The interface on the computer of Fliqlo MAIN FEATURES OF THE SCREENSAVER APPLICATION FLIQLO. Is resilient in any size to fit the different screen. Support switch between 12-hour clock format and 24 hours. Support Retina display and OS X Yosemite.
Interface screensaver software to complete the installation Fliqlo The download and installation is easy and Fliqlo quickly. After a few seconds the installation you will be redirected to the screen Screen Saver Settings. Here you can preview the screensaver when using Fliqlo, install timeout. Select Settings, you can increase or decrease the size of the displayed time to the desired size, choose the format now or choose Reset All to reset the settings. The installation options of Fliqlo SOME OF FLIQLO IMAGE ON COMPUTER Fliqlo on Windows desktop computers Fliqlo on Macs Fliqlo computer clock on the screen laptop System requirements:. For Windows: Support for Windows 95, 98, Me, NT4, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8. For Mac Supports OS X version 10.8, 10.9, 10:10.
In summary, flip clock app for screen protection Fliqlo quite simple, not fussy, not fancy, but nice way to ch?nh, particularly suitable for those who prefer a simple style but luxurious.
My daily OS X account is a non-admin one and I will not install any program that asks for the admin password unless I know it has a damn good reason for needing to write to the system directories (i.e., it is a well-known program from the vendor's website and is not some run-of-the-mill app that should be capable of drag-and-drop installation). Also, I have the OS X application firewall set to the most restrictive option which requires programs that make outbound connections to be whitelisted. To be infected and have my data sent to some unknown server, I would have to enter my admin details twice - the latter in the context of a screensaver asking for an outbound connection (which I would never allow). These settings should be the defaults in OS X. Why in the world would anyone use a screensaver nowadays?
I came in here to post this. I have not seen a screensaver virus since the days of After Dark and their Flying Toaster screensavers. Who in their right mind installs software that is designed to run.when you are not there.? I've read that searching Google for screensavers and installing at random is the best way to infect your computer.
Of course if Windows shipped with more than five screen savers people might not be so eager to go searching. I'm happy I don't download anything from either MacUpdate or Softpedia.
Never thought MacUpdate or Softpedia would be a source of Spyware for the Mac. Guess the Mac world is catching up to Windows with spyware. This comment is nothing but sensationalistic hyperbole. One one side, you have Windows which has an ecosystem of viruses and trojans numbering in the hundreds of thousands. On the other side, you have Mac OS X which has no viruses and less than one percent of as many trojans floating about. I came in here to post this. I have not seen a screensaver virus since the days of After Dark and their Flying Toaster screensavers.
Who in their right mind installs software that is designed to run.when you are not there.? Because a person can still see the screen while they're not actively looking at it? I use FliqLo and FlipClock that turn the screen into a giant flip clock, which is convenient for a number of reasons. I mean, who in their right mind doesn't get that others may have different usage patterns? All these comments about how this is overblown are just a bunch of crap, in my considered opinion.
A lot of people switched to a Mac because Apple pretty much promised them that malware only exists because Windows sucks. Remember the Mac vs. PC ad where PC kept getting sick and Mac told him he didn't have to worry about it since he was a Mac? Most Mac users don't worry about malware not only because end users don't understand malware, but also because Apple promised them they wouldn't have to. Because of the aforementioned Apple marketing, in popular consciousness Macs are immune to malware.
Apple has been quite happy to ride that image because it's helped them sell Macs, but the price of that is that 'OS X hit by spyware' is newsworthy. Don't even try that 'this is just linkbait' nonsense. It's not okay that the installer allows people to opt out, and that the terms are buried in the licensing agreement. End users don't understand installers, and they never, ever read the licensing agreement.
Anything not inherent to the well-known purpose of the app the user thinks they're installing should always be opt-in only - otherwise, it's malware. Was this really available as a download on Apple.com? If so, throw away all that nonsense about how end users should know better than to install it.
Users are not expected to exercise discretion with software blessed by their platform vendor. The problem is Apple's, just like it was Microsoft's a decade ago when they accidently shipped out a Word document with a macro virus. If this has been well-known for months and Snow Leopard has anti-malware built in, then all Mac users with updated patches should be immune to this already. If they're not, then that anti-malware doesn't do much good, does it? An inbound-only firewall? As I said.the responses to this article are sensationalistic trolling at best.
The reality is when the number of viruses and malware for Windows outnumber those on Mac by over 100 to 1, for all realistic intents and purposes, Macs, by whatever means, have effective immunity to malware, in general. While promises that this is only provided by 'obscurity' and the impending malware-infection explosion caused by increased marketshare continue on a per-second basis, we need to wait for that to actually happen. In the interim, the 10 years worth of 'Appleocalypse doom!'
Naysayers can sit tight on their unfulfilled prognostications. (Mac OS X has experienced an increase of 0%malware vs Windows to 1% malware vs Windows, while its marketshare skyrocketed from 2.5% in the US to 11%.) The last two raging lambastes pretty much underscore that this entire event is a non-issue trumped up by bitter Windows users that can't accept that 'Hey, the increased flexibility and ubiquity on Windows, that I experience, comes with significant trade offs.' Malware being one of them. When I bought my iMac, I turned it on, after connecting it to my modem and surfed around for hours without fear of problems.
Only a total fool would attempt the same on Windows without updating 2 hours worth of updates, setting up a hard-firewall, installing anti-malware or virus applications and more. (Oh, I can't wait for those individuals that deny that DBDs or self-propelled malware or 0-day threats exist on Windows.here they come. As I said.the responses to this article are sensationalistic trolling at best. The reality is when the number of viruses and malware for Windows outnumber those on Mac by over 100 to 1, for all realistic intents and purposes, Macs, by whatever means, have effective immunity to malware, in general. While promises that this is only provided by 'obscurity' and the impending malware-infection explosion caused by increased marketshare continue on a per-second basis, we need to wait for that to actually happen.
In the interim, the 10 years worth of 'Appleocalypse doom!' Naysayers can sit tight on their unfulfilled prognostications. (Mac OS X has experienced an increase of 0%malware vs Windows to 1% malware vs Windows, while its marketshare skyrocketed from 2.5% in the US to 11%.) The last two raging lambastes pretty much underscore that this entire event is a non-issue trumped up by bitter Windows users that can't accept that 'Hey, the increased flexibility and ubiquity on Windows, that I experience, comes with significant trade offs.' Malware being one of them. When I bought my iMac, I turned it on, after connecting it to my modem and surfed around for hours without fear of problems. Only a total fool would attempt the same on Windows without updating 2 hours worth of updates, setting up a hard-firewall, installing anti-malware or virus applications and more. (Oh, I can't wait for those individuals that deny that DBDs or self-propelled malware or 0-day threats exist on Windows.here they come.
Well, the no one is actually claiming the fall of the Mac due to viruses and/or malware—including Windows-only users. Since I’m the last poster prior to yours, I’m guessing I’m in that “last two” category—but it could easily be a matter of timing—so I’ll respond to your sensationalistic claim that I cannot accept that running a flexible and ubiquitous OS carries certain risks and am therefore bitter; you’re wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong. Many Windows users freely accept that using an open platform comes with certain risks, and the associated responsibility to mitigate that risk.
It tends to be the Mac converts who cannot accept the risk. They fail to take the time lock up their computer like they would their car.
They refuse to take the time to maintain their computer as they would their car or their home. They cannot fathom the idea that it’s their own damned fault they’ve downloaded every single forwarded attachment since 1994 despite every warning not to even open forwarded emails. So they switch to Macs, and they count on the OS to protect them, not the other way around. Of course, you still have the idiot Windows users who cannot accept these things and still stick with Windows—but these typically are not going to be your Ars Technica posters, so you’re posting about the wrong crowd. Can’t argue that it takes a while to set up a new Windows machine; that’s widely accepted fact. Last time I had to, though, I completed the process in about a half hour—and that included getting it connected to the Internet, downloading and installing updates and anti-virus/malware (WSE has been quick and effective), and uninstalling a couple of bloatware programs.
While promises that this is only provided by 'obscurity' and the impending malware-infection explosion caused by increased marketshare continue on a per-second basis, we need to wait for that to actually happen. In the interim, the 10 years worth of 'Appleocalypse doom!' Naysayers can sit tight on their unfulfilled prognostications. (Mac OS X has experienced an increase of 0%malware vs Windows to 1% malware vs Windows, while its marketshare skyrocketed from 2.5% in the US to 11%.) Mac users laughed for a few years about all the useless effort Microsoft was putting in trying to transition their OS kernel from DOS to NT, but eventually it wasn't very funny at all, and it nearly put Apple out of business until Jobs came back and saved the day with a wrenching transition that made Macs difficult to use to get work done for a couple of years. Security is a time bomb waiting for Macs, and the fact that it hasn't gone off yet doesn't make it any less true.
The last two raging lambastes pretty much underscore that this entire event is a non-issue trumped up by bitter Windows users that can't accept that 'Hey, the increased flexibility and ubiquity on Windows, that I experience, comes with significant trade offs.' Malware being one of them. There are always tradeoffs on systems, but honestly, malware is the least of the tradeoffs for me in using Windows. I run MSE, I keep my system up to date, I install new software pretty reluctantly, and only with care. I don't run into security issues. For me the tradeoffs are things like the fact that Cygwin is kinda slow and the fact that it's a pain to get some of the extensions to Emacs to work right - but it was an even bigger pain to run Visual Studio under VirtualBox in Linux last time I tried.
(For the record, if OS X ran on non-Macs, I would look at it seriously, but MacBookPros have an annoying tendency to deprioritize pixel density, which is a dealbreaker for me.). When I bought my iMac, I turned it on, after connecting it to my modem and surfed around for hours without fear of problems. Only a total fool would attempt the same on Windows without updating 2 hours worth of updates, setting up a hard-firewall, installing anti-malware or virus applications and more. (Oh, I can't wait for those individuals that deny that DBDs or self-propelled malware or 0-day threats exist on Windows.here they come. It's a good thing that Macs are immune to browser-based phishing attacks!
Oh wait, they're not. Well, the no one is actually claiming the fall of the Mac due to viruses and/or malware—including Windows-only users.
I never said 'fall'. But what you do commonly see on Ars and other technical sites is this constant, grinding, flailing belief that once Apple's marketshare increases past a certain number, it will become as flooded and inundated with viruses/malware as Windows PCs are. This is simply inaccurate. Let's ignore, for a moment that the Apple Macintosh US marketshare has effectively quadrupled in the last five years, without the same 400% (not even 100%, actually) proportional increase in malware. Ignoring the PC market, the smartphone market is a market that is rife for malware attacks. In fact, the iPhone has an overwhelmingly large portion of the smartfphone marketshare. And yet, despite running a simpler, yet essentially similar version of Mac OS X, the amount of malware for that platform, is also extremely small.
The truth is ugly and painful for Windows users but is something that they, as I have, must become acquainted with: namely that despite all the excuses, apologies and 'wait and see' doomsaying that is routinely vomited on these forums, the Mac OS X platform continues to exhibit a far, proportionally reduced incidence for infection and disruption by malware, to Windows, vis a vis marketshare or otherwise. Regardless of whether this is because of the secret sauce in Apple products, pixie dust, apathy on the part of virus/malware writers to enter another opportunity platform or the simple fact that Windows has multiple, historical design flaws (ActiveX, distributed installation paradigms, registry systems.etc), the truth is that Mac OS X is far safer to work with. Numerically, it's actually over a hundred times so. Since I’m the last poster prior to yours, I’m guessing I’m in that “last two” category—but it could easily be a matter of timing—so I’ll respond to your sensationalistic claim that I cannot accept that running a flexible and ubiquitous OS carries certain risks and am therefore bitter; you’re wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong. The constant 'you're wrongs' are a weak argument borne of a lack of evidence.
Here're the facts: A. We have numerous Ars posters routinely stating that Apple OS platforms are less targeted by virus/malware writers because of its marketshare. The overwhelming majority of those prognosticators have promised that malware is 'coming' once Mac OS X has a substantial marketshare. The Apple OS platform marketshare has almost quintupled in a span of five years, on the PC, with a disproportionately low increase in malware activity. The Apple OS platform holds a sizeable percentage of the smartphone market with almost no presence of malware, despite sharing a comparable OS to that of the desktop product.
Windows has an over 100 times greater incidence for infection and presence of malware/viruses than Mac OS X on any product platform and this proportion hasn't changed in a period of ten years, despite substantial market growth by Apple and it's OS platform products. Obviously, security by obscurity has aided Apple in the past. Obviously, it continues to hinder malware on the Mac today. However, data and logic clearly illustrate that it can't be the only mechanism affecting malware/virus infection rates between the two computing platforms.
There must be other elements at work, that many Windows advocates are resistant to admit. Those are the facts. The rest is just you reassuring yourself. It tends to be the Mac converts who cannot accept the risk.
This is just a dumb stereotype. Numerous studies have shown that Mac users on average tend to be better educated and more computer-savvy than their PC counterparts. I find it ironic that you're defending the Windows user and explaining that they 'accept the risk of infection' but yet in this very forum, on Ars, Windows security failures are routinely pawned off on the customers as PEBCAK or the like. Which one is it?
You can't have both. You can't argue that Windows users accept the risk and are more aware of malware and viruses and then, spin on your heel, and argue that Windows can't be faulted for it's staggering infection profile because its userbase are 'pick your unfair insult here' and because the users refuse to 'learn about OS security'.
That's why people have a hard time taking Microsoft (and Apple) fanboys seriously: they always want to have their cake and eat it too. The truth is, the same flexibility that lends Windows a lot of its charm, and the same legacy programming characteristics that make it such an appealing platform also serve as an augmenting vector for infection. The truth is admitting that you prefer to have one tradeoff for another because the truth is you can't have it all. They fail to take the time lock up their computer like they would their car.
They don't have to. That's the beauty of Macs. They're secure out of the box precisely because of the features, configuration and yes, lack of threats that target upon installation. Unlike Windows, wherein the same ignorance is applied, but with often catastrophic results. Or are you going to argue infection rates/malware counts between Windows and Mac OS X? If you do, that would be staggeringly dumb.
Not only are they not numerically the same, they're not bproportionally/b the same either. So they switch to Macs, and they count on the OS to protect them, not the other way around. I don't fault most users for this. The simple truth is that division of labor and the complexity of today's computing systems has made it impossible for most people to have any real, in-depth level of knowledge concerning their PCs. If anything, that's why I believe Apple's take on computing is spot on. Computers today, are appliaces, not endless time-wasters.
Only nerds like us spend time customizing our systems just so. Why have mobile computing appliances, augmented TV, consoles and the like, begun to nibble on the PC's heels? Because people like simple, functional, secure products. PC computing does not operate this way. It's messy (especially on Windows), requires constant managment and a lot of work to master how to secure and protect it.
I'm fairly sure you don't have a six-pack. Or that you fix your own car. Or that you repair your own AC unit.
Or that you spend your day teaching your children at home. So why should you assume that people must know everything there is to know about computers? That kind of attitude has always struck me as the kind of geek condescension that serves to impair the community and spur PEBCAK and computing frustration, not retard it. Of course, you still have the idiot Windows users who cannot accept these things and still stick with Windows—but these typically are not going to be your Ars Technica posters, so you’re posting about the wrong crowd. Can’t argue that it takes a while to set up a new Windows machine; that’s widely accepted fact. Last time I had to, though, I completed the process in about a half hour—and that included getting it connected to the Internet, downloading and installing updates and anti-virus/malware (WSE has been quick and effective), and uninstalling a couple of bloatware programs. I find it impressive that you are able to download all the updates in under half an hour.
Fliqlo Flip Clock Screensaver Mac
When I installed Windows 7 on my Bootcamp partition on my iMac, it took well over an hour just to grab the updates on the 3 Mb/s connection I have at home, nevermind the parade of restarts and installations that followed. And that didn't even cover the installation of my antivirus and 3rd party firewall. I'm not saying you're lying, I'm simply bemoaning the slow connection speed in my home town. That said, every platform has its unique set of challenges and advantages.
Individuals attempting to disingenously erase the advantage that Apple enjoys with its staggeringly low malware count, are just doing so for ulterior purposes. There are plenty of reasons to bash Apple and to dislike its products but having posters in this forum troll or exaggerate about 'increased infections' on Mac, when the number of malware pieces are almost 150 to one, compared to Windows, is just pathetic. Individuals attempting to disingenously erase the advantage that Apple enjoys with its staggeringly low malware count, are just doing so for ulterior purposes. There are plenty of reasons to bash Apple and to dislike its products but having posters in this forum troll or exaggerate about 'increased infections' on Mac, when the number of malware pieces are almost 150 to one, compared to Windows, is just pathetic. The point is that it's a false advantage in the grand scope of things. It's like pointing out that Yugo's only cause a fraction of a percent of traffic delays in the US today.
True, and utterly meaningless because there aren't enough of them out there to cause a problem. Put 80% of the country in one and see what happens.
The point is that obscurity is NOT protection, and the more succesful the platform gets, the more important this issue becomes, and Apple patently refuses to discuss it or address it. An inbound-only firewall? OS X has two firewalls.
The standard ipfw and a higher-level application firewall. It is the latter that only blocks inbound connections - ipfw is as fully featured as it is on other.nix systems. Does ipfw come configured properly, or is this one of those things where technical users can protect their systems but average users won't be protected? Sadly it is and always has been the latter.
Tools like Little Snitch are available to ease the configuration of IPFW, but I agree that it would be a great idea of such a thing were integrated into the OS. An inbound-only firewall? OS X has two firewalls. The standard ipfw and a higher-level application firewall. It is the latter that only blocks inbound connections - ipfw is as fully featured as it is on other.nix systems. Does ipfw come configured properly, or is this one of those things where technical users can protect their systems but average users won't be protected?
Fliqlo 1.3.3 Fliqlo For Mac
As Cailin Coilleach mentioned above, ipfw is essentially 'off' by default, although it blocks inbound icmp echo packets (i.e., ping requests) if 'Stealth Mode' is enabled in the application firewall advanced settings. The application firewall is also 'off' by default (I believe), but is much easier to turn 'on'. Average users who enable 'Stealth Mode' and turn 'on' the application firewall are somewhat protected from port-scans used to detect open ports (a common vector for installing malware). However, they are not protected from already installed malware 'phoning home' and sending data out.
Individuals attempting to disingenously erase the advantage that Apple enjoys with its staggeringly low malware count, are just doing so for ulterior purposes. There are plenty of reasons to bash Apple and to dislike its products but having posters in this forum troll or exaggerate about 'increased infections' on Mac, when the number of malware pieces are almost 150 to one, compared to Windows, is just pathetic. The point is that it's a false advantage in the grand scope of things.
It's like pointing out that Yugo's only cause a fraction of a percent of traffic delays in the US today. True, and utterly meaningless because there aren't enough of them out there to cause a problem. Put 80% of the country in one and see what happens. The point is that obscurity is NOT protection, and the more succesful the platform gets, the more important this issue becomes, and Apple patently refuses to discuss it or address it. Again, posters on this forum keep repeating the mantra that Apple platform products will suffer a spike in infection when the marketshare becomes relevant. The Mac's marketshare is surging towards 12% in the US.
It's already relevant. With Valve porting Steam to Mac, along with other products (like CAD), and with Apple's mobile OS X gobbling up about fifty percent of all comparable devices between its phone, pmps and tablets, it's already been high time for an increase in infection. I keep hearing from posters just like you that 'It's coming, it's coming!' But you know what? Mac OS X marketshare on computers alone has almost quintupled in the same amount of years and the amount of infections hasn't even doubled. Where is this big Applepocalypse? Again, it's just wishful thinking on your part.
It's hasn't come and it's not going to. Again, posters on this forum keep repeating the mantra that Apple platform products will suffer a spike in infection when the marketshare becomes relevant. The Mac's marketshare is surging towards 12% in the US. It's already relevant. With Valve porting Steam to Mac, along with other products (like CAD), and with Apple's mobile OS X gobbling up about fifty percent of all comparable devices between its phone, pmps and tablets, it's already been high time for an increase in infection. According to who? These are the Q1 2010 numbers: And here's the previous quarter: 8% is what the numbers show, putting them in 5th place in the US PC market.
And they don't make the top 5 worldwide. And I expect that the iPhone and iPad are at radically less risk because they don't let users run code Apple hasn't approved.
But beyond that, if you think the lack of iPhone viruses is due to magic Appleness, please cite examples of major malware outbreaks for Palm Pilot, Pocket PC/Windows Mobile, or Blackberry, each of which has had significant share in the past. Come to think of it, Windows Mobile probably hasn't had any malware, so by your logic it must be even more secure than OS X. I keep hearing from posters just like you that 'It's coming, it's coming!' But you know what? Mac OS X marketshare on computers alone has almost quintupled in the same amount of years and the amount of infections hasn't even doubled.
Where is this big Applepocalypse? Again, it's just wishful thinking on your part. It's hasn't come and it's not going to. The whole critical mass theory is based on the idea of garnering enough share for the network effect on Mac to be in the ballpark of the one on Windows. Personally, I wouldn't expect to see that kind of outbreak until Apple hits a third of the market (that's the world market) at the bare minimum, and it might be higher. If a decade of OS X growth has brought Apple to 8% of the US market and lower share worldwide, I think you're right that Mac users don't have to worry much about this.
More generally, though, known flaws in security simply are a threat. Not shipping with an outbound firewall configured by default - that's a security threat. Not having any significant phishing protection in the browser?
That's a threat too. Not scrambling memory addresses of running applications? Malware detector that doesn't get updated to block known opt-out spyware? Will anyone ever take advantage of that threat? I don't know.
If so, it probably won't be botnets or a mass infection of viruses unless Mac share can 'quintuple' again. But wideband phishing attacks? Targeted attacks (see yesterday's Google story)? Unless you think these things can't happen (perhaps because they haven't happened, or at least been reported, yet?), there's no reason whatsoever that they can't happen to Macs. I have been an Intego user for years, after the jerks at Symantec said they were not going to support the Mac anymore because nobody used them I bought the Intego Software and I can tell you that it is the best out there for the Mac. If they make a product for my iPad and iPhone, I'll buy it! The Intego Virus and Firewall software for Mac is by far better than anything the jerks at Symantec ever made, and I would not buy anything from Symantec again, even though they now realize there's a huge market and the Mac base is growing faster than the peecee base is.
I'll never forget watching the video of the bozo CEO of Symantec stating that Apple would be out of business in less than a year anyway. Sorry there Mr.
Abdulah or whatever your name is, Us Mac users are not going to spend a dime on your software ever again. You can take that to the bank. 'Is this malicious software, sure. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Meaning you can lead people to computers but you can't make them learn computer safety. No news here as the Mac and Linux users start to grow more popular.
Although the Linux distro structure is more resistant in my opinion.' This is a STUPID STUPID attitude, exactly as stupid as libertarian attitudes about the stock market and personal finance. We ALL benefit when there is a robust and trusted set of financial markets in which we can invest. If the prevailing attitude in these markets becomes that investors are suckers who deserve to be fleeced, you know what? Investors will disappear, new companies will not be able to start, innovation will slow down dramatically, and the wall street criminals who think this way won't have any 'suckers' to exploit anyway. STUPID STUPID attitude.
Exactly the same with software. If your attitude is that dealing with your computer should be a constant nightmare of vigilance and terror, then none of us get to use shareware and we all flee to Steve Jobs' walled garden - is that what you want? Just like the sensible attitude to unfair behavior by financial organization is aggressive laws and vigilance, because that is better for EVERYONE, INCLUDING all but the most dishonest and evil financial professionals, so too the sensible attitude to malware is constant vigilance on every front to reduce the problem, NOT laughing at 'stupid users who don't know how to use power tools properly'. You think shareware authors, to take one example, benefit from a world where people are now afraid to download any new, possibly useful to them, program from versiontracker? Again, posters on this forum keep repeating the mantra that Apple platform products will suffer a spike in infection when the marketshare becomes relevant.
The Mac's marketshare is surging towards 12% in the US. It's already relevant. With Valve porting Steam to Mac, along with other products (like CAD), and with Apple's mobile OS X gobbling up about fifty percent of all comparable devices between its phone, pmps and tablets, it's already been high time for an increase in infection. According to who? These are the Q1 2010 numbers: Addressing your third link - I wasn't discussing world marketshare, I was discussing US marketshare and I very clearly addressed that. Addressing the second link - you can't view marketshare information about Apple products, from a infamously biased pro-Windows web site and expect it to be taken with anything but a grain of salt.
Needless to say, your links are very flawed to say the least. The World marketshare for Apple Mac OS X on the desktop has quadrupled in the last 10 years. Malware hasn't even doubled. Where is the big infection surge? I'm tired of people with ulterior motives wishfully hoping that Apple products get flooded with viruses and then vomitting the same doomsaying over and over. Either pick consistent numbers, or don't bother replying to my posts but no moving the goal posts, please. Oh and for the record, even if you mixed and matched the marketshare numbers and dropped the percentage increase from 500% to 300%, as you attempt to do, I'm going to assume by accident, that's still disproportionate to the much lower increase in malware activity on Mac.
And I expect that the iPhone and iPad are at radically less risk because they don't let users run code Apple hasn't approved. But beyond that, if you think the lack of iPhone viruses is due to magic Appleness, please cite examples of major malware outbreaks for Palm Pilot, Pocket PC/Windows Mobile, or Blackberry, each of which has had significant share in the past. They all have malware but you make an interesting point. Viruses aren't really prevalent on them either and they also enjoy considerable marketshare. If they can exist with large pockets of marketshare and install-base, then why MUST Apple Mac OS X suffer a malware surge when it grows in its market? Answer: It doesn't. Thank you for proving my point.
I keep hearing from posters just like you that 'It's coming, it's coming!' But you know what? Mac OS X marketshare on computers alone has almost quintupled in the same amount of years and the amount of infections hasn't even doubled. Where is this big Applepocalypse? Again, it's just wishful thinking on your part. It's hasn't come and it's not going to.
The whole critical mass theory is based on the idea of garnering enough share for the network effect on Mac to be in the ballpark of the one on Windows. Personally, I wouldn't expect to see that kind of outbreak until Apple hits a third of the market (that's the world market) at the bare minimum, and it might be higher. If a decade of OS X growth has brought Apple to 8% of the US market and lower share worldwide, I think you're right that Mac users don't have to worry much about this. So in other words, everyone is wrong because the speculative numbers that you THINK are right, pulled straight out of the warmth of your posterior indicate that Apple needs to dectuple its marketshare before viruses increase to a significant degree.
And of course, you never address if malware/viruses will simply become noticeble or if they'll become prevalent or hell, if they'll maybe, possibly, eventually become PROPORTIONAL to Windows. Needless to say now, they're not proportional. I bet Winsupersite didn't tell you that though.
Hey, when Apple hits 15% US market this year, I'm sure you'll still be doomsaying, despite the fact that Mac OS X will enjoy less than (yes.less) than one percent of the infections that Windows does. But It's all because of obscurity. All those other relevant OSes that exist with marketshare as large or larger than OS X or mobile OS X? They're all just lucky too. They're ALL enjoying security through obscurity.
Fliqlo Screensaver
Apparently, Windows OS is the only one that matters. I'd laugh but I honestly think you're probably serious.