Office for Mac

Pegg

Registered
I would like to add "Microsoft Office for Mac" onto my new IMAC, which I'm just learning to use. If I add this software, will I still be using the MAC operating system, rather than the Windows operating system. I don't want to get into trouble with using PC stuff on my Mac. Nor do I want to have to buy a virus protection program for Windows. Is "Microsoft Office for Mac" just like any other Mac software program, that I can just use it on my IMAC without worry? I need the Word and Powerpoint programs. I don't need Bootcamp for this, do I? And do I just need Windows virus protection if I use Bootcamp?

Thank you!
Pegg, a MAC convert from the troublesome PC!!!!!!!!!
 
you still need to install Antivirus software on Mac most people believe Macs are immune to viruses this is not the case they are less common but are vary much out there
 
Just to clarify -
Yes, antivirus software for Mac is much less common.
For most people, the aggravation of having antivirus software, which will affect the performance of your Mac to some extent, is often worse than the actual threats that you might encounter.
An experienced Mac user may be concerned about viruses at some level, but not enough to actually install some of the POS stuff that purports to protect a Mac.
The number of actual viruses in the wild that attack a Mac running OS X is still @ zero.
 
you still need to install Antivirus software on Mac most people believe Macs are immune to viruses this is not the case they are less common but are vary much out there

This is misinformation at best. I just watched a segment on the news last night where a supposed "IT professional" laughed at the notion that Mac OS X was less susceptible to viruses than Windows and even went so far to claim that Mac OS X was more susceptible to viruses because people don't use anti-virus programs on their Macs.

Macs are, indeed, less susceptible to viruses. Mac OS X is built atop one of the strongest and most robust operating systems in the world, and that operating system has nearly 40 years of security and hardening behind it. There isn't a single, viable virus for Mac OS X that is "in the wild" today. Most of the security threats you hear about are not actually viruses, but trojans -- which require specific user actions in order to cause any harm.

A good test to see if something is a virus or trojan is to do this:

1) Turn on your computer.
2) Immediately walk away from your computer.

During that time, if your computer became infected with something, that would probably be a virus (given the computer was not already infected when you turned it on). The difference between a virus and a trojan is that a virus is able to (and specifically designed to) infect your computer without any human interaction whatsoever. A trojan, on the other hand, requires the user to take very deliberate steps in order to "help" it install itself -- this could be presented as fake dialog boxes that ask you to input a password, click a button, or otherwise interact with the computer and/or operating system in order to give the trojan "permission" to install itself.

Viruses needn't ask permission. Trojans do. Viruses exploit errors, "back doors" and other security shortcomings to automatically install themselves, surreptitiously, and without user knowledge. Trojans have to knock on the front door, pretend to be a girl scout with cookies so that you let them in, then quickly change into demon-beings that run rampant amongst your house.

Since Mac OS X is built atop the world's strongest and most secure OS architecture (UNIX), the only way a trojan or virus has any hope is to exploit Apple-based portions of the OS... namely, the GUI, Quicktime, Java, Safari, etc. Because of this, and because of Mac OS X's and UNIX's user permissions system, the only thing that's viable is a trojan -- not a virus.

This is not to say that viruses will never exist for Mac OS X -- they may! -- but they're going to have to be able to affect FreeBSD UNIX first, more than likely, and that's going to be a tough nut to crack for them... they've been trying, mostly unsuccessfully, for 40 years now.

Windows users bear the responsibility of protecting themselves. While it's certainly a nice gesture to say, "I have anti-virus on my Mac -- not because I'm under any kind of threat, but just so I don't accidentally pass on any Windows-based viruses to my friends," it's not your position to be altruistic and overly helpful in this sense. If my neighbor consistently leaves his front door open at night, I'm not going to take it upon myself to continually watch for intruders -- at some point, he's going to have to do this himself.

I recommend absolutely no anti-virus software for your Mac -- as long as you keep it completely up-to-date with Software Update, I'd be willing to bet my pinky finger that you couldn't get infected with a Mac OS X virus no matter how hard you tried. Anti-virus software on a Mac will only do the two following things:

1) Protect your Windows brethren from becoming infected with a virus that you accidentally pass on, more than likely coming from forwarded emails or the like (your Mac will never pass on a virus without your permission to a Windows computer)
2) Slow down your Mac
 
well i have Sophos Anti-Virus running on my Mac only reason i did this is its Leopard and its PowerPC based so Apple will not even release updates for it anymore. and another thing if Mac OS X cant get viruses and is "built on the most stable OS ever" how come Apple Update includes "security" Updates whay would the "most stable OS in the world" need security updates? i say the same thing to Linux being Linux is built off UNIX as well
 
I also heard of a hakers convention where a group of hackers planted viruses on the 3 systems Mac OS X Linux and Windows and the results were that OS X crashed in 3 Minutes Windows Crashed in 5 Minutes and that Linux was untouchable reason being it because Linux gets most its updates form the community not the Developer where as windows and apple only do updates from them no one else so with windows by the time microsoft fixes the problem its too late
 
I like Sophos Antivirus.
- It's free.
- I install it, and run a scan once or twice a year (and still don't find anything), then uninstall it.
Just one of those weird things that I do with a computer. I left it on for a few weeks the first time, then noticed that much of what I did was noticeably slower. Removed SAV, and my Mac returned to normal response immediately.
And, with Leopard - if I was to write a virus/malware - why would I plan to write it to infect an operating system that is 2 (almost 3) generations behind the current version? Doesn't make the most sense to me.

...Linux is built off UNIX...
Is that what you really believe? Interesting, but not a factual statement.
You CAN say that Linux is Unix-like - and they both have X in the name, but there's not much else you can point to.
 
Unix like Unix based same difference and to answer you
if I was to write a virus/malware - why would I plan to write it to infect an operating system that is 2 (almost 3) generations behind the current version?
it would be the SAME answer to why people still code viruses for Windows XP when its 10 years old. the OS upgrades but the file system and executable methods stay the same Mac OS X has used DMG images for 12 years windows has used MSI and EXE since Windows 3
 
Apple releases security updates that include:

1) Updates to security issues in Apple-branded software (Final Cut Pro, iPhoto, iTunes, Quicktime, etc.) that are non-UNIX related for the most part.
2) Newer updates to UNIX libraries and run-times that are released by the UNIX community

UNIX didn't just get to an ultra-stable and secure state, then stop releasing updates period, you must realize. UNIX is constantly evolving with new libraries, new capabilities, new utilities, and, therefore, new security issues that get patched over time. The UNIX you use today is NOT the UNIX that existed 40 years ago... nor 10 years ago... nor 5 years ago.

i say the same thing to Linux being Linux is built off UNIX as well

Linux is not "built off" UNIX. Linux is inspired by UNIX, but that's it. The two are completely different. Don't let the fact that they use similar folder structures and architectures fool you. Their kernels are completely different, and the two operating systems are binary incompatible. They "look" really similar, but they're not.

Read between the lines when you read about these hacking conventions where a hacker says he was able to compromise a Mac faster than any other system: greater than 90% of the time, there's a glaring "gotcha" that allowed them to do so... namely, using a non-up-to-date version of OS X, using an older or deprecated version of Safari, or requiring extraneous circumstances in order to do so -- like saying, "I completely pwned this Mac quicker than any other system! The only thing different I had to do was require a user to log in, open Safari, and visit a website that I pre-infected with malware!"

If you have a specific report of a completely up-to-date and patched Mac being hacked, true-blue, and without user help or action or intervention, I would love to read about it. I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying I'd love to read about it and exactly how they did it.

When Apple releases a new version of php (or ruby, or python, or perl, or some UNIX library) for Mac OS X, Apple did not write the changes that they're delivering to you. Not a single developer working for Apple wrote any lines of code for the fix, on Apple's clock. The people that manage and maintain php wrote the fixes, and Apple simply rolled those fixes up into a security update. You are right in the sense that Linux users can easily download the source code and compile and install the newest version themselves, and Apple users must wait until Apple rolls these updates into a security update for them. Still, unless you're compiling and installing these Linux utilities yourself, you're still at the mercy of the distributors of your particular flavor of Linux. Ubuntu must wait for Debian to include new .deb packages of the latest-and-greatest version of whatever utility, and those .deb packages can be a version or two behind what's freely available in terms of source code -- so by using Ubuntu Linux, you're in the same boat as Mac users: you are at the mercy of Canonical (the company that owns and produces the Ubuntu name and distributes that particular distro of Linux) to do the same as Apple, which is assimilate the stable fixes, package them up, then distribute them through the software update channels.

This is identical to how Apple does things, and while Canonical may be a tad faster at releasing updates, that doesn't mean all that much as any die-hand UNIX or Linux fan will tell you. Using a secure and stable version of a program is much favored over using the latest-and-greatest cutting-edge version that was released 3 hours ago. Most Linux and UNIX machines that "matter" aren't someone at home experimenting with running different Linux distros on different machines -- they're running mission-critical web servers and database servers, and on those types of machines, you don't just click "update my software" and hope for the best, because one mis-managed update can bring the whole system down. In these situations, you have to be extremely selective and careful about what you update, when you do it, and what other parts of the system the update may affect.
 
Also i dont see much of a speed difference with SAV or without it Mac OS X has always been a slower system compared to Windows 2000
 
Unix like Unix based same difference
Saying this doesn't make it true. "UNIX-like" and "UNIX-based" are two completely different things no matter how similar you think they are.

"UNIX-like" means that it looks and feels like UNIX (Linux, for example).

"UNIX-based" means that it conforms to and adheres to the UNIX operating system specification, which most Linux does not (otherwise, it would be called... drum roll... UNIX!), and is also binary-compatible with other UNIX machines running on similar architectures (save for going from 32-bits to 64-bits).

and to answer you it would be the SAME answer to why people still code viruses for Windows XP when its 10 years old. the OS upgrades but the file system and executable methods stay the same Mac OS X has used DMG images for 12 years windows has used MSI and EXE since Windows 3

Windows XP is still on a VERY significant number of Windows PCs and is still in widespread use.

Leopard is not, to the same extent. Many more Mac users are using Snow Leopard or greater than Windows users are using Windows Vista/7 or greater. A very large portion of Windows users are still on XP. Not so much with Leopard.
 
Also i dont see much of a speed difference with SAV or without it Mac OS X has always been a slower system compared to Windows 2000

Run anti-virus on your Mac, or don't... it doesn't matter to us. Your use of anti-virus, don't be fooled, does NOT significantly reduce your risk of your Mac getting infected.

It's like putting 6 deadbolt locks on your front door when you only need 2. Sure, you can call it "more safe" all you want, but it's really not.
 
but is OS X is so great still im back to the question of why would safari or any other Apple branded sofware NEED "security" updates if the OS is so secure by itself?
 
For the same reason that Linux updates Firefox, and the same reason that Windows updates the .NET framework, and the same reason that php releases updates.

Nothing is perfect. There will always be improvements being made, you know. Even your Linux distribution, which you quote as being almost impervious to hackers because of this community-support update system, releases security updates more frequently and in greater quantity than Apple does. You're asking us a lot of questions, so let us ask you one: if Linux is so stable and secure and hacker-proof like you claim, why does Linux consistently receive more quantity of and more frequent security updates than Mac?

Understanding the forward progression of technology and operating systems and the need to include new features as time marches on to meet the ever-changing needs and requirements of computer users is paramount to answering your question. With an understanding of how software changes and is improved and has features added to it over time, you would understand how and why security holes get introduced into software in the first place and how they are discovered and fixed as quickly as is digitally possible in most cases.

Computers today don't do the same things as computers of yesterday (or 30 years ago). People wanted GUIs. People wanted additional input methods. People wanted additional and faster connectivity. People wanted faster network interfaces. People wanted different network stacks and protocols. Some human had to write the code for all those improvements, and therefore, human errors are introduced, and, eventually, discovered and fixed. Humans create and control computers, so computers are only as error-free and secure as the humans that control and program them.
 
anyone still running on PowerPC are still using Leopard or Tiger they have no other options and because apple thinks people have $2400 to shell out for a new Mac they wont bother to still update those PowerPC users stuck on older versions.
 
and to answer you one
Nothing is perfect. There will always be improvements being made
Who says? why no leave well enough alone theres NO major improvement from OS X to OS X Tiger NO major improvement from firefox 3 to firefox 10
 
anyone still running on PowerPC are still using Leopard or Tiger they have no other options and because apple thinks people have $2400 to shell out for a new Mac they wont bother to still update those PowerPC users stuck on older versions.

I agree. But you must realize that the number of PowerPC users is dwindling faster than the number of Windows XP users. Leopard will be dead long before XP is dead. This is the reason XP is still a very viable market for malware and virus creators, and Leopard is not as much.
 
there is two reasons i dont get a intel mac 1 beacuse i have never like Intel processors they run WAY too hot. 2 even second hand intel macs cost more then a brand new Windows computer i like the PowerPC they are cheaper and just as good plus if i wanted a Intel mac id install Mac OS X on my Pentium 4 machine as OS X DOES run just not full compatibility
 
and to answer you oneWho says? why no leave well enough alone theres NO major improvement from OS X to OS X Tiger NO major improvement from firefox 3 to firefox 10

Who says nothing is perfect? Everyone says nothing is perfect. Unless your application simply prints the number "1" to standard out then exits gracefully, your program is likely imperfect and contains security holes (no matter how big or small, glaring or obfuscated).

I have to disagree with your assertion that Mac OS X has not seen significant improvements from one release to the next. OS X to OS X Tiger (if you mean OS X 10.0, OS X 10.1, 10.2, or 10.3) was arguably one of the biggest leaps in technology OS X has seen.

Firefox 3 to Firefox 10 is a different story. There have been several improvements from 3 to 10 -- just try applying a CSS style of "display: inline-block" to an unordered list and see the different results you get in Firefox 3 vs. Firefox 10.

Granted, both Firefox and Chrome seem to be on this "increment the version number for every small change we introduce," but that's a Mozilla/Google thing, not an Apple thing. Firefox 3 was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and is barely even usable on today's web with HTML5 content. Firefox 3.5 still has some life in it, but not much. Just because you don't see any significant GUI changes or new, shiny buttons or a different loading screen doesn't mean that the behind-the-scenes code changes are any less significant or any less numerous.
 
Back
Top