Windows XP Service Pack 3 = Malware

[Flintlock1415]

The virus issue is not an inherent issue with Windows. It is the result of market share. Windows dominates the home desktop market. Thus, if I were to write a virus to cause the most damage, I would make it target the Windows platform. If the roles were reversed, OSX would need to have an AV to run 'normally'

This has been pretty well proven by the fact that there are OSX viri and malware out there. There's just very little because from an economical standpoint, it makes little sense to take the time and effort to make them.

Well, by the strict definition of a virus...

 

[Genocidicbunny]

I use virus as a catch-all term for the worst of the malware. If you want to get into semantics, fine. My point still stands.

 

[Bratmon]

The virus issue is not an inherent issue with Windows. It is the result of market share. Windows dominates the home desktop market. Thus, if I were to write a virus to cause the most damage, I would make it target the Windows platform. If the roles were reversed, OSX would need to have an AV to run 'normally'

Not everything. My rule of thumb is 60-40.
60% of malware comes directly from user stupidity. It will always follow the market share.
40% of malware comes from actual flaws. Moving to OSX or Linux will stop this.

 

[Flintlock1415]

I use virus as a catch-all term for the worst of the malware. If you want to get into semantics, fine. My point still stands.

Fair enough.

Spoiler :

As an aside, I'm not just a stupid Mac fanboy, much as my posts/avatar may lead you to believe. I use both Linux and Windows nearly daily, (hell, I'm on my linux computer right now) I just prefer the interface of OS X and the near non-existence of malware.

 

[stormbind]

The virus issue is not an inherent issue with Windows. It is the result of market share. Windows dominates the home desktop market. Thus, if I were to write a virus to cause the most damage, I would make it target the Windows platform. If the roles were reversed, OSX would need to have an AV to run 'normally'

This has been pretty well proven by the fact that there are OSX viri and malware out there. There's just very little because from an economical standpoint, it makes little sense to take the time and effort to make them.

Similarly, I like the idea of requiring an AV to connect to a corporate network. Thats not stupid, thats good practice. You have no idea what kind of junk is riding on the employees computer. It simply makes sense to force the users to sanitize their systems on their own.

The AV slows any system down. You're picking out fancy hardware and bogging it down - where's the tactical decision making gone?

Obscurity by design is a solution.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Fair enough.

Spoiler :

As an aside, I'm not just a stupid Mac fanboy, much as my posts/avatar may lead you to believe. I use both Linux and Windows nearly daily, (hell, I'm on my linux computer right now) I just prefer the interface of OS X and the near non-existence of malware.

And thats fair. I can agree to with making that choice.

The AV slows any system down. You're picking out fancy hardware and bogging it down - where's the tactical decision making gone?

Obscurity by design is a solution.

There's a difference between reasonable use of resources and bogging a system down. Not all AV's behave like McAfee or Symantec. I have Avast installed and it's physical resource usage is tiny compared to the amount of resources I have available to it.

Obscurity as an answer to security flaws is never a good idea.

Not everything. My rule of thumb is 60-40.
60% of malware comes directly from user stupidity. It will always follow the market share.
40% of malware comes from actual flaws. Moving to OSX or Linux will stop this.

Moving to OSX or Linux will not stop anything. Like I said earlier, the amount of malware and the amount of security hole exploitation is tied to market share though simple economics. As it stands, proofs of concept exist for both OSX and most Linux distros. Luckily for both OS's no one has yet cared to make use of those concepts and release them into the wild.

 

[civ_king]

As a counterargument I offer the newest Macbook Pro. 100+C chassis temperature? No thank you!

What? sure it's C not F?
just checked and is confined to the core i7 and they peak at 101C, partially because they seem to be over using the dedicated GPU, probably a firmware update within a month, on those super hot ones it might be a bad CPU heatsink fit as some claim it isn't nearly as bad

 

[Padma]

Moving to OSX or Linux will not stop anything. Like I said earlier, the amount of malware and the amount of security hole exploitation is tied to market share though simple economics. As it stands, proofs of concept exist for both OSX and most Linux distros. Luckily for both OS's no one has yet cared to make use of those concepts and release them into the wild.

That particular piece of Microsoft FUD has been disproven over and over again. Yes, there are proof-of-concept viruses for Linux. Viruses (and worms, and trojans) for Linux have been released into the wild. They never affect enough machines to be a problem, and are defeated by Linux developers as soon as they appear.

Economically, the best place to put a virus is on a server, because that's where all the data from the PCs it services goes through. Most of the internet is run on Linux/Unix servers. Most Linux viruses go after those. Yet, even though there have been a few rather spectacular hits, most simply don't go anywhere. Linux, as set up by default, is more secure than Windows set up by default.

I will agree, however, that a significant amount of malware is spread by user stupidity. And that won't change, no matter the OS.

 

[stormbind]

Obscurity as an answer to security flaws is never a good idea.

Well I obscure my SSID, I obscure my passwords, and I obscure a lot of other details when it pleases me. You may act as open as you wish. It's none of my business.

The above may have changed the focus of a point but it didn't change the point.

 

[Zelig]

Well I obscure my SSID.

See, things like this are bad security practice.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

That particular piece of Microsoft FUD has been disproven over and over again. Yes, there are proof-of-concept viruses for Linux. Viruses (and worms, and trojans) for Linux have been released into the wild. They never affect enough machines to be a problem, and are defeated by Linux developers as soon as they appear.

Economically, the best place to put a virus is on a server, because that's where all the data from the PCs it services goes through. Most of the internet is run on Linux/Unix servers. Most Linux viruses go after those. Yet, even though there have been a few rather spectacular hits, most simply don't go anywhere. Linux, as set up by default, is more secure than Windows set up by default.

We wont really know this until the market shares change. I believe we were also tending towards desktop, home and office usage rather than servers, where, as you say, Linux and Unix dominates pretty heavily. Said servers are generally run by admins that I would not describe as Average Joe.

You are entirely correct right now, but who knows what the future holds.

What? sure it's C not F?
just checked and is confined to the core i7 and they peak at 101C, partially because they seem to be over using the dedicated GPU, probably a firmware update within a month, on those super hot ones it might be a bad CPU heatsink fit as some claim it isn't nearly as bad

Yeah, its C.
The fact that its happening at all is a sign of really bad design. If the case gets to 100C, someone screwed up in the planning stage and QA didn't catch it. For example, I can make my laptop's CPU hit 90C if I really try. At the same time, the case only gets comfortably warm, not nearly enough to be uncomfortable, much less boil water. The second point is that 100C should not be hit by the CPU at all, EVER! When you get above 80C, there are huge thermal stresses being put on the silicon. You're effectively cutting it's usable life when you make it run over 70-80C.

A firmware update won't fix this, its a hardware design issue. The heat from the cpu is being pumped into the aluminum case. The only thing the firmware might do is slow the CPU down, but then whats the point of having a top-of-the-line cpu running at 30% of its speed.

Also, there is no such thing as over-using a component when it's at it's rated stock speeds. You're using it within it's specified speeds.

 

[civ_king]

We wont really know this until the market shares change. I believe we were also tending towards desktop, home and office usage rather than servers, where, as you say, Linux and Unix dominates pretty heavily. Said servers are generally run by admins that I would not describe as Average Joe.

You are entirely correct right now, but who knows what the future holds.




Yeah, its C.
The fact that its happening at all is a sign of really bad design. If the case gets to 100C, someone screwed up in the planning stage and QA didn't catch it. For example, I can make my laptop's CPU hit 90C if I really try. At the same time, the case only gets comfortably warm, not nearly enough to be uncomfortable, much less boil water. The second point is that 100C should not be hit by the CPU at all, EVER! When you get above 80C, there are huge thermal stresses being put on the silicon. You're effectively cutting it's usable life when you make it run over 70-80C.

A firmware update won't fix this, its a hardware design issue. The heat from the cpu is being pumped into the aluminum case. The only thing the firmware might do is slow the CPU down, but then whats the point of having a top-of-the-line cpu running at 30% of its speed.

Also, there is no such thing as over-using a component when it's at it's rated stock speeds. You're using it within it's specified speeds.

When you say case you refer to the interior correct? What I mean by firmware is the Fan simply spinning faster, as Apple is notorious for making the fans to slow to make them quiet

 

[Genocidicbunny]

When you say case you refer to the interior correct? What I mean by firmware is the Fan simply spinning faster, as Apple is notorious for making the fans to slow to make them quiet

No, I mean the outside case. As in, the actual metal case of the macbook pro gets to 100+C. Not the internal temperature (I bet that's also way up there too though)

A faster spinning fan will alleviate some of the problems, but you will still end up dealing with 80+C temperatures. I don't know if I would find it very comfortable to have a laptop sit on my lap that is that hot to the touch.

 

[civ_king]

No, I mean the outside case. As in, the actual metal case of the macbook pro gets to 100+C. Not the internal temperature (I bet that's also way up there too though)

A faster spinning fan will alleviate some of the problems, but you will still end up dealing with 80+C temperatures. I don't know if I would find it very comfortable to have a laptop sit on my lap that is that hot to the touch.

the only reports of temperatures I've seen like that are from the sensor right next to the CPU,

100+C on exterior seems so ridiculous I need a source

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/26/core-i7-equipped-macbook-pro-hits-100-degrees-celsius-your-lap/

Update: We'd like to point out that the temperatures described were related to the CPU internally, and not the actual case of the laptop.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

the only reports of temperatures I've seen like that are from the sensor right next to the CPU,

100+C on exterior seems so ridiculous I need a source

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/26/core-i7-equipped-macbook-pro-hits-100-degrees-celsius-your-lap/

You're right, I misremembered the facts.

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/172791,macbook-pro-helps-core-i7-hit-100-degrees.aspx

What I gathered from that is that the CPU hit 101C and the chassis was getting too hot to touch, which I would say occurs at around 70C.

Either way, these temperatures are much much higher than they should be. Like I said before, a CPU should not be running above 80C max. Even above 70C is not good for it. It's useful life is shortened a lot. The case should never be hot to the touch either, anywhere on the case. If it is, it means that the thermal solution for the laptop is not adequate. We may only talk about the CPU, GPU and case temperatures, but consider the other components in the laptop. They're dealing with these temperatures too, and most might not be equipped to do so effectively.

 

[civ_king]

You're right, I misremembered the facts.

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/172791,macbook-pro-helps-core-i7-hit-100-degrees.aspx

What I gathered from that is that the CPU hit 101C and the chassis was getting too hot to touch, which I would say occurs at around 70C.

Either way, these temperatures are much much higher than they should be. Like I said before, a CPU should not be running above 80C max. Even above 70C is not good for it. It's useful life is shortened a lot. The case should never be hot to the touch either, anywhere on the case. If it is, it means that the thermal solution for the laptop is not adequate. We may only talk about the CPU, GPU and case temperatures, but consider the other components in the laptop. They're dealing with these temperatures too, and most might not be equipped to do so effectively.

1) It was 101C in Windows, IIRC the MacBook Pro 17" has a custom chip so it might lack optimization for it, after all most people say their Mac runs hotter in Windows. (about 10C hotter)

2) Their sensors said 39C, not that bad (though still not comfortable)

3) as Apple designed them I hope they can deal with it, but it is still too hot

4) that Fujitsu seems like it would be weak on Cinebench, Cinebench is a GPU thing and that Lifebook is worthless for it

5) Those tests are designed to push something to its ABSOLUTE maximum right?


^) I think the should retest it with a different MacBook Pro 17"

 

[Genocidicbunny]

1) It was 101C in Windows, IIRC the MacBook Pro 17" has a custom chip so it might lack optimization for it, after all most people say their Mac runs hotter in Windows. (about 10C hotter)

OS choice should have no bearing on the efficacy of your thermal solution

2) Their sensors said 39C, not that bad (though still not comfortable)

And they said that it didn't seem like the sensors were relaying the true temperature.

3) as Apple designed them I hope they can deal with it, but it is still too hot

Apple designed it to look nice. Most everything else was secondary, you can be assured of that.

4) that Fujitsu seems like it would be weak on Cinebench, Cinebench is a GPU thing and that Lifebook is worthless for it

They were testing CPU's, and only the CPU's. Considering that the Fujitsu has the same CPU, the comparison between the thermal solutions is valid.

5) Those tests are designed to push something to its ABSOLUTE maximum right?

Yes, but then they said that even with real-world usage you will be seeing 90+C CPU temps.

^) I think the should retest it with a different MacBook Pro 17"

I agree. A single data point does not a result make. Still, its ominous.

 

[civ_king]

OS choice should have no bearing on the efficacy of your thermal solution



And they said that it didn't seem like the sensors were relaying the true temperature.



Apple designed it to look nice. Most everything else was secondary, you can be assured of that.



They were testing CPU's, and only the CPU's. Considering that the Fujitsu has the same CPU, the comparison between the thermal solutions is valid.



Yes, but then they said that even with real-world usage you will be seeing 90+C CPU temps.



I agree. A single data point does not a result make. Still, its ominous.

1) If it wastes GPU cycles so that it uses more causing more heat?
2) I missed that
3) Haven't heard of anyone's MacBook Pro frying because of constant over heating
4) If the GPU pumps out twice as much heat it wouldn't affect temperatures?
5) People in the comments were saying that this generation is actually cooler running

 

[Genocidicbunny]

1) If it wastes GPU cycles so that it uses more causing more heat?

Your thermal solution should be able to handle it. It's a difference between hardware and software. The software should have no dictation on the thermal performance of the components.

3) Haven't heard of anyone's MacBook Pro frying because of constant over heating

It wouldnt fry, but with constant overheating like that, the useful life of the components would go down a significant amount.

4) If the GPU pumps out twice as much heat it wouldn't affect temperatures?

The measurements were from the CPU diodes which are for the most part affected only by the core temperature. The cinebench benchmark is also CPU-oriented, not GPU oriented.

5) People in the comments were saying that this generation is actually cooler running

Excuse me if I ignore the commenters. My first impressions of the majority of them wasnt exactly positive.

 

[civ_king]

Your thermal solution should be able to handle it. It's a difference between hardware and software. The software should have no dictation on the thermal performance of the components.


It wouldnt fry, but with constant overheating like that, the useful life of the components would go down a significant amount.


The measurements were from the CPU diodes which are for the most part affected only by the core temperature. The cinebench benchmark is also CPU-oriented, not GPU oriented.


Excuse me if I ignore the commenters. My first impressions of the majority of them wasnt exactly positive.

1) At this point I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here

3) What is the normal useful lifespan vs estimates of CPUs?

4) ah the diodes

MAXON CINEBENCH runs several tests on your computer to measure the performance of the main processor and the graphics card under real world circumstances.

5) If you think this batch runs hot, well others ran pretty hot too


is a cinebench 10 score of 8,612 decent