[morganvachon]

> If you're going to knock Windows on a lack of security, at the very least do as much as you can do to protect yourself on a Mac.

If you're behind a firewall and you practice safe computing (adblockers, NoScript, click-to-play Flash and Java or just don't use them at all, don't visit sketchy sites, don't open email from unknown sources, etc.) you can remain just as safe on an older Mac as you can on Windows. Even a 2010 era Mac can still run Sierra and therefore get all the current security updates, just as Windows 10 does.

> Note the long list of security fixes in the latest version of MacOS https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222

The list you shared contains updates for much more than just macOS Sierra, there's Apple TV, iTunes for Windows 7, Apple Watch OS, and so on. Microsoft's list contains 876 entries[1], of which approximately 250 apply to Windows 10 x64 alone, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

[1] https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletins.aspx

[Buge]

They're both vulnerable. Therefore the author shouldn't criticize Windows for being more vulnerable than Mac, when the Macs he promotes are just as, if not more, vulnerable.

[chii]

macs are a smaller target. Having more vulnerability in one OS or another is way less a factor vs how many potential target exist for one OS vs another. If a cracker/criminal decides to mass infect, they will choose the bigger "market".

If you are targeted by an individual/funded organization, it doesn't matter which OS you use, because there just needs to be one vuln and you are own'ed.

Therefore, it makes sense to use an OS that has a smaller marketshare. That keeps you safer than anything else.

[mirko22]

By that account it is better to use obscure Linux as it is usually harder to find 1 exploit that works on all the distributions, and by that account it would be best to write your own OS.

But in real world, Windows are good enough for a lot of stuff and specifically gaming and office. If kept up2date will be secure enough.

I think talking about security superficially is not really valuable.

[lloeki]

> post-Vista Windows is far better than OS X.

> if not more

You could say they're similarly vulnerable, but such emphatic phrasing just makes it sound you (and the GP) are on an agenda.

[Buge]

I'm not saying Windows is more secure than Mac. I'm saying up-to-date Windows is more secure than outdated Mac.

[Lio]

The article refers to El Capitan which is still supported and receiving security updates.

[Buge]

Sorry I don't know much about Mac update schedules, and just took the previous commenter's word that it was outdated, since no one seemed to be claiming otherwise.

But the author also says he runs 10.9 in another partition, and claims to want to run 10.2, although looking closer that appears to be a typo.

[crowell]

there was no point to be made. I wasn't saying that either platform is insecure. Just seems the link wasn't to show anything other than if you care about security, using the latest version of macos is prudent.