imacintel
Aug 29, 08:51 PM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
This is where I agree with you. I don't call myself a tree hugger. Sure, I love the earth and planet but sometimes people take it too far.
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
This is where I agree with you. I don't call myself a tree hugger. Sure, I love the earth and planet but sometimes people take it too far.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 26, 08:11 AM
Think Obama & Jobs the supreme power couple :)
You mean "Obama and civil service jobs," don't you? ;)
You mean "Obama and civil service jobs," don't you? ;)
bradl
Mar 18, 01:52 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
ddtlm:
Thanks. I do know gcc a bit, but I really need complete instructions...
i.e. What to do with the .asm. What to do with the .c. What to do with them both to finally bind those. The linker ld? The only time I've ever used ld was in my little OS development... it's been months since I've touched that.
Dunno about the asm files without delving deeper.
But imagine you've copied the benchmark code to mr2.c - then try
gcc -O2 -funroll-all-loops -o mr2 mr2.c
the -O2 and -funroll-all-loops are optimisation flags. The -o mr2 says to create an output file called mr2. GCC will work out this isn't an object file and manage the linking for you. The mr2.c on the end specifies the input file.
More?
ddtlm:
Thanks. I do know gcc a bit, but I really need complete instructions...
i.e. What to do with the .asm. What to do with the .c. What to do with them both to finally bind those. The linker ld? The only time I've ever used ld was in my little OS development... it's been months since I've touched that.
Dunno about the asm files without delving deeper.
But imagine you've copied the benchmark code to mr2.c - then try
gcc -O2 -funroll-all-loops -o mr2 mr2.c
the -O2 and -funroll-all-loops are optimisation flags. The -o mr2 says to create an output file called mr2. GCC will work out this isn't an object file and manage the linking for you. The mr2.c on the end specifies the input file.
More?
Cougarcat
May 2, 09:47 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
um, NO THANKS. why in the world would i add "extra layers of confirmation" to my OS X experience?!?! If I wanted nag windows, I'd use Windows!
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
um, NO THANKS. why in the world would i add "extra layers of confirmation" to my OS X experience?!?! If I wanted nag windows, I'd use Windows!
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
.Andy
Apr 26, 04:27 PM
In Lanciano, Italy.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
This is absolutely and utterly insane. To believe this is exactly what is wrong with religious people's ability for critical thought. Honestly that in 2011 people can seriously put this stuff out in the public without being absolute laughing stocks astounds me. It's an utter sham and a hoax. Nothing more.
edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf
http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano2.pdf
This is absolutely and utterly insane. To believe this is exactly what is wrong with religious people's ability for critical thought. Honestly that in 2011 people can seriously put this stuff out in the public without being absolute laughing stocks astounds me. It's an utter sham and a hoax. Nothing more.
edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfXvMlb8u0&feature=related
And this lady just likely has glossitis or could even be a squamous cell carcinoma of her tongue. These people are mental.
skunk
Mar 26, 01:31 PM
relationships built on love in general are less stable, cf. US divorce rate.Do you have a source for this extraordinary claim?
Lennholm
May 2, 10:05 AM
Hmm, this sounds like Internet Explorer five years ago.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 02:17 PM
Sometimes it's the homo that's the problem.
Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.
Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.
Apple OC
Apr 22, 08:06 PM
Science is where you will find the real answers
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:46 PM
It is not subverted -- it is evolved. My clients -- the content providers and advertisers -- demand viral marketing efforts -- they are ahead of the curve: they want what works, they want the uTube factor, not yesterday's in your face ads.
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
Your clients represent the extreme minority of advertising content today. While that is changing, I concede, most advertisers are still in the old paradigm.
Mord
Jul 13, 10:36 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.
Danksi
Jul 12, 12:52 AM
I've never used any of the PCI slots on my PowerMacs and don't expect that I ever will, but the ability to put any video card in is appealing. The iMac is nice and quite useful, but just slightly less than what is needed in many cases. The PowerMac has been more or less uncompromising speed and generally more than I wanted when I bought. With all of the emphasis on the name 'Mac' in the new naming scheme and a more competitive landscape now that we've gone Intel, I think (hope) this is the machine Apple will use to complete its desktop lineup.
The Apple Mac... Nice sound to it, no?
I like the idea of a cut down Mac Pro, but perhaps something with at least one PCI slot, or even an Expresscard as used on the MBPro. Useful expansion, so long as it is all user-servicable.
The Apple Mac... Nice sound to it, no?
I like the idea of a cut down Mac Pro, but perhaps something with at least one PCI slot, or even an Expresscard as used on the MBPro. Useful expansion, so long as it is all user-servicable.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 10:33 PM
Would it make a difference if a huge portion of what you've been exposed to, regarding religion/Christianity, was fundamentally incorrect? For example, there's no such place as hellfire; nobody is going to burn forever. Everybody isn't going to heaven; people will live right here on the earth. If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?
A lot of people need the threat of hell to make them behave or act ethically/morally. What could be worse than eternal damnation?
Certainly nothing physical.
A lot of people need the threat of hell to make them behave or act ethically/morally. What could be worse than eternal damnation?
Certainly nothing physical.
balamw
Apr 9, 03:50 PM
If it's too hot on bare legs, then common sense says, "don't put it on bare legs!" It's so simple, even a cave man could figure it out.
We keep a spare 0.5" 3 ring binder in the family room for the rare time when using the MacBook is potentially uncomfortable.
99% of the time, e.g. couch surfing, it doesn't get hot at all. When it can, e.g. gaming, you have plenty of warning before it really starts getting warm (the fans start balring, etc...) to reach for a barrier.
Most, if not all, notebooks from all vendors suggest not using the notebook on anything other than a hard surface like a desk or table. Do not use in bed, on a sofa, couch, rug or bare legs. A lot of that has to do with blocking the vents they rely on for air cooling.
B
We keep a spare 0.5" 3 ring binder in the family room for the rare time when using the MacBook is potentially uncomfortable.
99% of the time, e.g. couch surfing, it doesn't get hot at all. When it can, e.g. gaming, you have plenty of warning before it really starts getting warm (the fans start balring, etc...) to reach for a barrier.
Most, if not all, notebooks from all vendors suggest not using the notebook on anything other than a hard surface like a desk or table. Do not use in bed, on a sofa, couch, rug or bare legs. A lot of that has to do with blocking the vents they rely on for air cooling.
B
motulist
Sep 12, 03:24 PM
Does that usb port mean I could hook up a hard drive to the iTV and the drive would be available as a regular data storage drive available to all the computers on my wireless network?
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 12:24 AM
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's no God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's no God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
springscansing
Oct 13, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by MacCoaster
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Yes I have actually. iTunes IS slow, but it's the best. There was an article in MacAddict a few years ago comparing the speeds and quality of different mp3 encoders at the same bitrates.
Hmm? Have you tried to encode them at the same rate, same song, whatever--and documented the results. Would be cool to know.
Yes I have actually. iTunes IS slow, but it's the best. There was an article in MacAddict a few years ago comparing the speeds and quality of different mp3 encoders at the same bitrates.
iAlan
Mar 11, 09:36 AM
I was at work when the quake hit. Building swayed (its a 3 year old building) more than anything I've experienced in my 10+ years in Tokyo. And the duration of the quake is what surprised (and unnerved me) the most as most are short - and the epicenter was 350K away from Tokyo.
Dozens of small aftershocks, of varying degrees but thankfully calmed down a bit now, although a little shake 10-15 minutes ago.
Had to walk home as the trains were all suspended. The 1.5 hour walk was better than a workout at the gym!
To all in Japan, stay safe.
Sent from my iPhone
Dozens of small aftershocks, of varying degrees but thankfully calmed down a bit now, although a little shake 10-15 minutes ago.
Had to walk home as the trains were all suspended. The 1.5 hour walk was better than a workout at the gym!
To all in Japan, stay safe.
Sent from my iPhone
imacintel
Aug 29, 08:51 PM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
This is where I agree with you. I don't call myself a tree hugger. Sure, I love the earth and planet but sometimes people take it too far.
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
This is where I agree with you. I don't call myself a tree hugger. Sure, I love the earth and planet but sometimes people take it too far.
KnightWRX
May 2, 04:17 PM
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
Fine, so I can write an installer that will just wipe your user account while you read my EULA and you'll happily execute it because "hey, it's just an installer" ? :rolleyes:
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
This is not, but I'm interested in the mechanics because next time, it could very well be. That's my point. Some of you guys aren't cut out for computer security...
Fine, so I can write an installer that will just wipe your user account while you read my EULA and you'll happily execute it because "hey, it's just an installer" ? :rolleyes:
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
This is not, but I'm interested in the mechanics because next time, it could very well be. That's my point. Some of you guys aren't cut out for computer security...
bobbleheadbob
Apr 9, 10:28 AM
I'd love for Pokemon to be on iOS devices.
My kids would love that, too. Only problem would be trying to get my iPhone or iPad away from them! ;)
My kids would love that, too. Only problem would be trying to get my iPhone or iPad away from them! ;)
Lennholm
May 2, 10:30 AM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.