Comments on: Symantec CEO advocates fair play and Macs

John Thompson thinks more folks should buy from Apple, worries Microsoft won't give him a fair fight in security.

[gggg sssss]

ROTFLMAO

When I buy a new Dell for $299, which includes the whole Windows operating system, why does Thompson think it "fair" that I have to pay $30 por the Symantec POS. Based on lines of code, NAV should be $5.00. THAT would be fair. If the OEM value of XP is $50 in the Dell price, then MS should charge $5.00 for the antivirus add-on. No more>Heck, I am sure that Paint.exe has more lines of code that actually work than NAV. Dont hear Adobe complaining about Paint.

[J_Satch]

What an idiot...

...He wants people to buy a computer/os that, at least according to the Mac faithful, will negate the need for his product!

[ServedUp]

Symantec is going the way of the dodo.

Truth is I can't see the relevance of having Symantec around.

If anything they could be the ones spreading the viruses.

[chrissnelson]

What a joke!

Yeah, the reason there have been no successful viruses for Mac's
OS X is because it just hasn't occured to anyone to try! LMAO!!!
Clearly, the desire to be the FIRST successful author of an OS X
virus that could spread has to be overwhelming, were it within the
means of anyone. But, OS X has just proven to be the superior OS.
So go ahead and buy a Mac, and forget about Symantec's antivirus
software...you don't need it!

[rhaft22]

More Macs = more money for Symantec

Of course John Thompson would like to see the Mac grab more market share... my guess would be that he wants at least enough of a critical mass so that virus and malware writers will attack the Mac in earnest, and maybe feel compelled to purchase his company's software.

His arguments about fair play also ring hollow... would it be fair play if Microsoft wrote an operating system that needed no security products and therefore put some big hurt on Symantec? I have to smile trying to come up with an argument he might use in that situation...

rhaft22

[fakespam]

Yeah, okay.

Again, another virus company saying that malware will be on
Macs if sales increase, and we must buy their products to
protect our Macs!

Um, hello, have these folks ever used UNIX? Can't make viruses
on an OS that requires permission from the user everytime it
basically writes a bite for anything.

In reality, there aren't any viruses/malware for Macs anymore
than there are hovercars for consumers.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/7505/

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Unix is subject to viruses!

I don't know how you could be so ignorant as to think Unix isn't subject to virus attacks.

http://www.cybersoft.com/whitepapers/papers/print/networks_print.html

http://www.claymania.com/unix-viruses.html

Running a Unix variant alone doesn't give you immunity. It should also be telling that most of the publically hacked web pages last year were hacked on Unix or Linux boxes. If security on those systems were as perfect as you seem to think then those hacks wouldn't have happened.

It doesn't matter what OS you're running, you need to be aware of the ways your system can be hacked and provide yourself a defense against hacking or a quick and easy recovery.

[rcrusoe]

More Mac users does not mean more Mac malware

Oh please. No OS is perfect, but the lack of Mac viruses & spyware
is not due to its smaller market share.

Mac viruses will eventually arrive. But unlike the case with
Windows, you can't just download some code from the net, tweek
it a bit, and take down tens of thousands of *nix/Mac computers.

It takes some skill to produce a malicious *nix program. Skill that
the majority of Windows attackers don't have.

[Heebee Jeebies]

Symantec actually thinks...

That Microsoft is their biggest problem. Wake up morons. It is your poorly done, system resource sucking, lame upgrades software that is causing you problems not Microsoft. Symantec hasn't put out a decent product in almost a decade.

I guess they are going to pull a Netscape. Go blindly and blissfully on ignoring the truth before them and then blame everyone else when they go belly up. Microsoft didn't kill Netscape. Netscape killed Netscape when the insisted on charging for it and then put out that wonderful version 4.0. It is a sad day when Microsoft actually does put out a product that is better and at the time IE was better than Netscape 4.

Symantec is the same way. There software is horrible and they just keep putting it out instead of fixing it and actually making it better. Then they will blame Microsoft when they go belly up.

Wake up morons and smell the burning software. Your tail feathers are on fire.

Robert

[J.G.]

Not just for viruses

I suspect that Symantec has done quite well with its disk diagnosis
and repair utilities. In fact, Norton Disk Doctor for Macs was a
must have before OS X. The assumption that the company must
rely solely on anti-virus applications is unfounded.