ie8 fix
madison

SSD secrets, Windows 8 unveiled, Mac malware: my top 10 for 2011

By | December 20, 2011, 6:00pm PST

Summary: Which posts were most popular among this site’s visitors in 2011? Well, you care a lot about speeding up Windows 7, you’re curious about Windows 8, and you know that security issues affect Macs and PCs. Here’s my year-end review.

No, the PC is not dead, and there’s plenty of life left in Windows. Those are the unmistakable conclusions I draw when I look at the topics that my readers zeroed in on this year.

A record number of visitors stopped by this site in 2011. (Thanks to all of you for that support!) With the help of Google Analytics, I went back through all the posts I published during the year to see which ones had the highest readership. It’s a fascinating and ultimately useful exercise, one that helps me get a better handle on what you care about most.The Year in Review, the Year Ahead

Before I get to the actual Top 10 list, I’ll mention a few popular pages that I excluded from the list. Two posts I wrote at the end of 2009 were still among the best-read in 2011:

They qualify as genuine evergreens, but they make this list only with an asterisk.

My best-read article of the year wasn’t a blog post at all. So I’ll cheat just a little and put it at the beginning of the list without making it part of the top 10…

Ten tricks every Windows 7 power user should know

I scoured my archive of tips, shortcuts, and secrets to find the hidden gems even some Windows experts don’t know about. These aren’t esoteric tweaks - they’re honest-to-goodness productivity boosters that will save you time and keystrokes. In this case, the gallery format was the best way to illustrate some of my absolute favorite expert tips and tricks for Windows.

And with that exception out of the way…

#1: Windows 7 and SSDs: Setup secrets and tune-up tweaks

This post on how to get the best results out of upgrading your system with a solid-state drive (SSD) is the hands-down winner among every post I published in 2011. That shouldn’t be surprising. Switching to an SSD is the single most effective upgrade you can make these days, and the cost of SSDs has dropped substantially over the course of the year.

The other two installments in my three-part series on Windows 7 and SSDs were pretty popular, too:

#2: Stay safe online: 5 secrets every PC (and Mac) owner should know

When I talk to computer users, I hear a depressing amount of mythology and misinformation about computer security. Part of that is the fault of the security software industry, which does its best to scare the crap out of you so that you’ll buy their wares. The reality, as I documented in several posts over the course of the year, is that most malware makes it onto PCs and Macs via social engineering. Making smart decisions is much more important than choosing an antivirus program.

#3: Should you install Windows 7 Service Pack 1?

Microsoft released its long-awaited first service pack for Windows 7 back in May. As with most such big updates, there were a few initial glitches, all of which were fixed in short order. (For a follow-up, see Patch Tuesday updates fix a trio of Windows 7 SP1 glitches.) The short answer today: Yes, you absolutely should install SP1.

#4: Windows 8 unveiled

After providing a few teasing glimpses of Windows 8, Microsoft finally gave the new OS an official public debut. If you’re curious about what’s in store for Windows users next year, this is a good overview.

#5: Trojans, viruses, worms: How does malware get on PCs and Macs?

When Mac Defender and its variants hit the Mac community this spring, one of the most common refrains I heard was that the attacks on Apple didn’t really count, because they were Trojans and required the user to participate in the installation process. The reality, as I explain in this post, is that the same is true for Windows PCs. PCs and Macs are both reasonably safe, as long as you stay up to date and avoid falling for scams and social engineering. This post is still well worth reading and sharing.

#6: Apple vs. Microsoft: Which user interface do you prefer?

OS X apps are intuitive, Windows apps are clunky. Right? Wrong. In this post, I took a detailed look at the user interface design decisions made by Microsoft and Apple for their two flagship consumer photo-editing programs. I report, you decide.

#7: Apple to support reps: “Do not attempt to remove malware”

In 2011, Mac users got their first taste of what PC users have been dealing with for the past decade, when an Eastern European gang targeted Mac users with a sustained and successful malware campaign. What was most interesting about the story was not the malware itself but Apple’s panic-stricken, customer-hostile response. Even the most partisan among the Mac faithful were disappointed by Apple’s cover-up attempt. A close second was this exclusive interview at the height of the attack: An AppleCare support rep talks: Mac malware is “getting worse”

#8: The one security tool every Windows user should know about

I was surprised by the popularity of this post, which looks at a frankly geeky Microsoft utility called the Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit, also known as EMET. If you use Windows XP, you’ll want to check it out. For more recent versions, it’s still worth a look, especially in corporate environments where targeted attacks are a possibility.

#9: Why Internet Explorer will survive and Firefox won’t

2011 marked an unfortunate turning point for Firefox, which had enjoyed a sustained run as the safer, faster alternative to Internet Explorer. Google’s phenomenal success with its Chrome browser took a big chunk out of both Microsoft and Mozilla. In this post, I make the case that Firefox might slide into irrelevance in a world where browsers are tightly wedded to platforms. See if you agree.

#10: IE9 versus Chrome: which one blocks malware better?

Internet Explorer 9 is a potential game-changer for Microsoft, which has put an enormous effort into making its next-generation browser both standards-compliant and secure. This in-depth look at IE9’s security underpinnings is one of three IE9 posts I wrote in 2011 that wound up in a virtual dead heat. The others:

Thanks again for all the support in 2011. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

31
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: SSD secrets, Windows 8 unveiled, Mac malware: my top 10 for 2011
deusexmachina  Updated - 8th Jan
@klumper
Yes, irrelevant pratter. Your ill-informed statements, and your inability to understand the distinction between viruses and other malware, even when said distinction was the topic of conversation (hint: Leap/A was NOT a virus) shows that it is not I with the problem regarding failure to think. Your very difficult to believe comments regarding the quantity of MacDefender infections you have seen in the wild calls into question your veracity, and, even if true, indicate that it is not I living in the parallel universe, as nationwide and worldwide statistics make it quite clear that MacDefender had almost zero end user penetration.

"The problem is, you're talking to someone who does this work for a living, and has for many years."

No, the problem is, you are talking to someone who not only does this for a living, but also, unlike yourself, happens to actually know what he is talking about.
0 Votes
+ -
A record number of visitors stopped by this site in 2011. (Thanks to all of you for that support!)

I don't candy up to much, but you deserve it. Congrats.
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks
sboverie@... 21st Dec
I enjoy reading your articles, you put in a lot of effort to do proper research. I hope to read more of your articles in the next year.
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks Ed, for your insight and articles for the past year. Much appreciated.
0 Votes
+ -
sorry for the double post
Well, it was a big year for me, I switched to OS X for my desktop, my Xbox 360S is the ultimate widget, useful for everything and my one W7 machine performs perfectly. This is what I call progress, of course I'm not in the IT business.
Thanks Ed! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Look forward to more great articles!!
You're my favourite writer on this site. Honest, interesting and your articles stand up with their own merit rather than abusing attention-grabbing titles. Keep it up Ed happy Merry Christmas!
@Imrhien

Hay Ed

I may not always agree with you but I really enjoy (most) of your posts. Keep up the good work.

Merry Christmas!
But Macs don't have malware!!

I think I'm one of the few Mac owners that don't believe that Macs can and do get viruses and malware.
@gribittmep
Since you choose to separate out viruses from malware, please name a single OSX virus. It will be interesting, seeing as there aren't any.
That is, assuming that your odd, incorrect use of negation is what it appears.
0 Votes
+ -
And you aren't splitting hairs here?
klumper Updated - 23rd Dec
@deusexmachinaA
Since you choose to separate out viruses from malware, please name a single OSX virus. It will be interesting, seeing as there aren't any.

Various forms of malware today can be just as bad as viruses. You don't remember MacDefender and the muck it caused earlier this year? Ed Bott himself wrote about it.

It's a myth that Macs are immune to viruses and other parasitical nasties. All you can say is they haven't circulated in the wild in the numbers they have for their big brother, the PC.

Recall as early as 2006 the OSX/Leap-A worm, which was spread via the iChat instant messaging system.

Some other known Mac OS X viruses: Olxy backdoor, FakeAVZp-B, FakeAv-DD, Blackhole (MusMinim), Bancos, Bckdr-RID, OSX/Tored-A, OSX/Jahlav-C.

Sophos catalogs quite a few pages worth of returns for Trojans and Worms for OS X. Look for yourself (move spaces together): h t t p:// tinyurl. com/4qz89lu

Remote Access Trojans have already been targeted for the Mac, and no OS is invincible. You'd do well to remember that.
0 Votes
+ -
Bumped below
klumper Updated - 28th Dec
---
@klumper
"Various forms of malware today can be just as bad as viruses."

And... so?
You entirely miss my point, and make it at the same time. It is not I, but rather the OP that insisted on making viruses distinct from other forms of malware in his diatribe. Thus any comment on things other than viruses is totally irrelevant.

"You don't remember MacDefender and the muck it caused earlier this year?"

Sure I do. Do you? What muck are you talking about? Despite the HIGHLY inaccurate and sensational pablum being put forth from Ed Bott, almost NO ONE was affected by Mac Defender, the problem was readily addressed by Apple, and for those few who WERE affected, easily fixed with a simple deletion of files. No HDD reformat, no OS reinstall, not even any anti-virus software needed.

"It's a myth that Macs are immune to viruses and other parasitical nasties. All you can say is they haven't circulated in the wild in the numbers they have for their big brother, the PC."

Um... what?
Who said anything about OSX being immune to viruses?!? And how on earth are Windows machines the Mac's "big brother"?

"Recall as early as 2006 the OSX/Leap-A worm, which was spread via the iChat instant messaging system."

And which, FAIAP, affected absolutely NO ONE ever in the wild.

"Some other known Mac OS X viruses: Olxy backdoor, FakeAVZp-B, FakeAv-DD, Blackhole (MusMinim), Bancos, Bckdr-RID, OSX/Tored-A, OSX/Jahlav-C."

And again, NONE of those listed are viruses, and ALL of them affected essentially NO ONE in the wild.

Some people know enough to see your diatribe as the FUD garbage that it is, and to not be hoodwinked into thinking you know what you are talking about. You'd do well to remember that.
0 Votes
+ -
You're taking Macfandom to new heights
klumper Updated - 29th Dec
@deusexmachinaA
It is not I, but rather the OP that insisted on making viruses distinct from other forms of malware in his diatribe.

Truth is, it cuts both ways. Viruses (virii) once upon a time were held as something distinct from emerging adware and spyware. With their increase, the latter two got lumped together to become "malware." Then with the emergence of additional stripes of scareware, rootkits, crimeware (etc.), ALL (including virii) coalesced under that same convenient title [malicious software].

As for MacDefender and everything else I stated, apparently you prefer your cozy hut in some parallel universe where getting drunk on Apple cider is the norm. How can one expect a rational debate with you on such things when you conveniently talk past everything presented, and simply deny realities? Not just mine, but established experts in the field.

Since you choose to separate out viruses from malware, please name a single OSX virus.

Who asked that silly question? Oh yes, you did. So I gave you an answer with a well documented handful, and pointed you to the Sophos security team for additional pages worth. But that still isn't good enough for you. ["La la la la ..."]

Now as long as PC's constitute 95% of the market, and Macs less than 5%, big brother is a fitting tag. Anything else would be denying the obvious. *Oh wait*
0 Votes
+ -
@klumper
First, let's get this out of the way right now. There is NO SUCH WORD AS *virii!!!!!
*virii (or: please god make it stop!!!)
For god's sake please everybody stop over-regularizing Latin
pluralization rules and applying them where they do not belong! It
doesn't make you look smart.
There is no such word as "virii." The correct plural of the word virus is
viruses. Sorry, this in not a debatable point. The ending "ii" is not even
possible in Latin, since the "ii" ending only occurs with words that end
in "ius."
First, if it were to be pluralized using the same rule for second
declension words such as alumnus and radius, it would pluralize as
viri, not *virii. Where, pray tell, are you getting that extra "i from,
anyway? ("Radii" has two because it started with one to begin with.)
The problem here is many fold. But the main one at this juncture is
that the word viri already exists; it is the plural of vir, or "man." And it
doesn't help to pretend that virus is first, third, or fourth declension
either. The plural of virus in not *virora, *vira, or the absurd *virae.
All this is beside the point, however. The word virus in Latin, needless
to say, does NOT mean the same thing as it does in English. (Electron
microscopes were way too expensive back in those days, and I think
Augustus Caesar declared them illegal.) Virus in Latin means "poison"
or "slime," and as such was what is known as a non-count noun. I.e. it
had no plural in Latin. Just like the words "love" (as in affection) hate
(also as in affection) and mail have no plural in English (and yes that
means *e-mails is wrong too) so too "virus" had no plural in Latin.
Since it's co-opting for use in English as a word for a countable entity,
it has acquired a need for a plural. But since that plural is for an
English construct, it must have an English plural, i.e. "viruses." Besides
which, again, it never had one in Latin in the first place.

That out of the way, let's deal with your points:
First, no, I am not splitting hairs. First as I have already stated twice, it was not me making the distinction, it was the OP. You can't have it both ways, treating them differently when it suits your argument, and then trying to lump them together when it does not, just to call the poster pedantic.
Second, you simply do not know what you are talking about regarding MacDefender. You write:
"As for MacDefender and everything else I stated, apparently you prefer your cozy hut in some parallel universe where getting drunk on Apple cider is the norm. How can one expect a rational debate with you on such things when you conveniently talk past everything presented, and simply deny realities? Not just mine, but established experts in the field."

Excuse me?!? The only person hiding from reality here is you. MacDefender affected almost no one. Not just relatively, but absolutely. Your argument about PC viruses not affecting many people relative to the PC installed base is misinformed, and off base. First, the fact that it is a de facto requirement that you run anti malware software when you use Windows completely negates your point. Second, again, ANY look at the numbers shows that the total number of people affected by MacDefender, relative to the OSX install base is minuscule, even compared to similar situations on other platforms. Simply shutting your eyes, and covering your ears and pretending this is not so does not change these facts. Third, you cite "experts in the field". Name one. Seriously, name a SINGLE security expert who claims MacDefender was a serious issue. Aside from self-serving rants from security software companies that "the sky is falling, buy our product," NO ONE in the Mac security field did more than yawn over this one.

"Who asked that silly question? Oh yes, you did. So I gave you an answer with a well documented handful, and pointed you to the Sophos security team for additional pages worth. But that still isn't good enough for you."

Un, no, you didn't. Ignorant much?!? NONE of the items you mentioned were viruses. NONE OF THEM. But thanks for making it clear that even when it is pointed out to you, you are still clueless about security issues.

"Now as long as PC's constitute 95% of the market, and Macs less than 5%, big brother is a fitting tag. Anything else would be denying the obvious. *Oh wait*"

First of all, that's now over 10%. Second of all, your argument is nonsensical. What does Big Brother have to do with anything?!? Did you even READ 1984?!?

As with many matters on which you post here, you quite simple do not know what you are talking about.
@gribittmep

"Various forms of malware today can be just as bad as viruses. You don't remember MacDefender and the muck it caused earlier this year? Ed Bott himself wrote about it."

But unlike Ed's "the sky is falling" articles the majority remained unaffected. Yet more scare stories to keep the Microsoft faithful, faithful.
0 Votes
+ -
The majority remained unaffected
klumper Updated - 28th Dec
@john@...
But unlike Ed's "the sky is falling" articles the majority remained unaffected. Yet more scare stories to keep the Microsoft faithful, faithful.

The Mac to date has had a impressive record on system security. Overall. Let's get that out of the way right off.

However when you smugly quip "The majority remained unaffected" re MacDefender, here's a news flash for you: No matter what virus, rootkit or stripe of malware has struck the PC world, on each and every instance of it, even dating back to Day One, the majority remained unaffected.

Without exception. shocked

Oh my.
I always stop to read your articles. I find them interesting, balanced, and informative. Keep up the good work. Merry Christmas!
I am an avid reader of your articles. They are always very well researched and balanced. I am sure 2012 will be even better! Thanks for all your hard work and keep it up
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks Ed...
Steve@... 21st Dec
I, personally, love to read your WinTel centrist articles and posts. I've been building, supporting, servicing and upgrading PC machines for 20 years, something no Apple fanboy could ever say. Your informative articles help me stay up to date, now that I've wound down, and retired.
Cheers !!
0 Votes
+ -
@Steve@...
Oh really?
Perhaps if you had ANY idea what you were talking about, your opinions might be worth something, but you don't, so they aren't.
I have owned Macs since the Mac Plus days. I have been building PCs for FAR longer than you, it would seem. And for the record, I HIGHLY doubt you "build" PCs. I mean actually building them, not the screw a MOBO into an ATX case that any rhesus monkey could be trained to do. (It never ceases to amaze me all the people that brag about assembling parts to make a PC as if it required ANY skill whatsoever.) For the record, I built my first machine in the 70s from a wire wrapped Zilog 80.
As a certified, card-carrying Apple fan, your contention that assembling machines from parts is somehow beyond us is asinine. I somehow suspect that the average Mac user (you know, like all the theoretical physicists, bioengineers, cryptologists, and security researchers, fields where Macs abound, who use Macs on a daily basis) would have a just as easy a time following simple assembly instructions.
On the flip side, I suspect that if I threw a Z-80, a bread board, some ferrite cores and a wire wrap tool in front of you, you would be hard-pressed to assemble a collage, let alone a working computer.

So nice try at the thinly-veiled condescension.
And FTR, I can also build and upgrade OSX machines, something, apparently, that is beyond you.
@Ed Bott

Your original post re: macs and malware is so chock full of your own misinformation, assumption, and straw man arguments, as pointed out by many, including myself, at the time, as to be worth very little.
Many of these things you completely failed to adequately respond to. Certainly, the issue of whether a piece of malware is a trojan is a central issue in any malware discussion, since, by definition, a trojan horse is simply a program, a program that does NOT necessarily have to employ holes in the OS to deploy its payload or wreak its havoc, and as such is not particularly germane to discussions of platform security. One can obfuscate all one wants to, cherry picking certain things like lack of comprehensive address space layout randomization (even though such randomization has been shown to be so easily bypassed, that bringing it up as a security paradigm evinces a certain ignorance of actual OS security issues) as some proof that OSX is lacking in security, but it does not change the central facts.
For instance the continued claim on your part that "malware" is increasing for OSX, implying that the OS is flailing under a growing assault, even though you have NO evidence to support this view. You can not even support the idea that OSX malware is on the rise. Sure, if you mean total number of malware, it is on the rise for just about every platform, as every new piece of malware code adds to total number, and as such, means it is increasing. But the implication here is that the RATE of malware attack is on the rise, when you do not have a SINGLE piece of evidence to support this view. Stating otherwise is both factually inaccurate and disingenuous. In fact, if you look at the rate of new malware directed at OSX, it has hardly budged since it's introduction. A few concept vectors a year, that are introduced, go nowhere, with no proof of significant penetration in the wild, and then die out. And yes, this includes MacDefender.
0 Votes
+ -
@deusexmachina

If they were on par, we (one and all, to include you) would be having far different discussions. But you can't grasp that simple, de facto concept, can you?

It's the differential, and deal-breaker, in today's PC vs Mac security debate.

At least I can see you're aware of the MacDefender strike, though downplaying it as if by rote. Why am I not surprised?
@klumper

"At least I can see you're aware of the MacDefender strike, though downplaying it as if by rote. Why am I not surprised?"

Because nothing happened. Despite all the "sky is falling" news, nothing happened. Yes, I know about the boy who cried wolf, and how that ended up but at the moment this 40 year old OS seems to be holding up pretty well.
0 Votes
+ -
Because nothing happened
klumper Updated - 28th Dec
Naturally nothing happens, when you bury your head in a hole and chant "la la la la..."

After dragging its heels and burying its collective head, Apple eventually decided it was in its better interest to publicly acknowledge the torpedo hit it took and release a security patch along with removal instructions to clean up its users' infected computers. While some were getting hit with Mac Defender, others were dealing with its variants Mac Security, Mac Protector, Mac Shield and Mac Guard.

Fortunately the sec team at Icrontic chose a different path, with eyes wide open, and released a remedial tool right from the git-go.

If you recall, it was big enough threat that Apple Care was getting inundated by calls from affected and concerned Mac users in the weeks that followed. Thus after preliminary denial, out came their own remedy patch, apparently begrudgingly released ... oh yeah, "because nothing happened." wink
@klumper

Depends on your definition of "nothing happened" I suppose.

I don't really get where you are coming from. Are you a Mac user? As a Mac user I was not happy with the state of Microsoft's OS's before they sorted themselves out.

You are slagging off users "who stick their head in the sand" and yet having been virus free for something like 25 years I have the right to my opinion. If you don't download rubbish from the Internet and are careful with email then these are not issues for the majority.

Certainly not the issue that Ed claimed it to be.
@john@...
I don't really get where you are coming from. Are you a Mac user?

But I'm an equal opportunity service provider. I work on all types of machines - boxes, servers, terminals - regardless of what they're running. I play no favorites, they're all pains in the arses once you handle enough of them (there's a human limit to TLC, trust me). But my job is to make 'em right, to include their COM and NW tentacles (pipelines).

As for MacDefender, it was a big deal as it was a sobering warning shot over the Mac's bow. Many were struck neither downloading rubbish from the Internet nor via email attachments, from nothing more than banging around on a search engine hunting for pics (SEO poisoning via rigged links). No flashing red lights, or indulgences in naughty no-no sites, were part of the picture.

So no, it actually was the big deal that Ed claimed it to be. I know further because I cleaned a handful of the affected units first-hand. Even Apple came to acknowledge (albeit begrudgingly) Mac Defender's reach. As I stated earlier, the Mac has had an impressive security record to date. But OS X is no more immune to malware than any other OS is today. You can bank on that.
0 Votes
+ -
@klumper

"(Irrelevant pratter about MacDefender)... So no, it actually was the big deal that Ed claimed it to be. I know further because I cleaned a handful of the affected units first-hand."

First, NOTHING you wrote implies that, or states how, MacDefender was a "big deal". The only things that makes it a big deal are total number affected (which was essentially zero, relative to the entire mac market) and the severity of the damage (also essentially zero, as the code could be removed with a few lines typed into terminal, with no lingering effects). Even while infected, the machines hardly did anything particularly damaging or nefarious. So factual fail on your part.

The fact that even you can only claim "a handful" of affected machines makes it quite clear that your posts are ill-informed fear mongering.

I too service Macs (as well as Windows boxes). More importantly, I interact with a network of others who ALSO service macs. You know how many instances of MacDefender, and ALL of its variants, we saw, all across the entire country?
ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. (Something Ed Bott and his ilk are loath to acknowledge. Like you, Ed Bott claimed the writers of MacDefender "made a tremendous impact, and then goes on to post irrelevant trivia that had no bearing on this point, and proceeded to act as if the point had been proved. It wasn't. The MacDefender silliness was almost entirely in the minds of the tech press, affected almost no one, and faded from view in less than a month. Yawn.)
0 Votes
+ -
Irrelevant pratter?
klumper Updated - 29th Dec
@deusexmachinaA
The fact that even you can only claim "a handful" of affected machines makes it quite clear that your posts are ill-informed fear mongering.

Dude, I'm in one small corner of Terra Mater. Dig? This was happening all over the country, and anywhere else Macs make off to (globally). Simply use Apple Care and its actions as the proving ground metric if you care to. *think*

More importantly, I interact with a network of others who ALSO service macs. You know how many instances of MacDefender, and ALL of its variants, we saw, all across the entire country? ZERO, ZILCH, NADA.

Apparently in some parallel "service" universe to boot, high on apple cider once again. The problem is, you're talking to someone who does this work for a living, and has for many years. I don't need the tech press or fanboys to tell me what my eyes see and hands touch. That's the difference from being in the trenches as opposed to war rooms. Or in your case, and by all appearances, some walled-in Mac cubicle.

PS. Once you open your eyes (and mind), you'll see I have no axe to grind with Macs + OS X, no more than I do with PCs, regardless of what platform manager they happen to run. I just call 'em as I see 'em, and let the chips fall where they may. Can you say the same? [Note to self: expect rhetorical tail chase +]
0 Votes
+ -
@klumper
Yes, irrelevant pratter. Your ill-informed statements, and your inability to understand the distinction between viruses and other malware, even when said distinction was the topic of conversation (hint: Leap/A was NOT a virus) shows that it is not I with the problem regarding failure to think. Your very difficult to believe comments regarding the quantity of MacDefender infections you have seen in the wild calls into question your veracity, and, even if true, indicate that it is not I living in the parallel universe, as nationwide and worldwide statistics make it quite clear that MacDefender had almost zero end user penetration.

"The problem is, you're talking to someone who does this work for a living, and has for many years."

No, the problem is, you are talking to someone who not only does this for a living, but also, unlike yourself, happens to actually know what he is talking about.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix