|
I actually have to laugh at that. Most of the work that Microsoft has done in recent history, has simply been doing what the competition has been doing already since day one.
For instance, MacOS and Linux have long been multiuser OS's, and they restrict the primary users to not be able to do system wide changes. It wasn't until Vista that MS had a multiuser OS that by default did not allow the user to have full access to the system. The requests for authorization anytime an app requests something that can be potentially damaging? Yeah, the others have been doing that for way longer.
As far as the attacks on the macs at your office, I find that highly suspect. As someone who works in the IT field, and studies it regularly, that goes against the norm. I guess that would just go possibly to the idea that the problem exists between keyboard and chair. If you run a system in an insecure way, you're prone to get attacked. For instance, has the systems been recently updated? If you don't keep up on updates, you're going to have a system that has known security holes, and those are frequently targeted for direct attack. Once something can be exploited, black hats have zombies scan through IP ranges, trying to find exploitable computers, and then they attack them. If you don't update your system, then it is not a problem of the OS that it was targeted and attacked, but rather your own. This goes for all OS's, and my thought is that since your company has so many Windows machines and so few macs, they push out the regular updates to the system, apps, and antivirus to each machine automatically, and do not have something of the sort on the macs, requiring manual intervention to do so and that is probably not being done. Why do I suspect that? Because on average, your claims go against the norm for MacOS. And that is if the claims are 100% true, and not embellished any at all.
|