This is the worst possible step to take.

When I switch someone over to Mac I take the opportunity to recalibrate how they see their computer as secure. I teach them to be more aware of what they are doing and how potential viruses could infect them. I find this is 100x more effective than installing antivirus software which is shit most of the time and instills a fake sense of security.

I had a family member who would always click "OK" whenever a window popped up in Windows or would blindly enter in their password because they figured Windows was just annoying them. When they got their Mac I taught them that whenever OS X opened up a window asking for their password or asked them if they really wanted to open up a file, they should freak the hell out and be 100% sure of why that box appeared. I actually got a couple of phone calls from them asking if certain popups were OK. Sure this was annoying at first but after a week or two they started to understand why these things were happening.

The great benefit of changing their way of thinking and making security a priority was that when Flashback hit I told them that disabling plugins was one of the best ways to prevent from being infected and they immediately accepted this.

Macs are not 100% secure. No one should be under any delusions of this. But teaching people why they are not secure is the solution. Not hiding behind POS antivirus software.

Macs actually do make it easier because they have a pretty good track record of not "crying wolf" with things such as password prompts or security warnings. Most of the pop-ups are justified and infrequent.

Macs have never been 100% secure. No computer is. Apple pulling this marketing has nothing to do with a reduction in security and everything to do with covering their legal butts as their platform becomes more popular and more targeted. It's still the user's responsibility to keep themselves safe in the end, even with a decently secure OS.

Tediously, antivirus software provides a consistent vector into a machine, indeed as seen on Windows, the antivirus software is merely a consideration for the virus writer.

10.8 will feature a number of security enhancements which make the statement 'Apple is starting to take security seriously', an understatement designed to deliberately instil a sense of doubt. Two such examples are the improved kernel address space layout randomisation and the new signed-only code default aka 'gatekeeper'.

What?

He's recommending security steps, i.e. layers. What you wrote (education) is another layer. Users need anti-virus too.

Recommending anti-virus as a layer is not the worst possible step to take. It's a better step than having an uneducated user with no anti-virus. It's not as good as an educated layer with anti-virus.

As a side note, much of the software available for the Mac is "download from some http website that your friend recommended". Also not ideal, which is where the Mac Store is meant to come in.

...Cox provides a free antivirus that you can download. But that sense of security that both ISP's and antivirus companies provide is the reason so many people still get infected.

Are you able, in good conscience of course, to point out antivirus software that would not qualify as "POS"?

Do you think that installing said not-"POS" antiviral software would be constructive or a big no no, at any given time ? (if they really exist and based on your own deep behavioral security know how, of course, that would be of great validity)

This "switch" you talk about, is it restricted to members of your family that you refer to in your post, and if so, are they older than you, or younger than you ? Is it a quick process ? Is it a deep life/computational altering moment for the intervened party? Do tell :)

Do they follow your "plugins off" recommendations to the letter, or do some of the "switchy's" stray from the path at times ?

Thank you in advance. Any and all details you post would be very helpful to enable a complete picture to be formed. For deep insight is only a post away, at last.

I've advised dozens of friends and family members over the years. The ages range from 12-80. It is typically not a quick process because everyone has questions. But I see this as a good thing because that is how you learn. I try not to ever give them the answer and just step them through the process. Most of the time they come across the solution themselves they just need someone nodding their head to get that confidence to continue. I'm not sure if it is a life-altering moment for them.

Only had a couple switchers so far and I have had no complaints. Plug-in blocking in Chrome is so seamless that they don't see it as a hassle at all when they realize how it protects them.

I still remember when a neighbour came by and explained to me some Basic on the spectrum and how that led to me wanting to buy a motorola assembler book some years later. And how that turned me to being interested in softice and all that came later... that is why I asked.

I mostly like v8 because it runs three.js stuff crazy fast.

If your family or friends are using Windows, then Microsoft Security Essentials is free and absolutely fantastic. Speaking from personal experience, it's far better than AVG for example. (AVG bogs down the system; Essentials manages to maintain an active scan with almost no overhead.)

I've found that if you've gotten infected while following my teachings then no virus scanner would have stopped it.

Most of my friends and family do use Macs however so they is not as ubiquitous antivirus software for Mac.

Why only after switching? Is it not simpler to teach them these before switching? Wonder how much effect it will have if they did all those things regarding being careful clicking buttons and protecting personal information without switching.

When I switched them over to Mac they treated it like a newborn baby. They wanted my input on everything. They were so much more receptive to change because they had never used a Mac before.

Human beings are just so resistant to change and when they were learning how to use a computer in the 90s the user experience could be really grating. It seems like they just latched onto what worked and refused to let go.

I wouldn't necessarily blame Microsoft here. If anything, I feel much more comfortable letting my dad use windows 7. Microsoft massively improved their Security record after a few embarrassing incidents with Windows XP.

My only message to my dad was: as long as you don't download anything, it's relatively easy to stay away from viruses.

They're getting an OS they don't understand anyway. They're "starting from 0", in a way.

It also helps that OS X doesn't bother you all that much with it unless it's actually important.

Most of the people I've advised learned on Windows 95 or 98. Those were horrible UX days and helped formed a lot of bad habits.

I've never had to switch someone to Windows and I've always wondered what sort of experience it would be. Coming from OS X I think they would have a better understanding of "the basics" but I wonder how this teaching style would apply to someone using Windows for the very first time.

The idea that the removal of technical falsehoods from Apple marketing copy represents a watershed moment in their attitude toward the security of their customers' computers is based upon a bar set remarkably low.

It’s not a low bar, it’s just that Apple never says anything.

That isn't what happened. It used to be true, now it's not so they changed it. Security through obscurity was a positive feature, there is little denying it.

Just because it wasn't going to last doesn't make it positive and just because you think it's not something they should be touting doesn't make it a lie.

> OS vendors should be looking to help their users have a more secure experience

For the record, Apple has been working on OS X anti-malware since 2009 when Snow Leopard was released. It was a pretty cursory effort yes, but considering Microsoft hadn't even released MSE yet at that point it's still not bad.

Marketing and engineering are two different departments. Just because someone is writing dumb copy about security in the marketing department doesn't even begin to indicate how engineers are tackling security issues in practice.

In other words, Apple is both helping users to have a more secure experience (what do you think Gatekeeper is for?) and rolling back their boastful copy now that it's no longer true.

How is that a bad thing?

But, " It was never true. OS X was exploit central for years." is hyperbole. The OS X platform has been remarkably free of exploits, for a system that didn't go out of it's way to enhance security.

I think most of us would agree that the greatest security feature of OS X was it's niche presence - just wasn't an attractive target, so nobody targeted it.

It was always true, and it was a tangible benefit. Your arguments rely on it being considered "genuine" security or an effective defensive measure. It's not. That doesn't make it false, or not a benefit to end users.

> and it only became necessary for them to do it when it started to become an issue because people were getting owned.

What were people getting "owned" (ffs, I thought this was HN?) by in Snow Leopard. Care to provide a real world example, because I know you're full of shit. There was no well known dangerous trojan/malware/virus for SL that had any notable number of infections. The anti-malware in SL was a preventative measure.

> Don't even bother comparing it to Microsoft.

Watch me. I don't care about the reasons behind it, the long and short of it is Apple introduced an anti-malware system in OS X before it was a big issue and Microsoft pushed it until 2012, long after they've had countless brutally utilized exploits.

> If MS releases a good enough AV product the AV industry jumps up and down because MS just stole their lunch.

So MS sold out their customers to please their partners? Yeah keep trying to spin that one. And I'M the one drinking the kool-aid.

> Apple is not helping users to have a more secure experience.

Yes they are. FFS, you don't even understand what Gatekeeper is. FYI, it's not just the Mac App Store. Do some research before you continue to run your mouth.

> Do you really think that an App in the Mac App Store has no way of being malicious?

Of course not. Does it have a much, much, much smaller chance? Absolutely. Is it far and away the most effective measure against malware besides not installing anything? Also true.

> Have you not seen what can be done by an app in iOS?

An App Store app? No I haven't, care to demonstrate?

A staggering number of people I meet either can't get the job done, are too intimidated to start, download some malicious garbage, get waylaid by virus scareware, have no idea how to get the app into /Applications, get frustrated with Auto-Start naggers, freak out on Sparkle update dialogs, or never figure out how to pin the app to the dock.

Mac App Store is the answer to a lot of questions nobody "in the know" has had to ask in a decade or three.

OSX's major malware holes are Microsoft Office, java and flash. After that the malware has to depend on the user putting their password.

Let's grant this: if malicious code can start executing on OS X as a regular user, it's game over. There are so many ways through the floor it's almost trivial. (the presence of BSD tools being largely irrelevant since there were far easier ways in the door that are guaranteed to be installed)

And let's grant this: Apple has been very late in rolling out an explicit malware detection and removal systems.

And let's grant this: Microsoft understands what they're up against when it comes to security. Malware damaged the Windows XP install base to the point where it was necessary to stop production on their #1 moneymaker in order to rescue it.

I can't support your assertion that Gatekeeper is a power grab. The defaults on 10.8 allow any and all signed software bundles to be installed regardless of where they came from.

Mac App Store can at the very least "prove" that apps are only able to call public APIs, there's a minor but real financial and logistical barrier to entry, and developers and apps can be revoked. All apps must be sandboxed (for better and for worse) and updates must come through a known source.

As for the argument that Apple is doing security by obscurity, I think they've been doing fine. To review the ways I know of to trash a Mac: Drive by web plugin attack, network attack, e-mail attachment attack, tricked into authenticating Installer.app.

I think we can all agree that all major OSes are a lot better about controlling ports open by default nowadays.

Web: Safari is sandboxed. Flash is sandboxed. Extensions are sandboxed and signed. All out of date flash plugins are purged automatically at system boot. Java has basically been disabled across the entire Mac ecosystem. In-line PDFs are handled by the OS.

Disk Mounter refuses to mount known bad .dmgs. Installer.app has a blacklist. Both of these update nightly. System Update will shortly match the default policies and cadence of Windows Update.

PDFs are handled by a sandboxed built-in App, short-circuiting the nightmare that is Adobe Acrobat Reader. There's no AutoRun concept for mounted volumes. ASLR at multiple levels is in use. Signed frameworks are in use. Etc, etc, etc.

I'd argue that a Mac out of the box being used by an novice operator is pretty well protected, with more to come. And these novice operators are the ones who do the most damage to software platforms by blindly installing shit. Apple's straightjacket provides better results for them.

Finally, iOS: the ivory-est of all ivory towers. Name an app that's done real-world damage, because I haven't heard of one.

Still, I can’t find anything wrong with the marketing language they used.

I will say that if I'm suspicious of a file (say, a dll I had to go find from a shady site), I'll scan it over with a few tools before dropping it in a program folder.

If you want to do one thing to ensure your machine stays secure, don't browse with Java enabled. I can't tell you how many countless sites our users find when a new Java vulnerability appears.

Malware writers seed countless sites with things like the Blackhole exploit kit on improperly protected blogs with decent search rank - landmines waiting for the next unsuspecting Windows user.

- signed "someone who has dealt with more infections than he cares for"

To be fair, this was also the case with Flashback. No user action was required other than loading a web pages.

The last virus that I personally got was back during the Win95 days. It was the NY Boot Virus, which I got by accidentally leaving a floppy (which I got from someone at work) in the drive during boot.

In ~2005 their entire marketing was based around trying to sell you a Mac as a PC replacement "Your next PC should be a Mac".

I guess they are less interested now because it's a smaller % of their revenue and most of the people who would want/can afford a Mac are already giving them plenty of money so there's no desperate need to increase their market share in that area.

Microsoft has zero market share in the table market ("there is no tablet market, there is an iPad market"), and a very small share in the mobile phone market.

When you are #1 in a market, you don't do comparisons.

The Apple Stores are probably the best marketing the Mac can ever get. So it's better for Apple to spend money on the stores than on making TV ads for the Mac. And so they have: http://www.asymco.com/2012/06/25/the-face-and-the-brand/

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11586384/1/android-users-dont...

When Apple began to market themselves as immune from 'PC viruses', the Windows platform was besieged in drive by downloads and massive, highly publicised infections.

The first suggests that Apple should be encouraging their users to install antivirus software. My understanding is that Apple's position is the opposite: 3rd party antivirus software on OSX provides so little extra security that it is not recommended. Does anyone know of a 3rd party antivirus application that would have stopped flashback?

The second suggests Apple should do more to support older versions of OSX. I view it as a positive, security-wise, that Apple does such a good job of keeping its OSX users current. Mainly it does this by making new versions affordable, but discontinuing support for old versions is an important part of that.

https://ssl.apple.com/support/security/guides/docs/SnowLeopa...

Installing antivirus tools helps prevent infection of your computer by viruses, and helps prevent your computer from becoming a host used to spread viruses to other computers. These tools quickly identify suspicious content and compare them to known malicious content.

Quoting the Snow leopard one since that seems to be the most recent. They've also used stronger wording in the past: "Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult." and "Regularly check for viruses on your hard disk using an anti-virus program, especially if you download files from the Internet or share files with others."

While I agree that the state of AV software is generally rather poor and provides weak protection, I'd be surprised if the major AV choices didn't prevent a flashback infection at least by the time it had become commonly talked about.

That said, most of the "virus" writers have turned to spyware and adware, and other scummy malware that demands money, and there is nearly none of this on OS X.

Macs are PCs.

The problem is that many people today don't understand the history of personal computing and that "PC" has an established history of meaning a specific mainstream platform. I think some mistakenly poke fun at Apple, as if they had invented the label 'PC' for their ad campaign. When actually Apple merely took advantage of this convenient, existing differentiator for their PC vs Mac ads.

Apple have been working references to other platforms out of their marketing materials for years. Comparisons are no longer needed when a company has found their publicly-held niche.

Few people use "PC" to mean personal computers in general, especially since for 99% of the people personal computers are all they know and encounter anyway, so no need to distinguish both Mac and PCs from, say, Mainframes and embedded systems....

That's why nobody got confused by the 3 year running "-I'm a Mac, -And I am a PC" ad campaign.

Once you get past that step a Mac works exactly like a "PC". Just like a "PC" works exactly like a Mac if you fake the EFI-boot via a custom BIOS-to-EFI bootloader on a USB-stick.

There is basically no difference between a modern Mac and a PC - except for Mac OS X, which can be run on "Hackintoshes".

Which is beside the pedantic point, that to be an "IBM PC compatible" you have to NOT run EFI.

I never said that PCs are called PCs because they ARE IBM PC compatible, only said they are called PCs because in the past "IBM PC compatible" defined their category.

Also it's a bit freaky that my disk from 1987 still works in a machine I built last-year. Some games assumed a 4.77MHz clock though, and I there's no turbo button, so they don't really work :(

The PC moniker for Wintel machines, while heralding from the "IBM PC compatible" era, it's used as a designator of the category of, well, PC-derived machines now, not as a technical spec. We mostly use the word Wintel for the respective thing now.

Until someone writes a 2-in-1 virus that can infect cross-platform.

Good.

> The Mac is designed with built-in technologies that provide > protection against malicious software and security threats > right out of the box. However, since no system can be 100 > percent immune from every threat, antivirus software may > offer additional protection.

Something similar is still present in today's security page: http://www.apple.com/osx/what-is/security.html (near the bottom)

[0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20100123154433/http://www.apple.c...

Not trojans or whatnot that require users to click on files they shouldn't, but rather actual viruses that make use of vulnerabilities in OSX to spread from computer to computer, either via Internet or thumb drives or something?

In other words, if I always follow responsible practices (never opening files from untrusted sources), has there been any threat up through now that could compromise my OSX installation?

Since OSX enabled Java by default, and since responsible practices were no defense, this compromised enough Macs that it was proportionally comparable to the Conficker infection on Windows.

http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/trojan-downloader_osx_flashb...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_BackDoor.Flashback

I've cleaned IRC bots off of people's OS X installations. They had SSH turned on, with username/pw combos like "bob"/"bob", and public IP addresses.

But you really have to intentionally make multiple poor security choices for something like this happen.

There are also quite a few remote code execution attacks against OS X - you can find details of these in Apple's security bulletin list:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222

There are functioning Microsoft Office trojans that can self-replicate through e-mail.

There was a largely harmless but extremely widespread trojan that did drive-by Java attacks on webpages.

Repeat the above for Flash vulnerabilities.

There was a largely harmless but extremely widespread trojan that masqueraded as a free antivirus package and guilt-tripped naive users into authenticating via Installer.app, the only programmatic way to get code onto a Mac.

Best practice in my reality:

- DO NOT INSTALL A VIDEO CODEC PACKAGE

- DO NOT RUN COPIED OR TORRENTED SOFTWARE

- Enable Firewall.

- Remove Adobe Acrobat Reader unless your PDF workflow absolutely requires it.

- Disable Java immediately. (uninstall it for extra credit)

- Make sure Flash is at the dead latest self-updating version and set to auto-update.

- Update all non-stock browsers to self-updating versions.

- Update Microsoft Office and allow it to check for updates weekly.

- Allow Software Update to do its thing weekly.

>In other words, if I always follow responsible practices (never opening files from untrusted sources), has there been any threat up through now that could compromise my OSX installation?

I don't think so but I think you know that otherwise you would not be here. While this story has been posted recently, Apple has removed such articles on their site a few months ago.

The ID10T's, as some put it, should be on iOS. This is yet another reason why PCs should only be for professionals.

The times that I've heard it was from waiting in line at Best Buy for repairs. Most people wouldn't get it because it is far different when spoken.

Given that Mac OSX is on the rise on the popularity scale I am almost dead positive we will see a lot of increase in malware for OSX, even remote attacks where the user will be infected even if he acts sensibly.

The risk of that happening to you though is fairly low. The risk of clicking something and then getting malware through that is way higher, from a risk point of view.

  > Given that Mac OSX is on the rise on the popularity scale 
  > I am almost dead positive we will see a lot of increase
  > in malware for OSX

Most malware is spread by downloading fishy software or from browser/Flash/Java/PDF exploits.

PC means personal computer, which means a system owned by millions of people without the technical skill to assess whether or not that attachment (whether it's birthday_card.dmg or birthday_card.exe) really came from grandma.

All PCs are vulnerable to users. I'm glad Apple figured it out a few years sooner than Microsoft did.

I don't endorse Windows. But for all Windows' brokenness, Microsoft has not claimed invulnerability to viruses and has put a significant amount of effort into improving security from XP to today. The main reason it has had more trouble with malware is that it has been a much more popular platform, meaning that is where all the victims are.

When exactly are you claiming that Apple "figured it out"? Because Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing Initiative kicked off in 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustworthy_computing#Microsoft...

From what I've seen inside of MS security trumps everything else. Want to change an API? You can't...unless it has a security issue in which case go right ahead.

Which is not to say that your stement is wrong - it is surprising that nobody has tried to sue, even if they would almost certainly lose...

- DO NOT INSTALL A VIDEO CODEC PACKAGE

- DO NOT RUN COPIED OR TORRENTED SOFTWARE

- DO NOT DOWNLOAD ANTIVIRUS PACKAGES OR "SYSTEM CHECKERS"

- Enable Firewall (System Preferences -> Security -> Firewall Tab)

- Uninstall Adobe Acrobat Reader unless your PDF workflow absolutely requires it

- Disable Java immediately (Spotlight Magnifying Glass -> 'Java Preferences' application. Uninstall Java entirely for extra credit.)

- Make sure Adobe Flash is at the dead latest self-updating version and set to auto-update (System Preferences -> Flash. Must be 11.3.x.x or greater)

- Update all non-stock browsers to self-updating versions (Name of browser -> Updates...)

- Allow Microsoft Office to check for updates weekly. (Help -> Check for Updates)

- Allow Software Update to do its thing, at least weekly (System Preferences -> Software Update)

For a brief moment after reading that I had to consider if the article was satire.

Back to the subject: this possibly/partly is a response to the outcome of a complaint at an advertising complaints commission in the Netherlands (correlation is present, but the Dutch Apple site still had the original text while the US site had the updated text). They got the short end of the stick there, but the commission cannot do more than naming and shaming (https://www.reclamecode.nl/webuitspraak.asp?ID=76881&acC...)

To lots of people (myself included), "PC" means "personal computer" and include desktop and laptops from Apple.

However in the 1980s/1990s, there were "PCs" and "Macs". PC was anything running Windows (etc.) and a "Mac" was from Apple (i.e. a Macintosh). Apple (and many Apple fans) continue to use "Mac" instead of "PC". I've had Apple fans ask me if I use "a Mac or a PC?" (Since I use Linux, I don't know what to say :P)

In the 90s I remember Apple calling HD space 'memory'. Does anybody remember when the stopped doing this?

"PC" is more or less synonym of a generic machine that runs Windows (much like it once stood for a generic machine that ran MS-DOS). It comes from "personal computer" but I think the IBM brand overshadowed the original meaning.

BTW, the PC I'm writing this on, while perfectly capable of booting Windows, never did it. It is, nevertheless, a PC and not a Unix workstation (despite its dual 64-bit processors, gigabytes of RAM, specialized graphics hardware and fast network).

99.9% of things reported (and even those are not that many to begin with) are trojans. So, Mac viruses are like the Yeti, they might well exist, but very few people have seen them in real life.

It's not just market share either. OS8/9 had several viruses with 1/5 the market share OS X has now.

If one considers that OS X is basically NeXTStep, and essentially a UNIX, do one really sees many viruses in UNIX systems? What I'm getting at is that the "administrator privileges by default", "can fuck with any file on the system" feature of Windows --up to Windows XP, which is where viruses really reigned, was not part of OS X from the beginning.

So, at worst, OS X since 10.0 was as secure as Windows Vista, which was not a swiss cheese OS like, say, Windows 98. Plus, OS X didn't have Active X, either, and used a custom PDF viewing (Acrobat is another common attack vector in Wintels).

Now, with the eviction of Flash and Java plugins as the default, and several other techniques (sandboxing, ASLR, signatures, etc), things will get even better.

How is Flashback a trojan? Also what percentage of new Windows malware over the past few years do you think are "viruses" according to your definition?

Am I the only one sick of the pedantic quibbling and nitpicking over the word "virus" in every Apple malware story when everyone knows that viruses really mean modern malware in this context in general parlance and not really floppy bootsector or executable file viruses of the 90s? Anti"viruses" try to defend against all types of malware, so making a huge distinction here doesn't really help the discussion.

I can almost hear the computer saying "I'm sick dickface....I don't care what you call it."

You must also have missed 3 years of "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" ads...

All those past false alarms, touted to high heavens, were trojans. And they aren't even that many, at that. The one genuine virus like thing --which still wasn't a virus as it needed you to visit specific webpages-- infected like 100,000 Macs.

So, assuming ~ 20M Macs, 99.5% of the Macs out there haven't got any virus, ever. And with better OS X support for security (from better address space randomization to sandboxes to gatekeeper, etc), even fewer will get any in the future.

Geeks are quick to point the possibility of virus on Macs (or Linux, for that matter), but in practical terms it's like pointing the possibility of being hit by a thunder. It can happen, it even happened at some people, but normal people shouldn't be that worried about it.

If you disagree, please answer: should Ubuntu users also invest in an Linux antivirus? Because theoretically a virus can also happen there...

It's not the "lack of market share", either. OS 8/9 used to have tons of viruses with a 5 times less marketshare than OS X. Heck, even Amiga/Atari used to have plenty of viruses back in the day, with an insignificant amount of users, and NO actual monetary incentive (no web back then, no credit card details, no bots even).

Also, do you consider Flashback.k a virus or not?

i.e. Why do virus-writers target Windows? Sure, it has the largest install base, but Windows also runs a lot of servers and embedded systems. These two things are the real jackpots. What's taking control of one person's computer compared to taking control of a server with credit card information or a system running a billboard in Times square? Apple doesn't do embedded systems and their servers, while some do exist, are exceedingly rare.

Is security through obscurity enough though? That depends on who you are and how interesting your data is.

OSX and iOS are used predominantly to run personal computing devices. In addition to PC's, Windows also runs a significant number of the world's servers (although Linux dominates here) and embedded systems (see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/windows-embed...). Despite OSX and iOS gaining significant market share, virus-writers may still find that the sweetest targets are disproportionately running windows. OSX and iOS are more "obscure" in the sense that they don't run many of the systems virus-writers want to target.

That aside, being more security minded as opposed to claiming immunity for marketing purposes is a fantastic move and one to be applauded by the tech community.

http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Microsoft, however, has improved massively and that advantage is just not longer there. PC viruses still don’t affect OS X – but they also don’t affect any modern Windows very often.