Steven Rogers said: >>> Second - a widespread Mac virus would certainly attract big press. >> >> I don't disagree with your overall argument, but the above statement >> has already proven to be false. >> >> Two years ago the Simpsons virus . . . was stopped quickly and it >> was not widespread) nor did it garner "huge headlines." In fact, few >> Mac users even know about the existence of this virus. > >Well, I said a widespread virus would attract headlines. You said that >is false because a virus that was *not* widespread didn't garner >headlines. I don't quite see the logic. You said: >...one good >virus should be able to cripple a substantial portion of Mac users. And >given the way the press likes to pounce on any Apple foible, that would >certainly be huge headlines. By all accounts, the Simpsons virus was a "good virus". Yet it still wasn't able to "cripple a substantial portion of Mac users." And it garnered practically no headlines at all. Randy B. Singer Co-Author of: The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th and 6th editions) How To Deal With Common Macintosh OS X Jaguar Problems http://www.macattorney.com/tutorial.html