Slew of OS X vulnerabilities found, Apple says to fix you must buy Panther for $129..

[Kuciwalker]

I've never paid for an operating system, other than buying the computer

Once, when I was eight, I tried to upgrade my 95 computer to 98. That experience left me horribly scarred for life

[Wiglaf]

$130 isn't that much money. The security holes are vague at best, anyway. They certainly haven't affected anyone yet. How do you know Apple isn't planning to release a patch anyway? Just because their PR guy had no comment? Come on.

The whole idea of free patches is hokey, you know. If there's no money involved then there's no motivation involved. I'd rather plunk the big bucks and know I'm getting a (stylish,) secure product.

You're missing the big picture anyway. Microsoft has the most insecure products I've ever seen, despite their patches. Explorer can infect your whole computer just because you go to certain websites (source: http://www.siena.edu/antivirus/viruses/realphx.htm).

On the other hand, if there's $130 involved per user if they find a fix to all these massive glitches, maybe an updated, stable OS would be on the horizon.

Asher, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

[mrmitchell]

So if GM sells a car that lets a Ukrainian get your credit card information, should they charge you to fix it?

[Asher]

I love you Wiglaf.

Between you, Agathon, and Mr Nice Guy/Cloud9 -- you guys are certainly helping to establish a new stereotype to replace the current Mac stereotype of starving artists.

[monolith94]

"you guys are certainly helping to establish a new stereotype to replace the current Mac stereotype of starving artists."

And I'm helping to reinforce the old stereotype of the starving artist! I am so HUNGRY right now!!!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Apple doesn't provide technical details like MS does, they shove everything under the rug and label patches as "Security Enhancements" and they get to count them as one of the "150 new features in Panther!!!"

At least Apple fixs theirs, while MS tries to sweep everything under the rug. That's why you see the technical details, because impatient third party researchers discloses them in an effort to force MS to do something.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
At least Apple fixs theirs

Hello UR, welcome to this thread.

Incase you haven't noticed, the entire point is they're not fixing them.

Have a nice day ,

while MS tries to sweep everything under the rug. That's why you see the technical details, because impatient third party researchers discloses them in an effort to force MS to do something.

MS does fix them, the vast majority of them are fixed and the discoverers cited in a MS TechNet bulliten with a detailed description and link to a free ( ) patch.

There's no need for "dirty underhanded tactics" like this, UR.

Especially when they're absurd claims like MS doesn't fix things until a third party "researcher" (which, more often than not, are *nix twerps out to grind an axe) reveals them...

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
$130 isn't that much money.

Anyway.... This is....beyond words

[ghen]

Of course we see more Windows bugs, its used on 95% of the home computers in the world with 10x the software, usually freeware or shareware thats poorly coded. If the MacOS was in the same position we'd suddenly see huge gaping holes in its security that it would need to fix as much as Microsoft. The fact is, hardly anyone bothers writing Mac viruses, so why bother looking for security flaws?

[Spiffor]

I suppose Steve Jobs has given up the idea of increasing his marketshare?

[Q Classic]

no, see, because you have to pay for these apple updates, they're that much better than the free microsoft ones.

i mean, we all know how much free stuff can suck. look at lindows.

shrewd move.

[monolith94]

You don't pay for just the update, though - you get the whole new revamped OS. Also, iirc, this OS is supposed to make more efficient use of the new G5 chip, so it is quite an important OS.

[chequita guevara]

Kinda reminds me how people with Windows 5.0 had to pay $100 to upgrade to Windows 5.1, aka, Win2K and WinXP respectively.

[Q Classic]

see! that's why they're better than those microsoft updates.

you get what you pay for! just imagine how much money bill--er, how much better windows would be if you had to pay for service packs!

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Kinda reminds me how people with Windows 5.0 had to pay $100 to upgrade to Windows 5.1, aka, Win2K and WinXP respectively.

Huh? They didn't have to upgrade.

Windows 2000 is still supported and will still be supported for years.