![]() This is called "herd immunity" and it works so well in favor for Macs because there are so few, Mac's are more "surrounded" by PCs that they generally can't catch a virus from. They don't have to avoid everybody, just the people that are infected. Like people getting sick, if you have 10 people in a house, and 5 of them are immune to a cold, and one person gets a cold that isn't immune, the other 4 non-immune people are less likely to get it because those 5 immune ones can't spread it to them. One, like others have said, there just aren't as many Macs out there, so it's less lucrative, and if a Mac does get a virus, it's less likely to spread it to another Mac via a PC. You're entitled to your opinion - now, please do me the same courtesy, and stop accusing me of being misleading over a difference of opinion. I think the first scenario would see some amateur criminals increasing the number of viruses slightly, and the second scenario would see a big increase in viruses (which ARE POSSIBLE, as I've proved), because professional criminals who are responsible for most viruses aren't lazy.Ī difference of opinion. ![]() You think that the first scenario would create a flood of viruses, the second scenario would make no difference, because criminals are lazy and will go for the easy target. ![]() And I provided proof that there is no technical reason why Macs can't get viruses - proof in that Apple's own Macs have been infected by a virus.ġ) If all the security was removed from Macs, but the user base remained the same, how many more viruses would they get?Ģ) If 90% of Windows users switched to Macs, and the security was left unchanged, how many more viruses would Macs get compared to now?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |