Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 30, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

MACS AND PROGRESSIVES....The conference I was at yesterday was a get-together of various folks from the liberal media (In These Times, The American Prospect, ColorLines, Mother Jones, etc.). We are, of course, preparing to take over the world, and Apple should be very happy at the prospect. Of all the notebooks busily being tapped on during the meetings, I'd say about 70% were Macs. This compares to an Apple market share of around 4% in the real world.

Steve Jobs should be contributing large sums of money to progressive media. I wouldn't be surprised if we rival the graphic arts community in our dedication to the Mac ethos.

Kevin Drum 3:04 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (197)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

shameless.

Posted by: jimmy on November 30, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Does this mean Macs are about to become mainstream? I should have kept those Apple shares...

Posted by: craigie on November 30, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

The Mac product is great, but their customer-service side rivals the DoD and Medicare.

Posted by: aaron on November 30, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Steve Jobs is a near-vegan, who only eats coldwater fish, grains, nuts, and fruits & vegetables! Woos!

Kevin knows that you have to eat *all* animals (the more brutally raised and killed, the better) and mock vegetarians and animal advocates to be a Real Man. Just like my Al!

Posted by: Al's Mommy on November 30, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

If you are only typing and producing text, then buy a cheap windows machine and spend the rest on something fun. Or send it to me.

Posted by: jri on November 30, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

i write these words on the latest imac. great machine. my laptop is also a mac. we will rule!

Posted by: mudwall jackson on November 30, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

not to burst anyone's bubble, but rush is a big mac fan....

Posted by: New Yorker on November 30, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Simple.

Conservative PC weenies are stupid.

Progressive Mac users are smart.

Al's Mommy:
God's Law says that eating shrimp is an abomination. So you shouldn't eat ALL animals.

Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 30, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

OSX will eventually have more viruses and worms written for it, since it's Unix-based. Going to the Intel processors will only invite this even more, Kevin.

I'm a Mac user here at the office, but a PC user at home.

I don't totally demonize or sanctify either platform; to do so would be to worship at the altar of corporatism.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 30, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Hey , it's just not progressives.

Go to a developers conference or a
web 2.0 and the same percentage is there.

It's a macbook/pro thing.
Their laptops and OS X are great.

Posted by: james on November 30, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Scientists are also dedicated to Macs. In my field (astronomy) probably at least half of the laptops you see at meetings are Macs. And I hear from my biology friends that it's even greater in their field.

Posted by: jn on November 30, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

OSX will eventually have more viruses and worms written for it, since it's Unix-based.

huh ?

Going to the Intel processors will only invite this even more, Kevin.

what ?

Posted by: cleek on November 30, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

I wouldn't be surprised if we rival the graphic arts community in our dedication to the Mac ethos

Uh, except that we graphic artists created the mac ethos in the first place. You guys are just doing to ipod dance in the mirror. We put up with the Mac Bomb for years, just so that we could feel superior...

wait, that didn't come out right.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 30, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm typing this on my IBM Thinkpad, which I love, so don't give me grief about being a Mac apologist. But doesn't that "4%" figure that we always hear include about 4 kerzillion PCs being used as cash registers and such? In the actual world of individual humans using computers to do work on their desks, my impression is that Macs, while still a minority, nonetheless comprise a rather larger share.

Posted by: Patrick Nielsen Hayden on November 30, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

One wonders how many of those Macs are (will be) running Windows?

Hey, if graphics or audio/video production is your thing, then Mac software is the 'right way'.

To type words into a blog? Waste of Money (WOM), but if one's feathers get fluffed by thinking you are superior because you wasted money on an expensive typewriter, have at it.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on November 30, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Am I mistaken, or is Kevin a new comer to this bandwagon? I seem to remember at some time he asked his readership for advice on making the big switch. Does anyone else remember this? Sorry, I don't have enought time to search the archive.

I'm a PC user because it makes me feel superior. Not to Mac users, silly, the PC!

Posted by: j_flo on November 30, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

"OSX will eventually have more viruses and worms written for it, since it's Unix-based."

Pure BS. There's nothing inherent within the MachBSD core that is more viable for writing worms/viruses than the Windows kernel.

Posted by: thrashbluegrass on November 30, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Does this mean you're finally going to join the 21st century and get a Mac yourself, Kevin? Darn.

How will we ever entertain ourselves if we can't read your periodic rants about viruses and spyware and the joys of spending three days debugging your mother's PC?

Posted by: Oregonian on November 30, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

"To type words into a blog? Waste of Money (WOM), but if one's feathers get fluffed by thinking you are superior because you wasted money on an expensive typewriter, have at it."

I always enjoy the thrifty advice from PC folks on the internets.
And your Post is a classic example Of Just Dont Get It (JDGI), It's way more than just a typewriter.ANd why would you care if someone spent 100$ more on a computer than you did?
Do you care when someone bought a 1500 HDTV vs a 1200 HDTV?

Posted by: james on November 30, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

I mean this in all naive sincerity:
What is the Mac ethos?

Posted by: Howard on November 30, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

thrash:I think the point is the opposite, there's nothing inherent in the MachBSD core that is less viable for writing viruses than the Windows kernal.

There are actually a few things that DO make it more secure, but those are easily self-defeated by the end user. (Requiring entry of the system password, and limiting damage to a single user account)

Worms, of course are a completly different story. There's not too many of them floating around, and most worms are patched against fairly quickly. The only exception is the Blaster/Sasser worms which spread via RFC and uPnP, which were features requested by Windows biggest customers.

Posted by: Karmakin on November 30, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

You know those Mac vs PC ads, Howard? That feels exactly like the real world, the one in which people tell you they use a Dell or IBM or whatever, and you quietly go 'ick'.

In guitar terms, it's like using a solid-state amp instead of some cool, hand-wired tube thing.

Posted by: Kenji on November 30, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a physicist ... much of physics has been moving to OS X laptops. Conferences are filled with them and one in Aspen last summer was over 80%.

Posted by: steve on November 30, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

BTW. The real problem in PC security right now is not viruses or worms. It's spyware/malware/adware

What's stopping spyware from spreading on the Mac? My suspicion is that Microsoft being forced to be very hands off in regards to software/applictations has created a jungle in terms of downloads.

On the Mac, most people use most of the software that comes with the computer. If you go to any PC, however you see a long list of free games/apps/screensavers and others such knick-knacks.

Microsoft needs to add to the EULA preventing programming for the OS any program that doesn't fully register with the Add/Remove programs part of the system, then aggressivly going after companies that violate this.

Posted by: Karmakin on November 30, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

So Kenji, are Macs hand-wired tube things? Or was that just an analogy? Okay, okay, I know the answer. It's just that I would hate the Mac ethos to just be about the cool kids versus the dorks, like in those commercials. I myself bought one of the very first Apple II's when they went on sale in about 1980 or '81. They didn't even have a 'c' or an 'e' after the Apple II name back then. But this whole Mac ethos thing is a mystery. Either they work better at a lower cost or they don't. I don't buy a computer to stick it to the Big Blue Man. Yeah, I'm not very cool, granted. Neither would you be with a name like Howard.

Posted by: Howard on November 30, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

The intell processor was introduced so the Mac machines could run MS better. Theory goes that making macs more compatible with MS will also make macs more compatible with malicious scripts. Also, as market share increases for macs, they will no longer be neglected by the designers of malicious code.

Posted by: aaron on November 30, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

If you go to any PC, however you see a long list of free games/apps/screensavers and others such knick-knacks.

that's not MS. that's the fault of the PC vendors who subsidize the cost of their PCs by selling ad space, effectively, in the form of dozens of crappy trialware apps.

and it's little wonder obnoxious spyware gets around so well: most people start their new PC experience, right out of the box, submerged in flashing, jumping crapware apps.

Posted by: cleek on November 30, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Cleek, Thrash, if you read people like Ziff Davis, you'd recognize that, especially on viruses, it's simply a matter of people waiting for "other shoe to drop."

AND... if OSX is so virus-proof, then why does Apple have to releasee patches all the time, just like Microsoft?

Again, bottom line is, unskeptical touting of Apple OR Microsoft is buying mindlessly into corporate culture.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 30, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

No, Cleek, that IS MS:

It can structure Windoze tighter. Karmakian, and Aaron, both get this right.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 30, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Cleek, Thrash, if you read people like Ziff Davis, you'd recognize that, especially on viruses, it's simply a matter of people waiting for "other shoe to drop."

people have been saying that for a decade.

Posted by: cleek on November 30, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Either they work better at a lower cost or they don't.

To me, the mac ethos is about being a computer geek without feeling like one. I did my first programming class on a AppleIIc. But those were nothing like Macs.

Macs have always been great for people who are task-oriented. They let you do the tasks of a power user, without the need to learn a bunch of nonsensical power-user steps. It's not so much that a mac works better, just that it works, and does what you expect.

Plus, they are cute. There's nothing wrong with that.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 30, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

"The intell processor was introduced so the Mac machines could run MS better. Theory goes that making macs more compatible with MS will also make macs more compatible with malicious scripts. Also, as market share increases for macs, they will no longer be neglected by the designers of malicious code."

That is just so wrong on so many levels.
You ARE kidding, right?
You be speaking technobabble.


Posted by: james on November 30, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

No, Cleek, that IS MS:

buy a Dell, then go build your own PC. then tell me which one is cluttered with "free games/apps/screensavers and others such knick-knacks".

those knick-knacks don't come with Windows, they come from the PC vendor.

---

Cleek, Thrash, if you read people like Ziff Davis, you'd recognize that, especially on viruses, it's simply a matter of people waiting for "other shoe to drop."

my first answer was too hasty. let me clarify:

i don't mean to imply it can't happen. i'm only saying it hasn't, despite a decade of people waiting for that "other shoe". and now that OSX is based on a *nix, it gets a whole new level of security.

now that MS is trying to discourage people from running as an admin (with Vista), it could cut back on a lot of the crap Windows is typically plagued with. let's hope.

Posted by: cleek on November 30, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

My first personal computer was a Mac. I got it in 1985. I've been using Windows since the early 90s and I'm ready to come back home. Now if Apple would only hurry up and release the xMac.

Posted by: Gabriel on November 30, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

AND... if OSX is so virus-proof, then why does Apple have to releasee patches all the time, just like Microsoft?

um, patching is not limited to virus-proofing.

patches fix all kinds of bugs, from crashing to bad behavior, to security holes that let other people see your data, to potentially-exploitable security holes.

Posted by: cleek on November 30, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

I think this is just proof of liberals' typical embrace of economically unsound, unsuccessful business models.

Posted by: Dr. Sniff on November 30, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Novell SUSE Linux 10.1

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 30, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

i don't mean to imply it can't happen.

Actually, what happens with spyware moving forward is probably one of the best examples of the difference between Mac's and Pc's.

I was privy to a lot of the work that went into Vista. When they started on it, it was really freaking cool. But Microsoft's commitment to backwards-compatibility caused them to slowly strip out what was innovative about it, until it shipped as the most expensive re-skin in history.

If Mac's start getting inundated with spyware, Apple will write a little app called "iSpy" or something, and it will do exactly what it is supposed to do. If that leads to compatibility problems, they will change the OS, even if it means users need to re-learn the interface.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 30, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

mac users are as fanatical as the bush cultist who infect this blog.

Posted by: Klyde on November 30, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Howard, the tube-amp analogy was a bit lame. But it is as much, or more, about an aesthetic as technology. The Macs are always going to be more inviting to actual use, especially for crteatives, and to the extent that Windows has become popular, that is down to the features it copied from earlier Mac OS's.

Posted by: Kenji on November 30, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK
The conference I was at yesterday was a get-together of various folks from the liberal media ... Of all the notebooks busily being tapped on during the meetings, I'd say about 70% were Macs. This compares to an Apple market share of around 4% in the real world.

Kevin, I suspect you'd find that the "media" in that is at least as important as the "liberal" in affecting the Mac marketshare.

Steve Jobs should be contributing large sums of money to progressive media.

No, see, he's making lots of money from you. Giving money to you would undermine the whole purpose.

That being said, Jobs does at least some giving to left-leaning political causes.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 30, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

I think this is just proof of liberals' typical embrace of economically unsound, unsuccessful business models.(coming from an AOL mail account.)
mac users are as fanatical as the bush cultist who infect this blog.

OK, You guys so win.
macs suck.

Posted by: timmy on November 30, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK
What's stopping spyware from spreading on the Mac?

OSX (along with just about every Unix-ish OS available) is better set up, as I understand, to limit user access and require explicit escalation when installing software and performing lots of other tasks, which makes it harder to sneak in additional software, and harder for software to do sneaky things without alerting the user.

Windows Vista is supposed to be better in this regard than XP, though many of the reviews I've seen of the Release Candidates suggested that the UI around that part of the system sucked pretty badly.

My suspicion is that Microsoft being forced to be very hands off in regards to software/applictations has created a jungle in terms of downloads.

No, Microsoft's obsession with enabling executable content in ways which it thought would facilitate leveraging its OS monopoly into the online space created an operating system that is one great big security hole. People download software for Macs all the time.

In fact, one reason why lots of techie-types that weren't and wouldn't have been Mac fans prior to OSX are now is because its apparently a really great platform for using lots of the vast amounts of distributed-in-source-form Unix software and tools, which often is troublesome to build on Windows.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 30, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

"What is the Mac ethos?"

Thinking you are cool and smart because you bought something unpopular.

---or---

An inability to figure out how the real market works causing your slightly superior product to drop to a 5% market share.

Seriously, is there some "ethos" I missed somewhere else? Because it is basically just a big company that tried to overcontrol its product and mismarketted it and lost the computer wars. If it wasn't for Microsoft working to support Mac to maintain a plausible non-monopoly status, Apple would have a 0.1% market share.

Posted by: mysticdog on November 30, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

The intell processor was introduced so the Mac machines could run MS better.

WRONG!

The Intel chip was introduced because the G5 chips ran too hot to use in laptops. My G5 dual 2.0 tower has 9 (nine!) cooling fans, and the G4 series chips were maxed out for speed. Boot Camp is a useful side effect.

Posted by: PetervE on November 30, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Either they work better at a lower cost or they don't.

I've never really understood this argument.

Is that how you approach buying a car? A watch? Your clothes?

Yes, all other things really being equal, we all buy things at the lowest price.

But all things aren't equal in this case. There are dozens of differences, which seem obvious to those of us who prefer Macs.

If those differences aren't important to you, or if you prefer PCs, by all means, buy a PC. But please don't assume everyone should feel the way you do.

Posted by: pdq on November 30, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

If it wasn't for Microsoft working to support Mac to maintain a plausible non-monopoly status, Apple would have a 0.1% market share.

Where do these folks come from?
Dude, your whole post screams ignorance.

Posted by: timmy on November 30, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

cleek gets it right.

What's stopping spyware from spreading on the Mac? My suspicion is that Microsoft being forced to be very hands off in regards to software/applictations has created a jungle in terms of downloads.
Posted by: Karmakin on November 30, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

That's complete BS.

The reason why OS X (and all unix-derived OSes) are inherently more secure than Windows is the principle of LUP (Least User Privilege). Microsoft has begun to embrace this principle somewhat with Vista (but in a very clumsy way ).

The principle goes like this:
If you are running as Administrator (as previous windows OSes encourage) any program you run is allowed to install whatever nasty trojans and rootkits it likes.

In OS X - you're not running as Root, and you're not encouraged to run as an admin. (though you can). Even if you're logged in as admin - certain "dangerous" tasks are going to require the admin re-authenticate with a password. This is a little annoying, but protects the system from a wide range of threats.

Also, OS X has a pretty decent software firewall that's configured tight by default.

Finally, Macs don't run IE, and therefore do not run MS Outlook and the VBA Macros that enable email viruses to get ahold of your address book and spam themselves all over the net. Nor do they run ActiveX plugins, which essentially installs executable code onto your system when the user is expecting static content - the VBA and ActiveX threats aren't as bad as they used to be, since Microsoft has hobbled these with safety controls, but back when these technologies came out, they enabled some of the worst trojans and viruses ever.

Now that Microsoft is finally embracing LUP, the worry is that their implementation is so clumsy, that users will hate it, and reject it, and simply log in as an Administrator to avoid the constant nags. So Microsoft will have spent 5 years developing a "more secure OS" - that their customers are just going to crack open and use in an unsafe, (but more convenient, to them) way.

Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 30, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK
OSX will eventually have more viruses and worms written for it, since it's Unix-based.

That makes no sense. Being Unix-based does not mean that it will eventually have more viruses and worms written for it. (And "more" implies that there are existing Mac virus and worms; AFAIK, there are 0 demonstrated in the wild, and even the proof of concept one's "demonstrated" by anti-virus software vendors require active, deliberate activation by a privileged user.)

Going to the Intel processors will only invite this even more, Kevin.

Er, no, it won't. Though, I suppose, being able to run Windows makes it more likely that existing viruses and worms may affect users of Apple hardware, running on Intel processors will not make systems running OSX any more vulnerable to viruses and worms.


I don't totally demonize or sanctify either platform; to do so would be to worship at the altar of corporatism.

Maybe so, but your particular arguments about the Mac are complete nonsense.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 30, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Macs don't run IE

Sure they do. Microsoft just stopped making it for the mac because it was teh suck.

Nor do they run ActiveX plugins

They do in the browser, don't they?. Not sure if that has any effect on security.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 30, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

It's funny how a thread like this brings out the "experts" that don't know shit.

Would be computer Experts
Hint one: before you talk about the Mac, go use one (that's really going to require you to own one, for you to have any ability to make real judgments. I really didn't understand what the hell Mac users were on about until I owned one; simply using them at work or at school was not enough. I've owned computers running: Windows, several flavors of Linux, and Mac OS X. You really can't judge any of those platforms unless you have, too. Really).

OK, that covers about 95% of you.

Hint two: before you talk about computer security: understand it.

Hint three: before you talk about comparative computer security, see hint two, and understand how the major computer platforms do what they do (Windows, Linux, *BSD, Mac, other Unix platforms, etc.), and how the hardware has an effect on that platform [sub-hint: the hardware currently has very little effect].

Yeah, that covers the rest of you.

Macs are often given a "4% market share." I don't think the number is all that meaningful in many contexts. In many segments, Macs are very common. Indeed, in my experience: graphics artists, photographers, writers, journalists, and scientists are at least as likely to have a Mac, or even more likely to have a Mac. The Unix-nerd camp of power user is currently shifting to Macs in great numbers, too. Die-hard digit-head Unix geeks like myself are not at all on uncommon on the Mac platform. It's not just artsy types and computer-phobes, and many Windows users are wont to believe.

So I'm not at all surprised that you saw lots of Macs. All of those computer populations have a heavy contribution to left-leaning populations, and it was a left-leaning population you sampled.

Posted by: teece on November 30, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

By the way-

Virtually every Mac user also uses PCs- at work, at the public library, whereever. And...I'm sorry- don't take this personally...we still prefer Macs. (Sorry- I know we're deviants!)

On the other hand, many of the PC zealots I run into (at least on the internet) haven't used a Mac for years.

I'm not saying you should. I'm just saying it's possible there are reasons that lots of otherwise intelligent people actually go out of their way to buy a more expensive computer with a lower market share- even though they have plenty of experience using PCs.

Posted by: pdq on November 30, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

I remember reading something back before we knew just how much of a disaster W would be about what sort of computers presidents had on their desks. Bush I had a PC, but Clinton and Bush II both had Macs. It doesn't break down on political lines quite so neatly.

I do think that there's a higher-than-usual prevalence of macs in southern california based on my anecdotal observations (what I see in coffee shops and the like, plus comparing the platform reports from my L.A.-based blog with an older non-geographicly determined blog).

The Mac premium is not as much as it seems at first glance, especially since there are some quality issues that don't show up in the numbers (the quality on the trackpad on my powerbook is much higher than on, say, a Dell or even an HP. I've also heard some issues about the charger quality on Dells). As a web developer, I find that the Mac platform is perfect since I can run a webserver on my laptop that's damn near identical to what's on my network server. I get the ability to do all the Unix stuff that I need without losing access to mainstream apps (Adobe and Microsoft, in particular. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise: The alternatives just aren't at the same level, if they even exist--last time I looked there was no Unix-based competition for Illustrator).

On customer service, I've found nothing to compare with the Apple Genius Bar from other manufacturers. When it's good, that is. Not all Genius Bars are created equal. I would avoid the Apple Store in the Grove in L.A. at all costs, and I've had bad reports about Michigan Avenue in Chicago and the Pasadena store. But other locations I've been to have been excellent. I have the distinct advantage of living within 3 miles of THREE Apple Stores (and it's not too far to get to Santa Monica).

Posted by: Don Hosek on November 30, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

If it wasn't for Microsoft working to support Mac to maintain a plausible non-monopoly status, Apple would have a 0.1% market share.

Actually, that's probably roughly true. Where would the Mac be if Microsoft had chosen in the past to pull its support for all MS Office programs for the Mac? How would Mac users have communicated with the outside world?

No one grasps network effects like Microsoft.

Posted by: frankly0 on November 30, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

MacBook is definitely far superior to any PC Notebook.

I am surprised, though, that their Unix terminal window looks still the same as in the Unix boxes of the eighties. They can definitely improve upon it for the geeky types who want to use bash.

Posted by: gregor on November 30, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

MacBook is definitely far superior to any PC Notebook.

I wouldn't go that far, unless you're talking about the MacBooks' ability to double as a hot plate.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 30, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Now that Microsoft is finally embracing LUP, the worry is that their implementation is so clumsy, that users will hate it, and reject it, and simply log in as an Administrator to avoid the constant nags.

that's almost a given. many existing Windows apps assume the user is running in a privileged account, so the app can get to the registry, play with the file system as it wishes, etc.. when people start discovering their favorite apps don't work under Vista, they'll have two choices: find a new app, or flip the Run As Admin switch.

ex. developers over at CodeProject are discovering that some of their important development tools (ex. MS's own Visual Studio 05) needs admin privs under Vista or it can't handle the mess of intermediate files it generates during builds. and that's an application development tool that MS itself wrote - one they presumably use in-house to do things like... develop Vista itself.

so, i expect a lot of people are going to be running a mix of user-level and admin-level applications. so, the trick there is to find a program that runs as admin on Vista, that lots of people use, that is vulnerable to exploitation. maybe that'll be hard, maybe not. we'll see.

of course, another alternative is that people will just run as admin because they tire of the security nags (which, i hear, there are a lot of). and well... we're back where we started.

Posted by: cleek on November 30, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

How would Mac users have communicated with the outside world?

Ummm...how do you "communicate with the outside world"? I most often use email, telephone, and IM. (Or post on websites)

What has that got to do with Office?

Posted by: pdq on November 30, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

What has that got to do with Office?

Um, the use of MS Word files as a standard document form for the vast majority of the corporate world, for example? The use of Excel and Powerpoint files for use as spreadsheets and presentation software?

How would you generate those on the Mac without MS Office (or, possibly, even read the latest versions of them reliably?)

Posted by: frankly0 on November 30, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

How would you generate those on the Mac without MS Office

Open Office, the GNU project. Back in the old days, I would change .doc files to .rtf, edit it and send it back as a doc. It's just silly to assume that Mac's are dependent on Microsoft to communicate. Office for the Mac isn't even a good product.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 30, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Actually it tends to confirm the stereotype of progressives as affluent dilletantes from affluent backgrounds. Macs have always been much more expensive than PC's. NOBODY in a poor or lower-income household can ever consider buying a Mac. That this has apparently never occurred to Kevin tends to confirm this stereotype. And, of course, once at an early age you get into one side of the Mac/PC divide, you rarely jump over.

Posted by: captcrisis on November 30, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

I beleive that media have always been an enclave of relatively high mac usage, like academia.

My hypothesis is that the real reason for this is that the first mac's were significantly better at word processing than thier competition. They were, therefore, picked up by lots of high salary occupations where word processing is a primary task (news, television, movies, law, academia, etc).

Posted by: jefff on November 30, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Look at it this way: if Microsoft were really intent on driving the numbers for the Mac way, way down, it would have the best strictly financial reasons in the world to do so.

Every Mac that runs Microsoft Office presents a potential target user who would turn to a PC if ONLY PCs ran Microsoft office. And such a user would be a significant financial win for Microsoft because not only would they continue to pay for Office, they would also pay money to get Windows as well.

I think it's fair to say that Microsoft chose to continue its support for Office on the Mac because it was worried about antitrust issues.

Again, no one understands the power of network effects like Microsoft. It is the very core of their monopoly.

Posted by: frankly0 on November 30, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

Open Office, the GNU project. Back in the old days, I would change .doc files to .rtf, edit it and send it back as a doc. It's just silly to assume that Mac's are dependent on Microsoft to communicate.

Except for the fact that there are always these incompabilities and other glitches that keep others from using these alternatives, even if they don't bother you.

Suppose you're in a panic to deliver a new document or presentation. Do you want to worry that some stupid technical snafu is going to prevent you from meeting your deadline? Most people don't. They buy the product that works reliably, because it is designed around specs fully known to its developers.

Posted by: frankly0 on November 30, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

I wouldn't go that far, unless you're talking about the MacBooks' ability to double as a hot plate.

oooh, cold. Mac takes one below the belt.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on November 30, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

frankly0:

I suspect that MS support for Office on the Mac platform (and that big cash infusion) played a big part in keeping Apple from buckling in the dark years of the late 90s. But I'm curious how much impact Office really has that big of an effect. The one place where the Mac is given almost not consideration is the average corporate office. And that's the realm of MS Office.

Which doesn't say what the original poster meant, but whatever.

MS Office is nice to have on the Mac. I don't like it, and rarely use it, but I'm glad it's there (I tried to use OpenOffice, but it actually manages to be worse than MS Office. The only good thing it has going for it is freedom and openness). I'd be worried if MS abandoned Office on the Mac, primarily because of what it would say about MS intentions, but I wouldn't really miss it all that much.

I don't think it would really kill the Mac, either, unless the Mac makes giant inroads into the basic corporate office. (In either event, open document standards eliminate any worry about this, which is why MS has resisted them for so long, but the seem to me sort-of moving that way).

Interesting tidbit many people (including Mac users) don't know:
the application TextEdit that comes with every modern version of OS X can both read AND write Word documents. Indeed, TextEdit does all of the word processing that 90% of Word users would ever need. Odd (no built-in support for Excel or Powerpoint formats, though).

Posted by: teece on November 30, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

Let me know when Mac servers are taken seriously. Until then, it's just an overpriced typewriter on steroids.

Of course, if all you have to do is play with pictures, type and download iTunes, you're all set.

Posted by: Fitzwillie on November 30, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

get over your stupid over-priced appliances.

Posted by: kevin on November 30, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK
I suspect that MS support for Office on the Mac platform (and that big cash infusion) played a big part in keeping Apple from buckling in the dark years of the late 90s.

I think it played a bigger role in (mostly) killing off WordPerfect; I don't think people used Macs because they had Office available but would have switch en masse off the platform without it, I do think that people who were going to use Macs anyway used Office on it because it was available and better for interchange with non-Mac users instead of using WordPerfect.

MS Office is nice to have on the Mac. I don't like it, and rarely use it, but I'm glad it's there (I tried to use OpenOffice, but it actually manages to be worse than MS Office. The only good thing it has going for it is freedom and openness).

OOo 1.x or 2.x? I find 2.x to be roughly comparable to MS Office on Windows (there are some features of each I prefer), though OOo 1.x was pretty rough. If it wasn't for needing to interoperate with MS Office (for work and for school) I'd probably switch over to OOo entirely (though OOo 2.x is mostly very good for that, too.)

Posted by: cmdicely on November 30, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Every Mac that runs Microsoft Office presents a potential target user who would turn to a PC if ONLY PCs ran Microsoft office. And such a user would be a significant financial win for Microsoft because not only would they continue to pay for Office, they would also pay money to get Windows as well.

That misunderstand MS's bottom line, frankly0.

Microsoft makes their money these days from Office, primarily, not Windows. Not offering Office for the Mac means that there is a chunk of the market (whatever it is, it is significant) that won't give MS a dime.

MS could use their Windows and Office monopoly to try and force Mac users people to Windows AND Office, but it's a bit risky, and not a clear slam dunk. Not only is there a real possibility of that move creating a viable Office competitor (Apple would more or less be forced to fill the gap), it would also open them up to some grave anti-trust concerns.

MS Office is the cash cow. Indeed, MS Office plays a much bigger role in the MS monopoly than Windows does. In that light, MS has no need or desire to get Mac users to run Windows.

Posted by: teece on November 30, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

They buy the product that works reliably, because it is designed around specs fully known to its developers.

Maybe it's just me, or the industry in which I work, but I rarely find that the description above applies to Office products.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 30, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

As for a "I think this is just proof of liberals' typical embrace of economically unsound, unsuccessful business models," several years ago I suggested to my girlfriend that she purchase some Apple stock, so she did. Since then the stock has split and her accountant tells her that it has outperformed every other stock in her portfolio. People who express sentiments such as the above are still living in the 90s. Likewise those that compare Apple prices to Dell - compare comparable machines and Macs look pretty good, pricewise and otherwise.

Factor in costs over the life of the machine, and for small businesses the support costs, and Macs look really good.

As for comparisons with MS, it is not a useful comparison. Apple is a hardware company, MS is a software company. Apple provides a product where the hardware and software are tightly integrated, and this integration is extended to third party developers as a result of early adoption of software development guidelines designed by Apple. The result is a coherent user experience that every Mac user recognizes, and which is still missing from the PC running Windows, including Vista.

Most of the criticism of Macs in these comments just displays their author's ignorance of the real world of Macs.

Posted by: William E. Elston on November 30, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Fitzwillie:
Let me know when Mac servers are taken seriously. Until then, it's just an overpriced typewriter on steroids.

My god, the stupid, it burns! You don't know a damn thing about servers. A Mac XServe makes a great server (hell, an iMac or a PowerMac/MacPro makes a great server). Damn better than Windows at reliability, and it can run all of the stuff the Linux/Unix server could run, and it's much easier to make that happen on top of the Mac BSD than it is on top of Windows, in my experience.

Jesus, the ignorance of some people, and how proud they are of it.

Posted by: teece on November 30, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

teece,

Well, I'm probably mostly agreeing with you.

I do think that Microsoft could have driven the Mac's numbers WAY down had it earlier on deprived it of any support for Office products. At this point, though, there's certainly a core of Mac users who would either not miss Office or would manage to do what they need to do without it. Certainly from Microsoft's point of view, a loss of 5% of the market for the desktop OS is not a big deal in the larger scheme of things.

But I've got to believe that one thing Microsoft keeps in its back pocket as a means to control the MAC market is its support for Office, which it can pull at any time when the numbers start getting worrisome. It wouldn't drive the numbers down to anything like zero anymore, but it would significantly reduce them to safe levels.

Posted by: frankly0 on November 30, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

have you ever noticed that mac users waste nowhere near the time contemplating their machines intrinsic superiority that those pound-foolish pinheads who are either too stubborn or too broke to deepsix their wormy pc's squander with blustering rationalizations for shortsighted parsimony?

Posted by: teknozen on November 30, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

PCs are a heck of a lot easier on sysadmins too. can you ghost a mac? (or better yet, can you ghost 100 at once remotely?) I don't know how easy or hard it is to network them these days, but it was a monumental pain to network old macs compared to PCs.

I'd agree with Teece about the importance of office too. I spend most of the day exchanging word files with vendors and excel files with coworkers - we don't have to worry about the person on the other end being able to open the file.

I did think about a mac when I bought a new laptop this summer for grad school, but its shiny quotient didn't justify $400 extra for the same processor speed and a smaller hard drive.

Posted by: Hillary on November 30, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

1. Klyde is right about the almost-Stalinist at times Mac lovers culture.

As I said, ahem, Teece I use Macs at work, and in a business (newspaper editing) where theyre the norm. Never did I say that theyre not superior to PCs in a number of ways (though PCs have closed that gap somewhat).

I did say theyre not perfect, theyre not something to be worshipped AND that, if you do so, youre buying into corporatist culture.

2. Peter is right about WHY Mac went to Intel processors. IF that leads to greater virus susceptibility, or other security issues, well, then Mac has to pay that price.

3. What I said just above applies in spades if using Boot Camp to run PC apps on a Mac leads to problems.

4. CMDicely, I normally agree with you, but think youre wrong. The fact that Unix itself has enough viruses and other issues certainly implies that if enough Macs are available to provide sufficient vectors, viral and other problems will pick up. As for the specifics of how Intel processors could contribute to the problem, Im by no means the first person in the world to mention concern about this.

5. Captcrisis is quite right. Ask Steve Jobs how many people in China are buying Macs vs. PCs.

6. Frankly0 has several good comments.

7. As for buying a Mac because Jobs is theoretically a supporter of liberal causes, hes just donated to the NDC, DCCC, Pelosi, Bill Bradley and Kennedy over the last five election cycles. No PAC donations listed, otherwise. And, nothing like Gates foundation.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 30, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK
Open Office, the GNU project.

Open Office isn't a GNU project. GNU is a project of the Free Software Foundation. OpenOffice is a project sponsored by Sun Microsystems, though the product is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 30, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus, the ignorance of some people, and how proud they are of it.

I don't care what they MAKE or if they tapdance and shit marshmallows, no one takes them seriously when they are building a network.

Posted by: Fitzwillie on November 30, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

I've used both OOo 1.x and 2.x, cmdicely.

When I used to run Linux, I used it rather than the hassle of buying Office and trying to make it run well under Wine.

But it's pokey, pokey, even moreso than Office.

On the Mac, it is not only pokey, it is not a native Mac app, either [it either runs under X Windows, or it runs with a Java interface]. And it shows. It does not behave like a Mac app (NeoOffice is addressing this now, I think, though, with a real Cocoa interface for Mac OS X. Cocoa is really what makes the Mac GUI worth it for me).

Add those two factors, and I can't stand it on the Mac. I wouldn't even have Office, though, if it weren't for my wife needing it. I really don't use Office that much.

[ I use a text editor to edit text. I use LaTeX to typeset stuff. I use Keynote 2 for presentations. I use Mathematica for all of the stuff that most people do in Excel ].

Posted by: teece on November 30, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

teece,

Just to follow up on your point about Office being much more the source of the MS monopoly nowadays than its OS -- basically, I pretty much agree on that.

But it really does go to make the very point I was arguing: that in today's corporate world one really DOES need access to MS Office to communicate properly (which is why it's a monopoly).

What that mostly implies is that if MS did remove support for Office from the Mac, a great many of those users would probably have to go with the desktop OS that WOULD support Office, namely Windows.

Of course, it wouldn't be a huge win for MS, not least because it would only represent at the very most an increase of 5% of their OS base, and more likely only 1-3%.

But if the usage of Mac ever rose to, say, 10%, and looked to be going higher, the mathematics and decisions would go in a very different direction.

Posted by: frankly0 on November 30, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

Macs have always been much more expensive than PC's. NOBODY in a poor or lower-income household can ever consider buying a Mac.

Oh, really?

Posted by: Thlayli on November 30, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK
But I've got to believe that one thing Microsoft keeps in its back pocket as a means to control the MAC market is its support for Office, which it can pull at any time when the numbers start getting worrisome. It wouldn't drive the numbers down to anything like zero anymore, but it would significantly reduce them to safe levels.

People for whom keeping up with MS's current Office suite offerings are the key factor in OS selection are already buying Windows boxes: killing Mac Office would just mean people who are less concerned with that would use some other office suite (likely, from marketshare numbers, OOo) for their Macs and, in environments that used both Macs and PCs because of some other software, also on their PCs.

Killing Office for Mac would probably hurt MS's office suite marketshare more than it would hurt Apple's OS marketshare.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 30, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Macs are also prevalent now in Geo- and Planetary sciences. In a couple weeks I'll be at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting in San Francisco. It's the largest gathering of it's kind in the world (13-15k of us). Each of the many rooms with oral presentations will have both PCs and Macs. As it was last year, the Macs will be fitted with BOTH Powerpoint and Keynote (the Apple version).

Hopefully other venues will soon adopt this format.

Posted by: zircon on November 30, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

to me, pc's are more democratic and therefore more progressive. plus, the mac cult is annoying.

Posted by: jw on November 30, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

SocraticGadfly

I wasn't talking to you mainly.
Never did I say that theyre not superior to PCs in a number of ways

I didn't say you did say that. I love my Mac, but I really don't care what you or anyone else chooses to use.

But what I said about security does applies to this:

The fact that Unix itself has enough viruses and other issues certainly implies that if enough Macs are available to provide sufficient vectors,

"Unix" is a very vague thing. Unix viruses are rare, and not that important in the whole Unix security picture. There are many Unix security exploits: viruses are not a primary part of that.

But what "Unix?"

It makes a huge difference.

Mac OS X, Debian Linux, Red Hat, SuSe, Fedora, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Trusted Solaris, NeXt, these are all Unix. They have wildly varying differences in default security.

The fact that Mac OS X runs on Intel hardware or is Unix-based is, at best, very ancillary. Any Unix installation can be made horribly insecure or as tight as Fort Knox.

Security is a human practice, not a technology. Apple has decent security practices (much, much better than Microsoft's, not on par with something like OpenBSD, but quite respectable, if still far from perfect).

That human factor is now, and always will be, the biggest factor determining the security of any operating system, Apple or otherwise.

If Mac OS X becomes horribly insecure, it will be because Apple made it so. It will have nothing to do with Unix or Intel foundations.

The Intel switch has, for all intents and purposes, zero effect on Mac OS X security.

Posted by: teece on November 30, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

How would you generate those on the Mac without MS Office?


Text edit saves as rtf, word xml, word.

Also reads word docs.

And a word about MS and Mac office.
The MBU at MS makes MS a tidy profit for putting out mac Office.

Posted by: james on November 30, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK
to me, pc's are more democratic and therefore more progressive.

PC's are "democratic"? How?

Posted by: cmdicely on November 30, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Teece, I know you weren't speaking primarily to me. The "ahem" was just meant for the one particular items.

I still think you overrate the Apple security efforts, and the "human factor" along with them, and underrate the vector issue.

If Macs get more popular, they'll get dinged more.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 30, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

When I talk about some Mac aficionados being so rabid in supporting corporate culture, at bottom line, sometimes it is like JW says.

Beyond that, it's buying into corporate culture in general.

I don't tout Google over Ask Jeeves, or vice verse. I don't tout VISA over MasterCard.

I try to avoid wearing any T-shirt or polo shit that has any sort of recognized corporate logo or name, for that matter.

If Steve Jobs wants me to blather about Macs, he can effing pay me -- that is, if I'm willing to whore myself to corporate culture that much.

The "mimetic" word-of-mouth touting of businesses in general is something I try to avoid like the plague.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 30, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

"When I hear of Mac Ethos, I reach for my gun."

With apologies to S.H. and H.J.

Posted by: MNPundit on November 30, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

70% Macs is not exceptional, where the users all purchased
their own machines.

On Amazon.com, 6 of top 10 selling computers are Macs.

And 12 of top 20.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/ref=pd_ts_pc_ldr/102-1091672-7407306


Posted by: Anonymous on November 30, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

I didnt have a chance to read through all the comments, but I did see enough to raise the specter of the old Mac vs. PC flame wars.

All I have to add is this: in almost any given setting, I know more about Windows than anyone else in the room. I am very well compensated to be a Windows system administrator in an enterprise setting. I think it says a lot about what I think about Windows that I have nothing but Macs at home. I have a laptop and a mini, my wife another laptop and the kids have an iMac. On average, I spend no more that 20-30 minutes a month supporting all 4 machines, and thats usually to just to run the patches.

PS: to the few that predict OS X viruses as the Mac gains marketshare from the iPod halo effect. In the 5+ years that OS X has been out, there has yet to be a single reported OS X virus. Not one.

Posted by: Polonius19 on November 30, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Thlayli:

Posting a link to the MiniMac webpage does nothing to prove your contention that people in lower-income households do consider buying Macs.

(In fact, since many more gaming apps exist for PCs, price probably has less to do with that decision than both you and the person with whom you are arguing think.)

Back to the main point, though, and speaking of thinking:

Posting a marketing webpage is not logical argumentation. When you understand that, you may post again.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 30, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Anonymous:

Your Amazon stats are comparing Apples and oranges, as Mac doesn't have clones.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 30, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Steve Jobs is giving money to liberals... and so are other apple employees. It is paying off handsomely on wall street...

http://www.slate.com/id/2151355/?nav=tap3
http://www.bluefund.com/

Posted by: tomboy on November 30, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK
If Macs get more popular, they'll get dinged more.

You keep using the word "more" as if Apples were getting dinged now, and the difference between threats in the wild for each platform were simply one of degree; this is not the case. There aren't any actual confirmed viruses or worms in the wild targetting OSX. Zero. None. (Of course, macro viruses targetting, e.g., Microsoft Word can affect Word on the Mac, and there are a handful of "proof of concept" threats created by anti-virus vendors to hawk their goods for the Mac, but that generally would pose no real threat even if they were in the wild, since they tend to require direct intervention to cause harm.)

Look, of the three computers in my house, two are Windows XP-only boxes, and one is a Windows XP/Kubuntu [Linux] dual boot. I'm hardly a raving Mac fanboy. But your whole attempt to suggest that the Mac platform is no different than Windows except that its gotten lucky so far and eventually is going to get hit just like Windows is, well, crazy. It's like you've fetishized "balance" so much that instead of becoming a mouthpiece for one corporate master or another, you've done the equally insane of closing your eyes and claiming "everything is equal" without any rational basis.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 30, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

Heres my off-the-cuff comparison of roughly comparable OS from both sides, on 0-100 scale not taking price into consideration.

Mac 10.1/Window XP Home: 91/81

Mac 9.2/Windows 2000: 87/74 originally; 83/82 today.

Why the shift? Because more and more apps and NOT just Office apps dont run/support on pre-OSX anymore, whereas most Windoze apps will go back to 2000 and many all the way back to Windoze 98. (Im thinking of QuarkXpress, for example, where you just cant run newer versions on older Macs.)

Mac 8.6/Windows 98SE: 85/68 originally; 77/79 today, for the reasons above.

Now, many of the most rabid Mac users will cry foul at this point, saying people upgrade all the time.

Well, those poorer people who arguable cant afford either a new Mac OR a new PC can do OK on a kind of old PC with Windows 2000 and pretty decent on an older PC with Windows 98.

Yes, I know that theres not much in the way of official MS support for Windows 98, and that Vistas official release may dwindle official support for Windows 2000. But, thats not what Im talking about. (Besides, try to get official Apple support for 9.2.)

Im talking about, within one family of OS, cross-platform

Now, if Vista is enough different that Windows 98, or even more so, Windows 2000, cross-OS app usage is gone, thats a different story.

Or, when, on the Mac side, we have nothing but OSX Macs out there, and were just talking issues within different versions of OSX, this might be a different conversation.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 30, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

CM, if somebody wants to call a virus or a worm a Trojan, that might be true for OSX. Sorry. Just enter OSX + virus on Google and get 1.3 million hits. (Including Apple PR trying to shoot them down.)

Also, why do even major antivirus companies such as Symantec make versions of their software for OSX? If there were really no problems, and if Mac users are so savvy, then we wouldnt have Norton Systemworks or similar for OSX.

(The Google hit for antivirus software + OSX is 383,000; respell that as OS X with space, and you get an additional 874,.000 hits. These dont all relate to Symantec, MacAfee, etc., but also many other sources.

And Symantec calls a virus a virus. (Note that this message is on Macworld, no less!)

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 30, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

Other rebuttals:

1) On Mac Server
I can't disagree with the statement that OS X Server is not taken seriously. It's well-documented that the Darwin kernel has some serious performance issues. The same exact hardware running Linux is much quicker. The difference isn't meaningful on desktops or laptops, but it is for servers when your bang-per-buck is carefully measured, and how many users supported per unit of hardware is a critical metric. It's even been theorized that this performance issue may not be possible to fix without a major rewrite. (You should be able to find articles on this on ArsTechnica). However - the hardware itself, is top notch. Most sysadmins won't give a flying fuck what OS is running, and would simply just lay down linux on it. The server market isn't usually so dependent on the OS, because most server-side apps are pretty much OS-agnostic (apache, MySQL, Oracle, tomcat, samba, etc).

2) On Mac Enterprise functionality
Compared to Microsoft, the network management tools for Mac Server are several generations behind. There is nothing even remotely like ActiveDirectory and Group Policy Objects for Macintosh. If you're managing a network of hundreds of Mac clients, I'm sure this could be a black mark.
As Hillary points out, no, there's nothing like Symantec Ghost or Tivoli or Altiris, other remote image and management products for Macs.
However, there are a lot of really cool things that can be done with Macs with regard to remote booting, and mountable network disk images that makes some of that argument moot. The real problem there is that most qualified network admins aren't going to have any experience in the mac-specific tools.

3) Security/virus vectors
Socratic, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point (that greater marketshare will bring more security problems to the Mac). This claim was made by Linux critics in the 1990's, and has absolutely not panned out at all. I doubt it will be proven for Macintoshes, because I doubt the platform will ever gain the kind of market critical mass that would prove it one way or another.
Non-technical people, without a background in computer security, are not going to be able to understand the security architecture argument that readily demonstrates how OS X has inherent safeguards that make the kind of compromises and vulnerabilities found on Windows commonplace.
I've heard this argument made about Macintoshes since the early 1990's, when computer security first got popular attention.
The problem of insecure systems is not caused by popularity. The problem is caused by poor practices, which is bolstered by poor design. Windows is poorly designed, and encourages users to poor practice. That's really all there is to it. The proof that's good enough for me is; I have 4 Macs at home, and I don't have the kinds of problems that I often spend my weeknights helping my Windows-using friends and family fix. (thank GOD for those USB thumb-drives - most people actually back up their important files nowdays, which wasn't the case 3 or 4 years ago). My kids have been using Macs since they were 5 years old, and they haven't been able to download or otherwise install anything harmful to their systems yet.

4) Polonius19's home/work experience
I am a professional systems integrator, going on 15 years now, and I work mainly on Windows systems. I also have Macs at home. The "extra" expense in buying these systems has saved me untold hours troubleshooting and fixing broken Windows installs. Actually, I got my first Mac in 1996, so in 1994, with the first Windows PC I bought, I do recall coming home from work, and working on some of the same damn problems on my home system. No thanks! I *am* grateful to Microsoft for so poorly designing every product they sell, that I have made a career out of fixing things.

Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 30, 2006 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, are you suggesting that it's the technology of the Mac that keeps viruses away -- rather than its relative obscurity in the world at large? I am curious about this, and I don't have an opinion myself.

We do occasionally hear, however, about hackers breaking into goverment systems -- and I assume that those are unix-based, like the Mac, and not Windows-based. Or is this a wrong assumption?

Posted by: JS on November 30, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Love my Mac. :) I have a wonderful 12" G4 Powerbook, and I've used Macs since 1986.

Glad to hear that there are so many at the progressive events. Apple is definitely a much better fit with progressive values than Microsoft. Microsoft is a bunch of jerks who are into competition and money, and that's it. (Except their Mac unit, of course!)

Posted by: DanM on November 30, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Huh, I oddly think that both cmdicely and SocraticGadfly right on the "ding more" front.

cmdicely is correct about the level threat that exists for the Mac. Take all the known viruses and spyware known. Divy them up into categories. Windows, which is 90% of the desktop market, has essentially 100% of the viruses.

Mac OS X has no viruses and perhaps 2 or 3 privilege-escalation trojans. Mac OS X had less than a hundred. Linux and all other Unices have very few (I'd say less than a hundred, but it may be a bit more, I'm not sure).

So the theory that the bad guys hammer the hell out of Windows because it is popular has an real problem. Why aren't 4% of the current malware threats for Mac OS X, and 6% for Linux? Yes, you can make up plausible explanations, but the theory is still flawed. If next year, Mac OS X somehow got a 50% market share, there is no chance it would have the same security nightmare than Windows has. It would not have 50% of the malware threats, even if you gave hackers a lot of time to catch up, or even if you only counted new malware.

However, I think that SocraticGadly is correct that Mac OS X is going to get "dinged more."

Why? It's a rising star. A lot of Windows virus writers want to prove a point. So Mac OS X will get dinged more. The Apple codebase is getting a bit bigger, so more bugs might creep in. Open source code is very popular, too, and getting lots of attention, and there is a lot of open source code in OS X, so some number of general GNU/BSD flaws might be exploited.

However, Mac OS X won't get compromised as much as Windows does unless something really changes at Apple. There will be at least one big, nasty exploit of Mac OS X at some point, I suspect (it's almost impossible to completely secure a desktop operating system). There won't be the weekly nasty exploits unless Apple really changes.

I think the reality is this: Mac OS X is more secure than Windows. Period. I think most will admit that, Windows fanatics that think (erroneously) that the Mac is only more secure than Windows because nobody targets it.

The market share issue plays a part, but it's not the major part. Mac OS X is much better about security by default. People take security more seriously at Apple, it seems. They take reasonable steps to make the machine a bit secure out of the box. Apple saw MS's mistakes, and avoided security nightmares like ActiveX et al. They also started with a Unix foundation (BSD and NeXT) which was built with network-awareness from the ground up, and thus took security more seriously (Admin vs non-Admin users actually works on Mac OS X: it's a joke on WinXP/2K. It didn't even exist on Win98/ME/95; we'll see how much progress Vista makes here). MS has gotten better at these things, but has a long way to go.

Microsoft also has an amazingly complicated and bloated code base, and an insanely baroque development process. It also has major quality control issues with 3rd-party coders getting lots of crappy driver code into the very kernel itself. And it has major issues with millions of lines of code written and designed in an era when computer security was an afterthought, if a thought at all.

All of these things add up to make security much, much harder for Microsoft. Apple, on the other hand, has advantages on all of these fronts.

If Apple really drops the ball on their development ethos, things could get bad for them, but if things go on as they are now, Mac OS X will be much more secure than Windows for the foreseeable future. Yes, security will get harder in the future (Apple will "get dinged more"), but Mac OS X will still be light years ahead of Microsoft on that front.

Posted by: teece on November 30, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, it was the fact that IBM was the 900 pound gorilla through the 1970s and into the early 1980s when the concept of the personal computer was emerging. IBM's announcement that it was developing its own desktop computer instantly suppressed the market for other computers. The original pc became the operating standard in business and academia for a good long while, and the Mac system with integrated GUI did not come around until later. I remember a demonstration of the original Mac in the early or mid '80s, and it was not all that impressive.

There is a strong element of the "qwerty' effect for MS and the Intel processor line (ie: the technology and organization or city that gets the lead tends to keep it for a long time, even though the qwerty keyboard is far from optimal). My reason for owning a desktop mac is that I don't have to worry about spyware and virii, not to mention the fact that the operating system is solid and intuitive. On the other hand, I own an old IBM laptop for typing away from home because I like the feel of the keyboard, but I don't take it online.

Posted by: Bob G on November 30, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

PCs would be more democratic/progressive if everybody ran Linux instead of Windows. But they don't and so they aren't. I'm sick of Windows/Office and Linux just doesn't cut it on the desktop (and I have tried various distros). I'm switching back to Mac. Hopefully Apple will improve iWork but even if it doesn't I don't care. I'll just use NeoOffice or even OpenOffice. X11 doesn't scare me. And don't forget about Sun. Apple may very well gobble it up and then it would have not just StarOffice but also Solaris and the CPU business. "At the end of 2005, Apple had $8.7 billion in cash and short term investments, about 15% of its market capitalization." LINK And that doesn't even count Apple's record breaking profits in 2006.

I know maybe gay rights are not the most important thing for straight people but they are important for me. Steve Ballmer and his wife were behind Microsoft pulling support for the anti-discrimination measure in Washington state. Only after a huge outcry from the gay community, led by the indomitable John Aravosis, did Microsoft reverse course but it still delayed the measure for a full year. And while I accept the libertarian arguments that such laws are not really necessary they still have an important symbolic meaning. If other minorities are protected so should we. The hell with Microsoft and Ballmer and the whole gang of monopolists.

Posted by: Gabriel on November 30, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

Oops, Mac OS 9 had less than a hundred viruses. Mac OS X has none, and a couple of proof-of-concept trojans.

Posted by: teece on November 30, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

I love a good mac/pc war!
My 2 cents--macs are designed for users, Windows is designed for applications.

Posted by: sandbag on November 30, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a good metric for you Socratic Gadfly:

Go to http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/stig.

These are the Defense Department Security Implementation Guides for various operating systems.

These documents list out guidelines for hardening the system from it's default state, to close up the worst security vulnerabilities.

You can split hairs over the technical definitions of whether an attack is a "virus" or a "trojan" or whether there's a live attacker trying to rootkit you. If someone or something breaks into your box, this is called a vulnerability.

The "Macintosh" document is 644 kb.
The "NSA Windows XP" document is 1737 kb.

This isn't because one platform is more popular than the other. It's because one platform, in it's default state, needs over TWICE the configuration effort, in order to get it into a "secure" (by DoD standards) state.

Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 30, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

Are you suggesting that it's the technology of the Mac that keeps viruses away -- rather than its relative obscurity in the world at large? I am curious about this, and I don't have an opinion myself.

That is exactly the case, JS.

Any machine is crackable. Unix compromises are generally harder, and *much* harder to automate, which is crucial.

It's so easy to not only compromise Windows, but compromise Windows automatically with cookie-cutter code, that idiots can (and do) write rather successful Windows exploits.

The underlying technology and security mindset of Unix operating systems make this kind of exploit much less common (indeed, I only know of one widespread and serious automated Unix exploit: the Morris worm in the '80s.

The Morris worm in the 1980s brought entire Unix networks to their knees. Unix people learned way back then to take security more seriously. There is around 20 years of real security thinking in Unix, and it's built for server/multi-user work from the beginning (ie, a better design for security than Windows).

Windows is seriously playing catch up on that front.

So yes, market share is emphatically not the reason for Microsoft's horrible security. It plays a part, but it's a fairly small part.

Posted by: teece on November 30, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

We do occasionally hear, however, about hackers breaking into goverment systems -- and I assume that those are unix-based, like the Mac, and not Windows-based. Or is this a wrong assumption?
Posted by: JS on November 30, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Check my last post. The government (and the military) uses tons of Windows systems; even as "weapons systems", and has a standard guideline for securing them.

Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 30, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Oddly enough, I was thinking about this just the other day after I'd seen yet another one of those wacky Mac v. PC commercials, the one with the scrapbook of their time together.

I even came up with some slogans, like "Macs: for your feminine side", or "Macs: for those who feel but don't think", or "Macs: for those who are nurturing and caring, if you know what we mean, not that there's anything inherently wrong about that".

-- JConfig

Posted by: TLB on November 30, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK
CM, if somebody wants to call a virus or a worm a Trojan, that might be true for OSX.

Okay, so there is one OSX virus in the wild, and it can't spread over the internet. OSX/Leap-A is a LAN virus (it cannot spread over the internet, only a local network), and it (as most of the "proof of concept" viruses targetting Macs) requires being actively run and produces a security warning if the user is not an admin user, can't spread by any mechanism that is enabled by default, and can't infect system applications, only user applications that the current user has write access to.

Which, essentially, demonstrates why Macs are relatively safe: the more effective access policy on Macs makes it very hard for viruses to do the kind of pervasive damage that they do on PCs.

Just enter OSX + virus on Google and get 1.3 million hits.

Yes, so? Most of them are talking about the absence of viruses on OSX. What's your point?

Also, why do even major antivirus companies such as Symantec make versions of their software for OSX?

To make money. The same reason they make versions of their software for any platform.

If there were really no problems, and if Mac users are so savvy, then we wouldnt have Norton Systemworks or similar for OSX.

Yes, but I never said Mac users were "so savvy". They are as gullible as anyone else, which is why the more effective access policy system in OSX is a critical part of its security infrastructure compared to Windows.

Of course, even that system can't stop users from being tricked into wasting money, hard drive space, and processor cycles on antivirus software.

(Actually, there is a serious use for these, as one useful feature they have in heterogenous environments is the detection and removal of viruses that can be "carried" on an OSX machine that affect windows boxes.)


The Google hit for antivirus software + OSX is 383,000; respell that as OS X with space, and you get an additional 874,.000 hits.

So? What, exactly, is your point with these google hit counts? (Though, its interesting to note that (at least for me, using personalized search) one of the first page of results on that search is about how Symantec's AntiVirus software makes OS X less secure.


And Symantec calls a virus a virus.

For someone whose studious neutrality in the OS wars is a result of an articulated desire to avoid being a corporate marketing tool, your breathless repetition of an anti-virus makers self-serving description of a "proof of concept" virus that isn't in the wild is, well, amusing.

As if being a free mouthpiece for Symantec's marketing department were somehow superior for doing the same thing for Apple or Microsoft.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 30, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

However, I think that SocraticGadly is correct that Mac OS X is going to get "dinged more."

i'll say it one more time:

people have been making this prediction for at least a decade. as long as viruses have been a problem on PCs, people have been predicting it's just a matter of time before Macs have the same problem, too. well, uh, maybe. but you look silly saying it year after year.

there'd be huge street cred to the kid who pulls off the first true Mac virus, much more than there would be for a *nix trojan, especially since Macs are still considered virgin territory. and yet... there has never been a real Mac virus.

and yet... i still use PCs, because that's what my job requires. and i spend money year after year, trying to keep all my PCs up-to-date with anti-virus and anti-spyware software.

Posted by: cleek on November 30, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

The Google hit for antivirus software + OSX is 383,000; respell that as OS X with space, and you get an additional 874,.000 hits.

yeah, and "george bush genius" gives you 1,240,000 hits.

Posted by: cleek on November 30, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know about about the poobahs who go to liberal media conferences, but down here in the trenches, where progressive politics are fought out on the street level, its pretty much a straight PC world. They work well enough to get the job done and they're ubiquitous. A common language, not technology, is whats important.

Posted by: Zippy on November 30, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

and i spend money year after year, trying to keep all my PCs up-to-date with anti-virus and anti-spyware

Have you determined that free anti-virus software is not good enough?

Posted by: JS on November 30, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

Here's to the crazy ones.
The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.
The ones who see things differently.
They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo.
You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them, disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.
About the only thing that you can't do is ignore them.
Because they change things. They invent. They imagine. They heal. They explore. They create. They inspire. They push the human race forward.
Maybe they have to be crazy.
How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?
Or sit in silence and hear a song that's never been written?
Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?
We make tools for these kinds of people.
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.

Posted by: Steve Jobs on November 30, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

Have you determined that free anti-virus software is not good enough?

nope. never tried any. i'm not convinced people working for free would be motivated to keep it up-to-date.

but, i finally weaned myself off the Big Two.

on a different note: the dearth of Mac viruses kinda deflates the idea that the anti-virus software people themselves are responsible for writing viruses. if they were, they're either making a deliberate decision to leave the Mac market untapped, or they can't write one.

Posted by: cleek on November 30, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

nope. never tried any. i'm not convinced people working for free would be motivated to keep it up-to-date.

commercial antivirus is a protection racket.

...or they can't write one.

hmmmm. . .

Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 30, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

Free antivirus software is not necessarily written by people working for free. Some things are more complex than they appear...

Posted by: JS on November 30, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

JS, true. but there's no such thing as a free lunch.

commercial antivirus is a protection racket

to some extent, yes. but there certainly are virus out there. and, since i run a business off my PCs, i really can't afford to have them get whacked.

Posted by: cleek on November 30, 2006 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

Just to throw it out there, but I still think those Mac v. PC ads would have been a million times better if they'd cast the obnoxious witless Kewl Kid as the PC, and the charming, halfway-bright-lookin' kid as the Mac.

Posted by: Dan on November 30, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

I'm commenting without reading the thread, and I dislike when people do that. Sorry.

Kevin's history of knee-jerk slaps at us Mac users has always seemed to me like a metaphor for his tendency to bash progressives for not buying his passionless politics, "centrist" policymaking, and quick acceptance of mediocrity and incompetence. The entertaining Mac commercials just underscore this visually.

Posted by: shortstop on November 30, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

To clarify: I realize that this Drum post was not a gratuitous shot at Mac users.

Refreshing.

Posted by: shortstop on November 30, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

indeed. i'm typing this very comment from a spanking new 24' iMac. your site looks faboluous at this resolution, btw. :)

Posted by: stephen on November 30, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

Whew!

Sorry I'm late.

I kind of got into it over at the Chef Paul vs. Mrs. Dash thread.

Posted by: skip intro on November 30, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Zippy, you're right but I don't think this is a partisan discussion. I'm typing this on a home-built PC running Vista. We're just debating the pros and cons of two platforms. But if Mr. Jobs would offer us a low cost, expandable Mac that allows users to upgrade according to their needs; something that would permit the fighters in the trenches, "the crazy ones," to recycle their existing PC components and save money...

Posted by: Gabriel on November 30, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

IBM-compatible hardware + Linux = fast and secure platform for much less than a Mac. Plus, you don't depend on a hardware monopoly.

Of course, if you buy brand name computers, then you might as well buy a Mac. I see no advantage in buying one for the simple tasks most users do (word processing, for example).

Of course, there's nothing like a Mac for design stuff and nobody beats Windows at gaming. But with linux distros becoming more user friendly (like Ubuntu) we can expect Linux's market share to grow, and consequently get more popular proprietary apps ported.

Posted by: Alejandro on November 30, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

I really do not understand getting viruses for Windows. I have been using broadband since the summer of 2000 (when I had to buy a modem for $300!) with minimal (read no) anti-virus programs and I've never had a problem.

You can avoid most viruses if you're not an idiot.

Of course now I'm using Firefox with AVG, Spybot, and Adaware but still. No viruses.

Posted by: MNPundit on November 30, 2006 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

But with linux distros becoming more user friendly (like Ubuntu) we can expect Linux's market share to grow, and consequently get more popular proprietary apps ported.

I wish. I've used Ubuntu but it still has a lot of catching up to do. Linux just can't seem to get the font rendering right and that's essential for the desktop. The gaming market is important but Intel Macs and x86 Linux machines can always dual-boot Windows. I want to see both Mac and Linux gain market share. That should encourage game companies to develop for OpenGL instead of or in addition to DirectX.

Posted by: Gabriel on November 30, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

We Leftists are like so individualistic, ya know? It's like so easy to spot one of those right wing Nazis by their laptop brand, 'cuz like only Nazis don't buy Macs, right? Oh look, there's another Nazi - I know 'cuz he's dressed so like suburban and boring, like he's not wearing any black at all, and he doesn't stink of patchouli. Isn't it cool being so open-minded and tolerant and individualistic? I'm really into it.

Posted by: LeftistDipShit on November 30, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

It's like so easy to spot one of those right wing Nazis by their laptop brand, 'cuz like only Nazis don't buy Macs, right?

Sure they do. Look at Rush Limbaugh. :)

Posted by: Gabriel on November 30, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

OK, Mr. LeftistDipShit, come on in.

Just lie down on the couch there. Relax. Make yourself comfortable.

Why don't we start with your childhood...

Posted by: skip intro on November 30, 2006 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

Christ almighty. Didn't we get tired of this crap like a decade ago? I'm typing on a PC laptop, I own two Macs, I program on whatever my boss tells me to. I've been the Macintosh OS specialist for a Big Ten university, a Windows system administrator for a small southern art school, and I can categorically say, WHY give a fuck? Use what you like. Use what makes you happy. Both platforms have their strengths and weaknesses. Let it go people.

Posted by: DanF on November 30, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, B.S. Jobs should be lowering his f***ing margins so us poor PC saps can afford to switch. Ethos, my ath.

Posted by: secularhuman on November 30, 2006 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Now this is my kind of religious war.

By the way, at my house we have 2 macs, 2 linux machines, and a windows box. I think we're covered.

Posted by: craigie on November 30, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

This is so silly. "I am left and cool cause I use a laptop built by a control freak who doesn't pay as well and fires people." That makes sense - fer sure.

Use what makes sense for your life. Most of the people at the conference would do better on Windows, better software and more chices. But who really cares. Mac market share is small because it looks a bit prettier and is a status symbol - like Armani or Zanella clothes - and is way too expensive. This is such not a Democratic issue.

Don

Posted by: Don on November 30, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Sigh. A materialist community. I think Mac users simply like to flaunt that they spent more on their privacy invading GOP spy boxes. Like Jag drivers. But they are still Fords. And are still cataloged in a vast information superiority net. Maybe a stand alone Commodore 64 would be better these days.
Nothing sillier than a "progressive" with materialist brand bias.

Posted by: Sparko on November 30, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Love dem PowerBooks.

Posted by: Tosh on November 30, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:Spyware is technically possible on the Mac. Sure if you're installing software to the system it'll request your system password, but installing software does this, and if you're already installing software, 50% of your users are going to expect that this this expected behavior, and type in the password without question. A further 40% are not going to know WTF they're asking for and type in their e-mail password.

I am NOT kidding on this.

So I don't mean technically possible meaning using some obscure loophole, I mean technically as in if you wanted to make it you could make it. (And I HAVE seen it before. There's just not much of it)

Posted by: Karmakin on November 30, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Karmakin;
It is certainly possible, in fact, there's supposedly a spyware program that installs from some Sony Music CD's.

However, this spyware is easily removable, UNlike the Windows counterpart, which intercepts filter-driver calls to make it's own files invisible so that even a person with administrator access cannot delete the program.

Posted by: Ted Haggard on November 30, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

. . . I can categorically say, WHY give a fuck? . . .
Posted by: DanF on November 30, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

Because something like 70% of the spam on the internet comes from botnets; rootkitted Windows boxes running software to hijack someone else's computer to indiscriminately spew millions of spam emails.

If other people would stop running inherently insecure machines, the rest of us wouldn't have to suffer this bullcrap. Or at least the spammers would have to work that much harder, and be easier to catch when they break the law.

Posted by: Ted Haggard on November 30, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of the politics of Apple enthusiasts, does anyone remember Alan Greenspan's advertising for Apple?

Picture and video.

Maybe someone knows what computers the Fed used when he ran it.

Posted by: JS on December 1, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Ted Haggard, is the Mac immune even to Microsoft Outlook email viruses? And to viruses included in email attachments that naive users clicks on?

If I run a program that is in an attachment, how does the machine keep it from doing unwanted things? (I understand that the system folders are better protected on unix, but what keeps the program from messing up the user folders, or from sending unwanted emails to others?)

Posted by: JS on December 1, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

Most of the people at the conference would do better on Windows, better software and more chices. But who really cares. Mac market share is small because it looks a bit prettier and is a status symbol - like Armani or Zanella clothes - and is way too expensive.

You know, I keep reading posts like this and wonder what is they are talking about.
Just baffles how wrong they are.
I guess they be thinking macs are like what they used in scholl 10 15 years ago.

Posted by: james on December 1, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

No matter what anyone says, any Apple OS or Linux will never, ever, ever, be more than a minor player in the consumer market. The OS wars are long over - Windows won over a decade ago. Only a disruptive technology (maybe something from Google) will make Windows less dominant.

Posted by: Andy on December 1, 2006 at 1:27 AM | PERMALINK

A giant smug cloud is forming over this thread. Better hop into that Toyota Pious before your Crapintosh gets wet.

Posted by: JCali on December 1, 2006 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK

A TECHNOBRAIN ALERT...all you technocrats and others pay close attention here. Love your MAC's if you must but I urge you to dump you APPlE stock (and PIXAR) because Steve Jobs is going to jail for backdating all those stock options (including his own) just like many other CEO's who have been caught by the Justice Dept. and will face the music in the coming year. This is not an exaggeration and it is not a joke.

Posted by: Merg on December 1, 2006 at 2:28 AM | PERMALINK

Can we please give some credit where credit is due?

Macs are essentially professionally polished linux/unix/BSD machines. Serious computer users use them because they can natively run (with a few minor modifications) mostly any gnu/linux software.

I own a Macbook Pro and dual boot between FreeBSD and OS X. Most computer scientists are starting to have the same approach. You know dashboard and spaces? Those weren't Apple's ideas.

Posted by: American in Osaka on December 1, 2006 at 3:13 AM | PERMALINK

1. Merg and others are right about Jobs: Folks, get OVER the "Mac ethics/ethos" bullshit meme.

2. Impeach.remove: Yes, BUT, the DOD DOES have a Mac list that's still 1/3 the length of the PC list. So, by DOD standards, the Mac is NOT invulnerable. Thanks for helping prove a point; there's a nickel for you under the couch cushion.

4. Teece, thanks for noting that OS 9 had a number of virus issues. Wasn't everybody saying the same thing about Mac invulnerability back then? Of course they were. Yes, just nod your head up and down.

4A. Teece (with sidebar to Impeach.remove) On your agreeing with my "ding more" worries about the future of OSX, why isn't it getting 4 percent now, and Unix 6 percent? Because the network vector operates on a power law or similar, and the distribution is geometrical, not arithmetic. In other words, the Mac 4 percent is at the tail end of a geometric curve, so really, its virus/Trojan/worm dings should be about the square or cube root of that 4 percent, or something on those lines.

5. CM, if you'll go to the Google "antivirus software" plus "OSX" link, you will ALSO see IT folks at universities such as K-State and Texas writing their own proprietary antivirus software for OSX. Doesn't that say something?

6. I noticed nobody has commented yet on the durability of Windows apps across platform upgrades as compared to Macs.

7. Snark to all Mac ber alles promotors; do you ever worry that your zeal might be so evangelistic as to sound like faith-based computing?

Posted by: Socratic Gadfly on December 1, 2006 at 3:14 AM | PERMALINK

"Now, many of the most rabid Mac users will cry foul at this point, saying people upgrade all the time."

The compatibility issue is both architecture and kernel level, which makes it difficult to support.

Windows has a gigantic user-base with diverse hardware requirements and they support businesses. Legacy support is essential to dominating the market.

Apple has a small user base and doesn't make money off of their software (since they sell integrated systems). Apple makes money by compelling upgrade cycles. Furthermore, by excising support for legacy, they are able to enhance stability through creating a tailored and nimble OS.

Posted by: American in Osaka on December 1, 2006 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINK

SOCRATIC GADFLY:

I support enterprise level Windows environments on an international scale for a fortune 500 corporation. I run BSD and OS X at home.

"7. Snark to all Mac ber alles promotors; do you ever worry that your zeal might be so evangelistic as to sound like faith-based computing?"

Your complaint seems to be with evangelizing, not with the computers themselves. Fanboys of any ilk are obnoxious.

"4. Teece, thanks for noting that OS 9 had a number of virus issues. Wasn't everybody saying the same thing about Mac invulnerability back then? Of course they were. Yes, just nod your head up and down."

This was being touted on a relative scale. Do you remember Windows before the NT kernel was integrated for the home market? Yes, of course you do. Just nod your head up and down.

"6. I noticed nobody has commented yet on the durability of Windows apps across platform upgrades as compared to Macs."

This is because windows has never made a platform upgrade. Windows has been operating on the x86 architecture since its inception.

If you are talking about the OS software, It hasn't made a serious migration since its move to XP/2000/NT (functionally all the same thing) from 3.11/95/98 (functionally all the same thing).

While some functionality is lost for a little while within Apple, the benefit of having a retooled operating system every couple of years is a huge benefit.

"5. CM, if you'll go to the Google "antivirus software" plus "OSX" link, you will ALSO see IT folks at universities such as K-State and Texas writing their own proprietary antivirus software for OSX. Doesn't that say something?"

As far as security goes, as long as Apple bases itself on an open source foundation, it will always be more secure and stable.

As far as antivirus goes, OS X doesn't allow a large number of exploits that does Windows to allow viruses to self-execute. Even with Viruses being written for OS X, this pretty much reduces the problem to one of social engineering (i.e., getting the person to open the file for themselves). You can't blame that on the system.

But yes, I hate Mac zealots. I hate Linux zealots. And it really bothers me when people start to dislike a fantastically designed operating system merely because they dislike a vocal fanbase.

Posted by: American in Osaka on December 1, 2006 at 3:42 AM | PERMALINK

I know, I'm late to the party. But, DraftObama.org runs on a MacOS X Server, as does all of my websites, including MacSlash.org, your Daily Dose of Mac news and discussion.

Hey, a chance to pimp two completely unrelated sites and still be on topic. Cool. :)

Posted by: DraftObama.org on December 1, 2006 at 3:49 AM | PERMALINK

万维网酒店联盟,是一个专门为您提供酒店资讯的网站,是一个可以轻松实现酒店预定 酒店预订的平台.
万维网火车站,您进行火车票查询和了解火车站的摇篮,我们会为您提供最新的列车时刻表信息。欢迎光临!

Posted by: 万维网酒店网 on December 1, 2006 at 4:05 AM | PERMALINK

Let me know when Mac servers are taken seriously. Until then, it's just an overpriced typewriter on steroids.

You could have seached Google, but instead, you trolled...Washington Monthly?

UVa has had one of the best price/performance high performance computing clusters in the world for three years - a Mac OS-based G5 cluster tied with Infiniband. In it's first year, it was a top five machine - and three years later, it's still a top 50 cluster.

Of course, if you knew what you had any idea what you were talking about you'd know that. But you were trolling.

Macs are Windows-equitible business and scientific machines - especially since they've switched to Intel procesors and have an inherently more secure operating system.

Anyone who claims otherwise has an axe to grind. The pundits have weighed in many times since OS X was introduced, and they seem to agree that Mac OS X is more secure than Windows not just due to marketshare, but by design. With both OS' and Microsoft's productivity suite on Intel, inertia is the main factor keeping businesses on Windows.

Too bad for them - it costs more. Windows has intertia to keep it going - Apple's switch to Windows-compatible hardware has deleted the barrier to entry to a Mac-desirous Windows user.

Want top-tier slick hardware without the fear of losing Winows compatibility? Apple is competitive and offers a better OS on the same hardware.

Vista, like Zune, is gonna fizzle, my nizzle.

Posted by: F'in Librul on December 1, 2006 at 4:35 AM | PERMALINK

I find it interesting that all of the professional computer folks that have posted have reinforced the fact that MSWindows is full of holes (out of the box) and takes a lot of attention to keep operating. Some use MSWindows in their private life, some use Linux and some use Macs.

Sounds like reality to me.

If MS software was so superior no one would have to champion it as hard as their apologists have here in this thread. The proof is in the pudding.

Same as it always was...

I could go on about my qualifications & why my opinion(s) should be listened to but bleah, why bother. Few care & they already know. How you spend your time is your business & how I spend mine is my business. I know how much my time is worth.

How about you ?

Good luck with that lemming behavior.

"...a culture of hiring children to do work that requires experience leads to childish results." - Robert Cahn

Posted by: daCascadian on December 1, 2006 at 5:50 AM | PERMALINK

Posting a link to the MiniMac webpage does nothing to prove your contention that people in lower-income households do consider buying Macs.

That wasn't my contention. I haven't the slightest idea what lower-income households consider buying. My contention was that this:

Macs have always been much more expensive than PC's.

is untrue. I backed that up with a link to a Mac with an MSRP of $600, which is not "much more expensive" than a PC.

Posting a marketing webpage is not logical argumentation. When you understand that, you may post again.

Fuck you. How's that for "logical argumentation"? :P

Posted by: Thlayli on December 1, 2006 at 5:53 AM | PERMALINK

why is it that the insults and derision here seems to come mainly from the PC people ?

ex. "A giant smug cloud is forming over this thread. Better hop into that Toyota Pious before your Crapintosh gets wet."

"Thinking you are cool and smart because you bought something unpopular."

"plus, the mac cult is annoying."

zip through the comments here - all the snotty one liners like this come from PC people. there is a smug cloud here, but it's not made of Mac Ethos.

Posted by: cleek on December 1, 2006 at 7:39 AM | PERMALINK

Mac is definitely progressive -- Remember Al Gore is on their Board of Directors .. but one baffling thing is Steve Jobs is the largest shareholder of Disney -- who is one of the most arch conservative media corporations --

Posted by: smartone on December 1, 2006 at 7:40 AM | PERMALINK

If you Mac people didn't have such an abnormally high proportion of Wild-Eyed Evangelical Fanatics on your side I don't think we would mind your quiet confidence so much but for God's sake, stop preaching at me! I am not an idiot when it comes to computers and have used my girlfriend's Mac off and on for 3 years.

Understand this: If I wanted a Mac, I would get one!

Posted by: MNPundit on December 1, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

stop preaching at me!

nobody is preaching at you.

deep breaths.

Posted by: cleek on December 1, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

I'm on my 3rd Mac.

Waiting for the software which allows me to run Win apps without having to mess with actually having to install Windows (yech) on my machine.

Then - dual core here I come.

Posted by: CFShep on December 1, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

jaysus....how could any self-respecting Mac cohabit with Limbaugh, much less all him to pound out his hatecrap on it (her?). Maybe Jobs could sue for rape? At least if his laptop was a wintel, it could crash all the time.....

Posted by: Stewart Dean on December 1, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

I've been an agnostic for years - running both macs & pc's in our shop, and enjoying (and hating) aspects of both. Vista, however, will likely result in us abandoning the windows platform wherever possible. XP is bad enough with regard to all the goddamn remote activation, etc - but the DRM scheme under Vista is just too much.

I spend 30% of my time these days just tracking software licenses. ENOUGH.

Posted by: Brautigan on December 1, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

That's cool I suppose, Kevin, but you could have given us a link for the conference itself.

Posted by: Neil' on December 1, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

it is also telling that red states have higher concentrations of pc's than more mac-friendly blue states.

[but of course we already knew that more creative types tend to have an aversion to living amidst less progressive thinkers.]

touting windows virtues sounds more and more like bush justifying iraq. compare vista's long and rocky road. simply stay the course and real soon now, microsoft will get it right.

Posted by: teknozen on December 1, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Waiting for the software which allows me to run Win apps without having to mess with actually having to install Windows (yech) on my machine.

I just picked up a low-end MacBook last week and spent an hour or so installing Windows XP on it in Parallels Desktop. It's pretty much hassle-free, running the research software my lab has produced in the past with only a couple of minor problems (at the device driver level).

Posted by: RSA on December 1, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

American in Osaka:

I've never argued that Mac wasn't better. I do think that, in several ways, the gap is narrowing as compared to the "good old days" of 10 years ago or more.

The OS stability gap may be the same, but the graphics apps gap is, IMO, narrowing. (I have Quark, Photoshop and other programs on both OS.)

As far as the virtues of better cross-platform-upgrade usage for apps vs. a total system retool, again, many people who don't have as much money, or don't want to spend as much money, on computers will probably disagree. Why should I, if I'm a gamer, feel I have to buy all new games every few years?

I will say that calling OSX "fantastic" might be a bit much.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on December 1, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

DaCascadian said:
"If MS software was so superior no one would have to champion it as hard as their apologists have here in this thread. The proof is in the pudding."

Couldn't you say the same thing about Macs? Like some Mac owners are groveling for crumbs of respect?

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on December 1, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

dear s gadfly:

you appear to have become disoriented somewhere within your anatomy when you comment:

"Like some Mac owners are groveling for crumbs of respect?"

excuse me? if anything, mac-ists are far more prone to gloating than groveling.

such silly fun this is!

Posted by: teknozen on December 1, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Teknozen, maybe it's a bit of both?

You know, the insecurity beneath the preening?

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on December 1, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Tennozen:

You're also right about the fun aspects.

If market shares, etc. would be reversed, I'd simply reverse my comments.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on December 1, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

SocraticGadfly >"...Couldn't you say the same thing about Macs? Like some Mac owners are groveling for crumbs of respect?"

Some people are insecure & some are not. It doesn`t have ANYTHING to do what operating system they choose (or not) to use. Just human nature.

Maybe you need to get out some.

Oh, and let me just let clarify that I, as a contractor, worked in Redmond at MSoft for most of the 1990s as a software test engineer on applications, system software & network security. The place was (and still is I understand) a juvenile zoo (like working in a frat house much of the time); read "Microserfs" to get some insight.

"...Microsoft's current attitude about source code is like that of a math teacher hiding numerous parts of an equation and then expecting the students to understand the formula and make optimum use of it..." - Bill Parish

Posted by: daCascadian on December 1, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

SocraticGadfly >"...Couldn't you say the same thing about Macs? Like some Mac owners are groveling for crumbs of respect?"

Some people are insecure & some are not. It doesn`t have ANYTHING to do what operating system they choose (or not) to use. Just human nature.

Maybe you need to get out some.

Oh, and let me just clarify that I, as a contractor, worked in Redmond at MSoft for most of the 1990s as a software test engineer on applications, system software (NT) & network security. The place was (and still is I understand) a juvenile zoo (like working in a frat house much of the time); read "Microserfs" to get some insight.

"...Microsoft's current attitude about source code is like that of a math teacher hiding numerous parts of an equation and then expecting the students to understand the formula and make optimum use of it..." - Bill Parish

Posted by: daCascadian on December 1, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

SocraticGadfly >"...Couldn't you say the same thing about Macs? Like some Mac owners are groveling for crumbs of respect?"

Some people are insecure & some are not. It doesn`t have ANYTHING to do what operating system they choose (or not) to use. Just human nature.

Maybe you need to get out some.

Oh, and let me just clarify that I, as a contractor, worked in Redmond at MSoft for most of the 1990s as a software test engineer on applications, system software (NT) & network security. The place was (and still is I understand) a juvenile zoo (like working in a frat house much of the time); read "Microserfs" to get some insight.

"...Microsoft's current attitude about source code is like that of a math teacher hiding numerous parts of an equation and then expecting the students to understand the formula and make optimum use of it..." - Bill Parish

Posted by: daCascadian on December 1, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Oooops

Sorry about that folks, it appears that Comcast/Earthlink had some network issues (high packet loss for some minutes on my route to the server) & my last posting was done more than once.

I apologize for their incompetence/lack of professional behavior.

MODERATOR(S) : Please delete the extra posts. Thank You !

"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves must contend in vain." - Friedrich von Shille

Posted by: daCascadian on December 1, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

This is silly! I'm a *progressive* PC user. And, BTW, I have nothing against Macs. I just have never used them that much.
Anne G

Posted by: Anne Gilbert on December 1, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

FYI, Apple market share in notebooks is 12%, not 5%. Apple - it's not just for left-wing bloggers! BTW, I've copyrighted that slogan and will sell it for a reasonable price.

http://www.gadgetopia.com/post/5426

Posted by: tomH on December 1, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

there is a smug cloud here, but it's not made of Mac Ethos.

"Mac Ethos" ...yeah, you're not smug at all.

Posted by: JCali on December 1, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

this is funny:

Whew!

Sorry I'm late.

I kind of got into it over at the Chef Paul vs. Mrs. Dash thread.
Posted by: skip intro on November 30, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: secularhuman on December 1, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

I'm on my third cheap windows box in a row, after about dozen years of fanatical Mac use. My main reason for using a Mac was simply that they were easier to use, and I was therefore more productive. They no longer are easier to use*, however, so I choose to no longer pay the premium -- in my view the added status or aesthetic value of an Apple product isn't worth extra money, like it might be (for me) in, say, a car.

*I'm aware a lot of Mac users may not feel this way, of course, but I'm just giving my honest two cents. I was forced kicking and screaming to use a Dell laptop by an employer (my one or two encounters with wintel boxes over the nineties had been terrifying). But by the time this new employer came around, I found, much to my relief, that the GUI interface of wintel machines had moved a lot closer to the "look-feel" of the Mac OS. I give Apple a ton of credit for being the pioneer in user-friendliness for personal computing. In my view the non-Mac world had simply caught up. Moreover, although I didn't notice it at the time during my Mac years, I had increasingly become accustomed to Microsoft products because a number of the jobs I had held in advertising (my field during the 90s) were with firms that relied on MS applications (Word, Outlook, IE, etc.) in a Mac OS environment.

So, when the time came (in 2000) and I was forced to use a PC, there was practically no difference in my computing experience. I mean, how much different can your user experience be in using, say, MS Word or Outlook for PC as opposed to a Mac? I'm sure this has been a major driver over the years in Apple's market share decline: folks who don't willingly try PCs, but do so only because of work, and then are relieved to find out PCs don't seem much different (at least to a non-geek like me). And then, that fateful day arrives to buy a new computer for personal use, and, like me, they become turncoats (perhaps because of past compatability issues, or cost, or software choices, or whatever). That's basically my story.

Side note: for me, computing has basically become synonymous with web browsing. I use gmail for email and scheduling. I've downloaded open office applications for every day use. About 99% of my computing time is spent on the web. So, for me (and I realize this is not the case for everybody) the premium for a "nice" computer is even more non-justifiable, because I'm basically just looking to get online with minimum hassle. Ironically, though, I do like to keep current, and I've been burnt before by computer salespeople before who assured me my circa '96 Mac Performa would stay current for XXX years. I've just accepted the fact that to enjoy a decent computing experience, one has to upgrade hardware fairly frequently. That's another reason (and perhaps the most compelling one for me) to use a PC: one can really take advantage of the commoditization of computers. I'll likely give up on this rather bulky, somewhat ugly Dell desktop I now use (though in full disclosure, I've had no performance issues) in the near future. But it won't be hard to do, because I paid all of 400 bucks for the thing, complete with monitor and printer. If I had more income, however, maybe I would buy a nice, pretty Macintosh.

Just my two cents.

Posted by: my two cents on December 1, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

my tow cents, you are making a lot of sense. Regardless of whether they go for PCs or Macs, a lot of people spend too much on their computers -- thinking that they will last XXX years, as you say.

But you can pick up basic new desktops for under $400 at Dell, and that price includes a 17" flat panel display. And you can get even more powerful used machines on eBay for less than $200 (minus display). Yet everyone I know feels that when time comes to buy a new computer they have to spend at least $1,500 -- because it makes them feel better. And sometimes they keep that computer long after it has become obsolete.

Several times I have asked friends with Macs to show me what makes them easier to use and I have never been able to see the light. Too dense I guess. But I would buy a Mac because of the underlying unix if I didn't have several applications that are Windows only. (And I think that dual boot is a headache -- in practice, you seldom boot to the "other" OS because you don't want to part with your web/email matrix, even temporarily).

Posted by: JS on December 1, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

JS >"...I think that dual boot is a headache -- in practice, you seldom boot to the "other" OS because you don't want to part with your web/email matrix, even temporarily)."

Makes sense however no one needs to dual boot/reboot etc to run MSWindows on a Intel Mac. These days you can run both operating systems side by side, cut & paste between them etc.

See Parallels for the details. It`s $80. You can also run lots of other x86 operating systems as well (OS/2 or DRDOS anyone ?). More info from Wikipedia.

"Mac OSX is Linux with quality assurance and style" - JP Rangaswami

Posted by: daCascadian on December 1, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

"(And I think that dual boot is a headache -- in practice, you seldom boot to the "other" OS because you don't want to part with your web/email matrix, even temporarily)."

Parallels Desktop is the solution there. You don't reboot, Windows is running in a virtual machine window. When I need to use Wordperfect at home for a work document, I just switch to the Parallels window. (For my Word documents, Pages in IWork does a near flawless conversion).

I used DOS and Windows for 22 years before I switched over this past February.

Posted by: sj on December 1, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

Ooops, I see I took too long and daCascadian already made my points.

Posted by: sj on December 1, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

sj >"...I used DOS and Windows for 22 years before I switched over this past February."

Welcome aboard & enjoy the experience.

"...OS X is like a marriage between an engineer and an artist. And the Mac community will reflect that marriage...." - RA

Posted by: daCascadian on December 1, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the info on Parallels, I had heard that such a thing existed but hadn't heard from anyone who had used it. Certainly something to consider in the future.

Posted by: JS on December 1, 2006 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

My Two Cents:

That's exactly what I was getting at in a post about halfway up this thread, with numeric ratings on my estimation, of PC's OS closing the gaps 2-3 points on a 100-point scale with each equivalent upgrade by the two sides.

Posted by: Socratic Gadfly on December 2, 2006 at 3:03 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, despite the new Mac TV commercial claims to be all young and hip, it AIN'T SO:

"Age may just be a number, but for the Mac market, its a fact of life according to Metafacts. A recent report from the market research firm says that nearly half of Apples customers are 55 or older."

Read on, Mac fanatics. (If you need to, please feel free to put on your bifocals first.)

Posted by: Socratic Gadfly on December 2, 2006 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK

daCascadian....

I need to go out and get some what? (You didn't complete your statement.)

Human nature? (Sorry, I'm a Mercurian; I'm not carbon based.)

Cocaine? You got some?

Just "get some"? You got some?

Posted by: Socratic Gadfly on December 2, 2006 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK

I use my PC because it is practical to do so, but I use my Mac because it is a joy. I imagine that there is little real difference between the two systems, maybe the same 2% that differentiates chimps from men, but oh that 2%!

As a graphic artist I would shell out the money for a new Mac any day of the week. For some reason OS X just makes my work flow faster...

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on December 2, 2006 at 4:02 AM | PERMALINK

If my life revolved around games, porn, and a computer-supplied sex life, I'd have a Winderz machine.

But I have a life, work to do, and social skills. So I have a Mac.

Posted by: aginghippie on December 2, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK
If I run a program that is in an attachment, how does the machine keep it from doing unwanted things?

By not letting things that are likely to be unwanted be done by programs without special permissions being given to that program. Sure, there is no 100% way of stopping "unwanted things", but its not hard to make an OS that makes it less likely than is usually the case under Windows that programs will do things that are likely to be undesired without an appropriate user intending them to do whatever is done.

Posted by: cmdicely on December 2, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

On Sunday's I demonstrate the $2000 Toshiba Lap Top for my pt job. Last Sunday it froze 4 times in two hours. In the 5 years I have been running OSX in my iMac its only frozen up once. Its much easier for a Windows user to move to a Mac than a Mac user to move to a Windows XP aka reboot XP

Posted by: phil on December 2, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Aging Hippie:

Maybe you have the wrong life!

Or are you perhaps in the nearly 50 percent of Mac users that are over the age of 55?

Maybe Gates needs to do a riff on the Mac commercial where the PC guy unzips what is actually a body suit to show a younger guy underneath, then unzips the Mac user's own body suit to show some old geezer.

Posted by: Socratic Gadfly on December 2, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly