about an OS I have barely any knowledge of; it's true.
Get OpenSolaris http://www.opensolaris.org/