I have no anti-virus on my Mac yet I can visit any site on the net no matter what type of drive by download it attempts or exploits are targeted. I can fire up LimeWire 5 or visit any file sharing site and download whatever my heart desires and at the end of the day I Still have a clean Mac that has no malware of any kind affecting it.

Question is, Can a Windblows user say the same? EXACTLY! End of discussion. This thread is now closed.

All systems can get a virus, I don't think it is news that macs get them.

lol wow fatty got a -20,,,

someday I'ma make a big insult and hopefully try to beat that record

I've reached the point where I just down rate his by default

I wonder if we can start a petition for a fatty post ban?

Mac's are already slower than s@@t. Now they are adding anti malware and spyware to it?
It already takes 4gb of ram to run a mac properly.

Apple sucks and so does Mac.
Windows is great.. Linux is getting friendly but needs work.

lol that is so asking for a virus to hit macs...

lol I said that first

I win :D

Even as a Windows user myself, I can still admit Macs are safer for your average Internet user. Regardless of whether or not Apple is sitting up and starting to take security seriously in OS X; the fact remains that ALL the malware written for Mac is surpassed in numbers DAILY by new Windows malware variants.

I still haven't had to de-malware a Mac: and I do at least one Windows one every day. And yes, they're usually XP. It takes a lot more effort to bug Vista. :p

There's a big hole in the "Win PC's get more viruses because virus writers want notoriety and Win PC's are more prevalent" argument. For the past few years it has been Mac viruses that fiercely capture the headlines simply because they are rare and thus noteworthy. There's a new variant of a WinPC virus in the wild pretty much every day; this is hardly news unless it devastates a great many systems. If you want notoriety - target OSX.

However, there are at least a few reasons connected to Mac-OSX's higher price point that leave it less inundated. Macs tend to be purchased by wealthier, more educated people who prefer to use their time in other ways. These people spend less time in the unemployment lines and have less "basement time" spent devising ways to damage others' machines for reasons of spite or depressed ego; WinPCs are a "dime a dozen" and make a wonderful target for marginalized personalities.

There are other reasons but that's a start. Notoriety is not one of them.

It's not that malware writers are seeking noteriety. That went away in the early-mid eighties; when they learned they could cash in on their work.

Now, it's all about money, and when you're talking about 1 in 8 vs. 7 in 8, which target would you aim for?

Boy aren't you a piece of arrogance!
There is no hole in the WIN gets more malware/viruses because it is more prevalent. That's just a fact.
You really show your stupidity by making a statement that because a person is more educated they purchase Macs. PC users are just as educated as Mac users and equally spend the same amount of time spent in unemployment lines.

Shallow, uninformed people such as yourself will never be taken seriously.

Perhaps I was wrong on the notoriety. Maybe its simple economics. Hackers can't afford the more expensive Macs ;)

I think there's a very simply point as to why there are more PC viruses then MAC viruses. It perhaps was touched upon below, but not really discussed.

Why are there viruses? It's not like the flu or other viruses we get which are naturally occuring. Computer viruses are written by programmers. They write them primarily to cause trouble and to brag if their virus makes a name for itself. The best way to cause the most trouble, is to target the largets group of users. That's the PC users.

If those that wrote viruses spent as much time trying to write viruses for the MAC, we'd probably see a larger number of viruses out there even if the MAC OS is inherently more secure. The more people who try to hack it, the more likely a problem is going to be found.

Would it be to much to ask for a real virus writer to make an apprearance and answer this question... LOL

Security with windows is an after though - I'll agree with that. The reason its an after thought however is due to the fact that computing today is drastically different then when windows was first introduced. With each version of windows, I think its become more secure and most viruses I've seen are usually caused by a user clicking on something they shouldn't have clicked on.

Back in the day, Mac's were much more prone to viruses and it was much more of a problem then it is today. Same can be said for PC's as well. There's just so many more PC's in the market, that the talk of viruses is often over stated. I work in the IT field and if I relied on cleaning viruses to make a living, I'd be out of work.

Wow...why did this get rated down? Am I blind? fatty makes a sound argument in regards to the reasoning why virus/spyware/malware writers aim at Windows PCs more so than Macs. Security is, without a doubt, one of the ultimate driving forces when determining which platform to target.

I will say, beginning with Windows Vista, security was significantly tightened. Windows Vista and 7 both utilize Security in a much more centralized fashion. While UAC still has it's annoyances, it is by far superior to the base install package that XP offers/offered. And, while this may not be as secure as *nix, it certainly is a solid foundation which is LONG overdue.

Before you assume i'm a MS fan, im not, I use Windows simply because its the most useful and less limiting off the bunch, but I do wish a form of unix OS would kick its butt one day, but as yet they haven't. I'm sick of defragging, and cleaning up crap!

Security wise though, Windows is like that old trusty doctor who is faced with many viruses on a daily basis but never seems to get ill, because over the years he has built up a sturdy immune system, Mac is the little kid who has never been exposed to much, but the day he catches something, he'll drop like a ton of bricks, and it will be that doctor who has to pick up the pieces!!

Nice attempt at an analogy canick but with little connection to software. A few conjectures:

Genetically, OSX is from the Unix family whose ancestry begins in 1969. MS-DOS was released in 1982 but very little MS-DOS remains and Windows current ancestry is really much later.

In the case of operating systems, to a large part, the software is the genetics. The doctor is really a patient with a rather primitive immune system (at this stage) and one might say that memory leaks are the cancer.

Overpopulation is certainly an effective vector for disease with sickly beings. But equating the success of a species in the software world based on large numbers and large numbers of casualties would be misleading at best.

We have seen many species go extinct simply because the "armor" that they carry around to protect their weak innards has made them slow, stupid, undesirable and ironically more vulnerable.

Truthfully, success in the animal and computer world is based on merit. In other words, a good personality - reliable, giving, thoughtful, happy, creative, interested and sentient. It is these aspects which keep dis-ease from the door, garner more friends than enemies, and result in a life worth living.

I think it's pretty clear whose genes bring considerably less dis-ease at this point in computer\software\human evolution.

I like the use of the Microsoft "\" rather then the more commonly used "/" in everything else. =)

I always wondered where that key was on the keyboard...

1) UNIX originally had no security, so being as old as 1969 is moot.
2) Windows has no DOS whatsoever (not very little).
3) Windows is based on NT which is a kernel and architecture design written by THE BEST OS Engineers of the time that were heavily from the VMS/UNIX world.
4) NT was specifically designed NOT TO BE UNIX because of the inherent architecture model flaws and massive security flaws. (When NT security is enforced, it is STILL ahead of any UNIX offering. - For example even a low level kernel call that is 'trusted' still has to obtain a security token.
5) OS X's kernel is a MACH/BSD hybrid which is problematic, and why you will find articles by 'engineers' about funnel kernel locks and other 'duct tape' issues that OS X has.

(Notice Snow Leopard advertised multi-core support? Surprising since MACH and BSD have done SMP (multi-CPU) well for over 20 years?

It is because Apple used the XNU BSD/MACH hybrid that tries to eliminate single CPU locks as the MACH/BSD combination, and in doing so allow the OS, drivers, and even application processes to lock the OS and all processes to ONE CPU. So that awesome 8 core Xeon Mac Pro is running on ONE CPU most of the time.

You are as bad as any other mis-information idiot and use the 'UNIX' is superior yet I would wager you don't have a clue what even makes an architecture UNIX.

UNIX is NOT superior or the 'best' idea for an OS model. The NT team at Microsoft argured this successfully and designed a NEW architecture to DO AWAY with the pitfalls of the UNIX model. Microsoft owned XENIX at the time in case the NT team wanted to make NT a UNIX based OS.

If that doesn't get your attention, the main designer of the MACH kernel that has been working with UNIX probably before you clicked your first mouse works at Microsoft and is freaking amazed that Apple is still 'duct taping' the MACH kernel design and pushing it as a 'modern' OS. (Google for your own references.)

Anthony please send me an email at spartan@spartanopinion.com. I would like to discuss your reply.

Too much emotion and quarter-truths of which a scant few relate to the original argument in rebuttal. It is easy to tell the difference between clear thinking and overzealous reactionism simply by examining the overuse of capitalized emphatic-isms, childlike insults, and the inability to retain a coherent reference to the seed argument.

One can read and loosely quote disparate articles on Unix and the Mach (etc) but very few can acquire a relatively unbiased and in-depth understanding.

"(Notice Snow Leopard advertised multi-core support? Surprising since MACH and BSD have done SMP (multi-CPU) well for over 20 years?"

SMP is not the same as multi-core support in Snow Leopard. The the OSX application API makes use of multi-core systems without the need for them to be written in a threaded way. This gives applications, not just the kernel, SMP like support and its done automatic by OSX rather then the application having to be coded for it.

They both work on Windows these days

You need to get laid, mate. Seriously... or at least just have a conversation with something other than the doll head superglued onto a joystick you call your best friend.

lol quibbler

Sorry fatty, this reply of yours has no foundation - unlike your previous post. Anthony has the win here.

So....what exactly is your reply to Anthony? You have only typed in conjecture at what loosely appears to attempt to dissuade the valid points that Anthony has already stated. You simply threw a bunch of fancy words to attempt to insult Anthony ... which is, as you put it, a "childlike insults, and the inability to retain a coherent reference to the seed argument"

Yet another pop-shot at the current king as a lousy excuse for journalism. Betanews is in danger of becoming another "Tom's Hardware" disaster.

lol internetworld

good luck (no sarcasm there)

I'm starting to wonder why there AREN'T any viruses for Macs out there yet... It's definitely not because the OS is virus proof, obviously. I'm guessing mostly because there is little profit in doing so, but there must be some kind of crazed Apple hater hacker out there somewhere...

well when it does, more money for the antivirus industry lol

On a second note, does this mean that currently I could go to every porn site in the world and not get a virus on a Mac(or at least not as many on a PC)? lol, that's pretty awesome

I see internetworld7 came to defend his beloved Mac. Too bad I can't read any of his comments..... well technically, I clicked "show" just so I could vote them down without reading them.

It's hard to blame Microsoft for the majority of the problems in some respects. 94.5% of the vulnerabilities come from 3rd party software on Vista. Microsoft software does not account for anything in the top 10. The worst offender is Adobe Flash. Other notable top ten software offenders are real player, adobe acrobat, and quicktime.

A lot of the problems come down to the end user. During 2008, 91.3% of Microsoft Office attacks exploited a single vulnerability that has had a security fix for 2 years. 100% of attacks against Office 2000 were against the RTM.

In the end, it is up to you to keep your system up to date and to take safeguards. A lot of the problems can be fixed if Windows users didn't run their computer in the default admin mode day in and out. If they truly wanted to prevent a lot of problems, they would do what a lot of the Linux installations do and setup an admin password and then anytime you want to do anything, you have to login as the "root" user. Window users typically don't do that.

What happened bousozoku...you read some article about MS ATL library and decided all vulnerabilities are due to that library? That's pretty funny...

http://mac.zicos.com/new...cal-Flash-Vulnerability

"Adobe has announced that a critical security vulnerability exists in the latest versions of Flash Player (v.9.0.159.0 and v10.0.22.87) for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux, as well as in the authplay.dll component embedded in Adobe Reader and Acrobat v9.x for Mac, Windows, and various Unix operating systems."

Can we take an average score of a person's comments and anybody below a certain threshold gets a timeout for a few days? There are some people on here who just are obviously going to be negative and trying to pick a fight everytime they post something.

Regurgitated Apple fanboi words... so sad.

I think the interesting and perhaps the stupidest thing done by Microsoft (and indeed Apple) is to hide the file extension of known files.

Britney.jpg(.exe) where .exe is hidden fools idiots in to thinking it is a jpg. If extensions were shown all the time (as they were with win2000 and before) then perhaps (and just perhaps) viruses wouldn't be quite so prevalent.

I have to agree with this one, One of the first thing I do when I install a new Windows Box is to go into the Folder options and change this back so I can see extensions.

That's a security disaster and an annoyance for users too!
Nobody wants it actually.
The only thing is that if you want to change the name of something, the extension doesn't get selected with hidden extensions. (Which is nice because the extension isn't gone with the name when you start to type. Windows uses the extensions to know what kind of file it is.)
With Vista it's better, when I click on change name it doesn't select the last part with a dot. No need for file extension hiding with this proper behaviour.

I also change this to see all extensions.

Don't forget the hidden files!

Or they will come after you without you seeing it.
(A lot of malware is using this property to stay undetected from users.)
(Without it, a lot of users would be able to notice strange files that they want to get rid of, and will do so. Eat this anti-virus companies! )

Personally, I like the feature of hiding all the known extensions for the one reason bopb99 pointed out in that its a lot easier to rename files. But as you point out and Microsoft even points out is that this is becoming one of the biggest methods of attacks and wouldn't be suprised if this is addressed sometime in the future.

lol that's messed up...

ROFL.... good point. But, does anyone really care to see Brit in the nude anymore? I think that would damage my eyes more than getting spyware on my PC would damage my PC.

Uh, how do you think Windows users get a virus? They don't appear out of thin air, its from downloading things such as britney.exe or not keeping your system up to date.

@terminalx actually, with original XP (no SP) there were quite a few viruses that spread with no user interaction whatsoever. I don't know of any off hand that are around post SP1 though.

That was maybe the sasser worm or blaster worm, both which could have been prevented had people kept their systems up to date, I was working at Comcast when that day happened, people's pcs kept rebooting and the fix was to install the update from a month earlier, you only had 5 mins. A month later to avoid it happening again there was an additional update that was unknown to the creator of the worm that MS patched as well but as far as I know was never exploited...

To throw out the word 'proprietary' and still boast on OS X is to fail to understand the definition of the word. OS X is proprietary in every sense - Apple will not release the source code to any of it's applications, and you are not allowed to tamper with any of their applications per the EULA.

Is Windows proprietary, yes - but no more or less than OS X.

Don't act like an idiot online, and be sensible with what you run and from where you obtain it. Common sense, regardless of your favored OS, is typically the best antivirus solution.

all of you who defend Apple and welcome malware/viruses and say things like Bring It On, need to step back... look yourselves in a mirror and wipe the dumba** off your face

This "virus" is in the DMG installation script. Of *course* you can do anything in the install script (the whole point of having one is so installers can do something more complicated than just move the .app bundle to Applications), but to affect anything system-wide, you'll need your admin password (a step up from most versions of Windows currently in use, by the way).

This isn't a virus by any modern definition; it's more akin to floppy-viruses where you'd have to actually run something to infect your machine. There isn't anything Apple (or Microsoft) can do to prevent users from running software they shouldn't be trusting--put bluntly, that's their own fault.

What do you think Windows users do? They run britney.exe or it can look like an actual program. Windows users get malware because of those free screensavers or toolbars they choose to install, viruses do not magically appear on your pc. They require user interaction. The only virus that appeared out of thin air was a security hole that was patched a month prior to an outbreak hitting, which is not MS fault people do not keep their systems up to date...

You are a moron, in order for those toolbars to get installed the user has to agree on it, they don't magically attach themselves, now sometimes they are hidden on legit programs but thats not MS fault, its the writer of the program. Kazaa used to do that. Outlook has built in security and can be even more restrictive if you so choose, just opening an email does not give you a virus you still need to run the attachment

@fatty That's funny, you sound like a brainwashed Apple fanboy. Or maybe your hoping that if you are nice enough towards Apple you can get some of the $$$$ you sent to Steve Jobs. It's an addiction.. ;) I have a friend who has bought all the latest iPhones and Mac stuff and that dude is freaking broke all the time.

The user must still choose to Install it. The only argument that you can possible make is that if the Windows user is using XP (pre SP1) or below. Any SP'd XP box or above requires user permission to perform the installation. Unless you want to start comparing back to the days of Mac OS 8, since all of your arguments pertain to non-supported Windows versions as well?

Or just buy a new Apple OS and let them brick it for you.

No searching involved.

The moment you keep saying they can't the more the underground will want to prove you wrong. I wouldn't boast, because some 13 year old in a basement somewhere just might make you eat crow...

You are safe with OS X from virouses up until (if ever), the market share of the OS X reaches 15%. Get my drift?

How is a bigger market share going to make a hole in the operating system that doesn't now exist?

OSX Leopard had more security holes then Vista did, that would be a hole that could be exploited, hence the patching...FYI... Also to note because of an exploit through Safari a hacker was able to take over a OSX machine faster then Vista in the black hat competition. All it takes is one...

Macs don't have virouses not bc they are invulnerable and contrary to the myths that mac-fan boys believe, apple has not invented such an OS. Macs does not have virouses,bc nobody is interested in writting a virus for an OS that has 4% of the market. Macs are just as vulnerable to Viruses, if not more than Windows.

EVERY operating system has security holes. It is virtually impossible to have any operating system on the market without them. Some ARE intentional in order to be able to drive the very lucrative anti-virus/spyware market. Others, however, are actual security holes and vulnerabilities. Anyone who claims their operating system is fully, 100% secure is lying. Even OS X, has security vulnerabilities, but it's low market share (like most *nix operating systems) keeps it from being a viable target. As market share and market penetration grows, so do the viruses.

Fatty, you are and always shall be a mindless idiot... So you honestly believe that OS X has no security flaws? And you claim Microsoft has spun propaganda... seriously? Can you really be this dense or is this some sort of act?

We should take a poll to see how much individuals have spent on legit copies on operating system's over the years. Between Windows 95, 98, XP, Vista, and 7, I only paid for the Windows 98 upgrade out of pocket. Windows 95 and XP came with my laptop and I optained Vista Ultimate and 7 Pro for free through various licencse agreements that didn't cost me any money.

You can tout the high cost of Windows Upgrades all you want, but in reality, most consumers are not paying those costs to upgrade.

And lets really get down to the facts, if you are upgrading from XP to 7 (skipping Vista), it cost only $119. If you ugprade from Tiger to Snow Leopard (skipping Leopard), the cost is $169. In these particular cases, it will cost the Mac user more to upgrade than the Windows user and most users utilize XP. Cheaper doesn't always mean better for everyone. Come on, a smart car is a lot cheaper than a Dodge Ram, but it won't tow my boat. Consumers are going to pick the OS that meets their needs in their mind the best regardless of the cost of the item.

But you never know, maybe Apple will drop the cost of the $169 upgrade a few months later after it entices the hardcore fans like it did with the iPhone :-)

One is a software company
One is a hardware company

You are comparing apples to oranges.
So, those Apple vs PC commercials isn't spending money?

Oh here's one for you...

Apple is charging users still on Tiger full price but the disk is the same disk you buy for the upgrade...

windows xp pro $230 (http://www.amazon.com/Mi...l-Version/dp/B00022PTI4)

windows 7 ultimate upgrade $219 (http://www.amazon.com/Mi...e-Upgrade/dp/B002DHLV8S)

$230 + $219 = $449 for Windows

OSX Tiger = $129
OSX Snow Leopard = $169

$129 + $169 = $298 for OSX

So in the real world, OSX is cheaper by far. I know this flies in the face of the Microsoft marketting propaganda BS spewed by all their paid shills, but on planet earth, the reality is OSX is cheaper by far.

Here's one for you, Microsoft charges people more for Ultimate eventhough it is the same disk as the arbitrarily stripped down overpriced versions.

That was really dumb.

Most people get their first OS with their computer.

Most people using XP had Home Premium.

Most people upgrading to Windows 7 will get Home Premium (as that will likely be the only version other than Pro available at Retail in non-emerging markets).

Amazingly you got the cost of Tiger and the Full version of SL correct. That's about it though...

Of course: The upgrade price for the majority of computer users worldwide to upgrade to Snow Leopard would be around $1000 (the cost of the bottom of-the-line Macbook).

Ya know, since most people using computers are not using Macs.

@Fatty... Of course you are missing a large cost here. Buying the Mac itself.

Plus, why would I buy XP Pro and then Win 7? Couldn't you buy a brand new Win 7 Ultimate for $319 and not upgrade?

Oh, and you also forgot about OEM pricing. Mac OSX is really an OEM Operating System. You can't get a new mac without it.

So, an apples to apples comparison is not what you are doing here and this is the real world.

With your logic, I guess everything that we touch should be free.

Its locked out by your license key, something OSX does not have. Its also labeled as such that it is an anytime upgrade disk.

No need to create security holes. They happen on their own.

there will always be holes in Operating systems

@bousozoku & fatty - it's not that you don't make valid points sometimes. Right now there are more potential areas for Windows PC's to become infected/etc. That part is true. However, the user can secure over 95% of these areas with appropriate software and keeping their machines updated with SPs/etc. They can cover 100% by safe browsing in conjunction with the aforementioned updating.

In the end - the statement evan2k is making is what we've all said all along, and is one of the core reasons why virus writers target Windows - it currently runs on the larger majority of computers in use across the world.

While your statement pertains to your initial comment, this latest comment is incorrect. There are currently a handful of viruses for OS X - so they DO exist. With time, this will easily increase. Especially if OS X gains a larger percentage of the market share (which was your initial point).

Don't get agitated by fatty - he's just trolling.

And Apple keeps getting suckers to pay $2000 for $650 in hardware, $30 for an OS, and an illegal immigrant getting paid $5/hour to put the thing together. Whereas I purchased the same PC from reputable retailer, using Windows XP/Vista as the OS, and only paid $800 for it. On top of that, I can make it easily as secure as any OS X machine for another $50 at most.

Secure and stable OS X machine: $2,000
Secure and stable Windows machine with same hardware specs as OS X machine: $850

@terminalx - who's the software company, and who's the hardware company? Even so, if we are talking about OS licensing costs, the comparison is legit for the specific circumstance indiethinker09 is stating.

Let's be fair, compare apples 2 apples: Use Windows Professional versions all-around:
Windows XP Pro SP2 w/COA: $49.99 (http://www.prodigy-elect...f837herand0qsja6kc0p2p7)

and Windows 7 Pro Upgrade: $189.86 (http://www.samsclub.com/...10944&ci_sku=901828)

$49.99 + $189.86 = $239.85 for Windows
Kinda trumps your $298 for OS X, huh?

seriously did you have to look around to find prices that high???

windows xp pro $139
http://www.directron.com/winxppsp3.html

windows vista ultimate with FREE windows 7 upgrade $179
http://www.directron.com/66r03056.html

but i guess when you are used to only having one source for your IT needs you forget to look around for a better price.

I wonder if there is any point of discussing this with you? Ask those people who though they were downloading legit copies of foxit pdf if OS X is safe? Seems like OS X is not always safe...

lol that is so asking for a virus to hit macs...

There are no proof-of-concept viruses for Mac OS X that work. Every exploit available either 1) requires authorisation to work or 2) doesn't go anywhere.

This implies that bulletproof code is possible. Which it isn't. Something as complex as an OS, just makes it even more impossible.

@rstat1: Could not have stated it better...

just when i though fatty held the record for most low ratings...

Although I don't know why more people hate this comment...

Not hardly - saying 'You will always be safe' on anything is purely setup for miserable failure. You cannot say with any absolute certainty that this is factual. To do so shows pure contempt, ignorance, and arrogance.

how long before Mac viruses become more prevalent?

just wondering..

Not very long... its all just a matter of time of course!

Macs are getting more popular so they are obviously going to target viruses at them, we ALL knew this time was coming tho!

I wouldn't hold your breath because I do not think it will be anytime soon. They still only claim a 7.6% to 10% market share with the higher numbers from Apple fan sites. I think it is going to be a while especially since MAC seems to be making slower inroads into the business market than the consumer market.

Once again, viruses work without authorisation from the user. This is different from the big basket most people call viruses, which include trojans but trojans require that the user authorise their actions.

It's sadly humourous to me that the people being hurt by this latest exploit are trying to get Snow Leopard without paying for it. I believe the term is "poetic justice".

Ironically, the most Windows computers affected by viruses, etc. are pirated copies too.

You're not getting it. The Snow Leopard they're trying to pirate is not an operating system, it's an exploit. They only think it's the operating system.

Uh, that's not entirely correct....the user has to authorize it initially once authorized then the virus can do what it wants - replicates

Yea, lets play symantics, that will show those virus's who's boss

"Apple never said OS X was invulnerable to viruses."

LOL, tell that to all the Apple Cultists who I can quote as saying it *is* [invulnerable to viruses].

And notify all the pc sales staff that mislead customers by "selling off" of pc's to mac stating "there are no virus" for macs and apple products. one trip to any "best buy" and other similar stores will update you on what "is" happening or not.

OS X is a beautiful eye candy system. No major complains just a few wheels of death a day which I can usually end process and continue working.

No virus, no spyware, no security holes, iWish. If you keep placing all you eggs in one basket, one day you will be sorry. For instance do you recall the iPhone was hacked by a simple text message. Have you thought about what would happen if your MAC gets hacked and then your iphone, iDisk. A virus will eventually come as sure as I will die some day. Windows are no immune by any means but if you are an cautious user then most things can be prevented same as the Mac. If you continued to use pirated software on your MAC then maybe you are already a victim.

Just a thought, I'm not an expert and yes I use OS X, XP, Vista, W7 and Ubuntu as hobbies. and for business.