Android-Apple-Microsoft

tmmar wrote:
Looking to get a tablet for the wife and am not sure which way to go. I see many Android tablets that look fairly decent but haven't tried any. I used an Apple for a while but found the operating system not that intuitive. Tried the Microsoft Surface 2 and liked the Windows 8 operating system and the fact that it had a version of Office with Word/Excel but can't find anyone who discounts it from the $449 price. She likes to down load books from the local library and will also use it to access the internet.
Any help and guidance is appreciated.

Android and Apple tablets operate in much the same way. The apps are different and the way you get the apps are different. Apple carefully tests apps for problems before they get on their iTunes site; and unless you alter the tablet, the iTunes site is the only place you can get apps.

The Android apps are not as carefully screened and there are other places to get apps that may not be screened at all.

I prefer Android because it's much more versatile for a sophisticated user. But for a new user it could be more problemmatic from a security standpoint. I would recommend the iPad device.

The Windows tablets seem well built from a hardware standpoint and I suspect that the security issues Windows has with PCs is less of an issue with tablets due to the architecture. So that would be second choice... but much farther down the list due to the lack of apps.

Craig

infoimp wrote:

And it IS true that you don't have to get malware on a Window's system. It DOES depend on where you go on the Internet and what links you click and what you sign up for with your GOOD email address. You DO have a temp account that you can use for newsletters, etc, right? :)

Just my 2c worth...

Norma

Why do you have to be careful where you go on the Internet and what links you click on? Why would clicking a link on a browser app put malware on your computer? Because that does not put malware on a Linux computer. Even a stock Linux computer. And, trust me, it's not that someone isn't trying.

Nobody seems to find this unreasonable.

My ex-partner is now the IT director at a fairly large hospital. A major part of his job is to make sure that hospital employees - who all use Windows - can't surf the Internet. Not that they care that much about buying stuff at Amazon but that surfing will infect their desktops with a virus which will, inevitable, find its way throughout their LAN. So they have VLANs set up (using Cisco - not cheap) giving one network for employees that is carefully and throughly locked down, one network for independent doctors who demand freedom, and one network for visitors and patients which is wide open (mostly).

And all because any user with a Windows computer and Internet Explorer can simply mouse over a pixel on a bad web page and load malware onto their computer.

I just cleared off 250 pieces of malware from a staff member of one of my clients and charged them $100 an hour to do it. He actually got an email from the ISP complaining that he had to clean up his virus infected computer. He had Symantec on it but apparently it wasn't up to the job.

This is far from unusual.

My wife, who really doesn't go to any nasty web sites, has me scan her laptop with Malwarebytes every week and every week there is something on there. PuP, usually. Tracking software. The odd virus. A trojan. Yet I spend a few hours on my Linux computer and I can surf porn, cruise Jeep web sites and open any odd attachment in any email I want to with pretty certain knowledge that unless I've given someone my root password, it's not going to cause me any grief.

Why have we put up with this for a decade or more? If Chevrolet made cars that required drivers to go out and buy extra parts just so they wouldn't stop in the middle of an intersection... or had to avoid certain streets or cities... or could only park at their house and two or three other places then no one would buy them. But the equivalent in computers is not just accepted, it's defended. Almost like it's a religion. And you PAY for it, too.

I'm not trying to start an OS war here. I'd really like to know. What is the draw to Windows that makes you put up with all this?

Craig

If you're going to read books and do email and surf a little, any of them will do.

Yes, your iPad will bring more money when you decide to swap, but the apps are only available on iTunes, which is ok if you swap to another Apple product. Some apps can be shared with your smartphone if you have an iPhone.

Windows is fine and has tons of apps and she's probably already familiar with it.

I have an Android smartphone and Windows on my computers. They can't share apps, but I use them for different things.

If I were going to do just the above, I'd buy a Kindle Fire. It's Android based and they have their own app store you can use your Amazon account with.

{My credentials? In the computer biz since 1985, starting with Commodore 64. Master's degree in Computer Information Science.)

And it IS true that you don't have to get malware on a Window's system. It DOES depend on where you go on the Internet and what links you click and what you sign up for with your GOOD email address. You DO have a temp account that you can use for newsletters, etc, right? :)

Just my 2c worth...

Norma

sch911 wrote:

wa_desert_rat wrote:
My only issue with Windows is that every single computer with any version of Windows ALWAYS gets malware.

Sorry but I couldn't disagree more! Have run every version of Windows on many devices over the last 20 years, and never had malware of any kind. It's all about where you surf, and what you choose.

I don't want to call you a {deleted}.....but my experience running a network engineering and computer consulting business for 19 years would say that you are the most unusual Windows user I've ever heard of.

You do have anti-virus and spyware protection though, right?

Craig


Moderator's Note: Then is it necessary to preface your comment in this manner?

Dutch_12078 wrote:

I wonder why Apple found it necessary to issue at least two patches last year to stop the "Flashback" vulnerability? Oh, maybe it was the 600,000 plus computers that were already infected by it. Intego, F-Secure, Sophos, and others, all make security software for Apple OS's. I wonder why that is...

As a long time Linux user and retired systems administrator/analyst, I'm well aware that any OS can be vulnerable to malware, especially when social engineering is involved.

You sound like my wife when I ask her, again, to rinse the dishes after she is finished (I wash the dishes in our house). Her immediate response is not to agree or disagree, or even to deny that she does it. Her response is to immediately accuse me of something. "Well, you snore!" As if that excuses what she did.

Whether or not Apple or Unix or Linux can - and have - been cracked is beside the point. The point is that every single Windows machine is vulnerable to malware to the point where the operator (see the posting above yours) has to be careful about where he/she surfs. And, worse yet, they're vulnerable to the same malware they were vulnerable to in 2003. The only reason the average Windows machine does not get exploited to the point of uselessness (and many do, anyway) is that they have firewalls and spyware/malware/trojan/virus protection. Usually paid for.

Yet users and businesses continue on buying the same problems over and over and relying on IT departments or consultants (or cousin Bobby) to fix it when, inevitably, it happens.

Ironically, MS sold its products to CEOs on the premise that they could get rid of their expensive IT departments staffed with IBM, DEC and HP professionals. "One desk, one computer" they told them. And the CEOs ate it up. Of course, now their IT departments are bigger tha ever and new technology makes the job harder than ever. Just try to explain to a CEO why you are afraid to put their Exchange server out on the Internet with a static IP so they can all read their email on smartphones. This was, in fact, one reason so many companies (and government agencies) preferred the Blackberry.

Why do corporations continue to put up with it? I don't think they know that there are alternatives. With a staff of MSCE people, who knows they can put a Linux box ahead of their Exchange box and get more secure email?

Craig

wa_desert_rat wrote:

Worse yet, MS cannot make their OS secure. If they could, they'd have done it already instead of producing add-on utilities just like McAfee, et. al. Why would the company that developed Windows have to produce an add-on product (which does not come with Windows... you have to download it free) to fix its security problems? Why couldn't MS - with access, after all, to the source code and the APIs - just fix the OS? The answer, my friends, is that MS cannot fix it without breaking it and requiring all the developers to re-write their applications from scratch. Something Apple did a long time ago with OS-X.

Craig :)

I wonder why Apple found it necessary to issue at least two patches last year to stop the "Flashback" vulnerability? Oh, maybe it was the 600,000 plus computers that were already infected by it. Intego, F-Secure, Sophos, and others, all make security software for Apple OS's. I wonder why that is...

As a long time Linux user and retired systems administrator/analyst, I'm well aware that any OS can be vulnerable to malware, especially when social engineering is involved.

wa_desert_rat wrote:
My only issue with Windows is that every single computer with any version of Windows ALWAYS gets malware.

Sorry but I couldn't disagree more! Have run every version of Windows on many devices over the last 20 years, and never had malware of any kind. It's all about where you surf, and what you choose.

My only issue with Windows is that every single computer with any version of Windows ALWAYS gets malware. Yes, they have 94% of the market. But they get 100% of the infections. As far as "easy to use" that's only once you re-learn all the things MS changed from one iteration to the next in every single product. If they don't change things then they can't charge people for taking the certification exams.

Worse yet, MS cannot make their OS secure. If they could, they'd have done it already instead of producing add-on utilities just like McAfee, et. al. Why would the company that developed Windows have to produce an add-on product (which does not come with Windows... you have to download it free) to fix its security problems? Why couldn't MS - with access, after all, to the source code and the APIs - just fix the OS? The answer, my friends, is that MS cannot fix it without breaking it and requiring all the developers to re-write their applications from scratch. Something Apple did a long time ago with OS-X.

Malwarebytes, in its present iteration, can be installed by a download onto every version of Windows from XP to 8.1 and work exactly the same way; finding exactly the same malware. It's that "backwards compatibility" that exacerbates the existing built-in security flaws of the MS operating systems.

The same thing goes for SpybotSD. And other scanners. The only reason they need "updates" is to add data for new malware. They don't need any updates to be suitable for all iterations of Windows from XP to 8.1; not even for 64bit versions.

Now, someone is going to post, "Windows has most of the market so it's natural that it would get most of the attacks." This is hogwash. I have a dozen Linux/Unix servers with static IP addresses that get attacked thousands of times every hour (I can post the logs if you want) yet do not ever get "infected". But a Windows computer, behind a firewall and loaded with anti-virus protection will still have to be "scanned" once a week to remove malware. Windows machines don't get most of the attacks... but they get most of the ones that succeed.

If you want to use Windows that's fine by me. I get a fair bit of income every year just fixing the inevitable security issues. Just don't claim that it's as dependable or secure as *nix based operating systems. Because it is clearly not. And I have a hard time figuring out why corporate America puts up with it.

/rant

Craig :)

As for tablets for me there is little that an iPad can do that an Android tablet can't but the opposite is very true. My company uses Android tablets running custom Apps for everything from electronic data acquisition, custom data entry Apps, 3D CAD drawing viewing etc. No way could an iPad even attempt to do this.

iPads do not have superior CPU's, graphic engines, screens etc. to warrant the highly inflated prices. The ONLY benefit is for those who prefer iOS over Android. In that regard both function very similar so its user preference. Android does have greater ability to customize the user experience through lower level settings and custom Apps that iOS lacks.

Apple hater here.
But I currently own an iPad3, and a Retina Ipad Mini is on xMas wishlist.:B
A MacBook ? Never.