Replies

First of all, I did read the original article. I do not agree with the author’s viewpoint and I believe that was made clear earlier. The author does not cite the source of any of his numbers, so when he talks about market share it is entirely unclear what he means. We do not know if he means sales or total installed base. Again, the article was poorly written.

You claim you read the article and in the same paragraph you claim the author does not cite the source of any of his number?! Simply amazing!

You proved you DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE! Or what part of "let's check in with with Gartner" and the posting of a chart with the heading: Preliminary US PC ( that means personal computer for the reading comprehension challenged) Vendor Shipment Estimates for 3Q10 (units) FROM "Source: Gartner, the pre-imminent source of industry statistics for tech sales data, do you fail to grasp? Please be aware that the chart specifies what IS inluded in the data on the chart.Note: Data includes Desk-based PCs and Mobile PCs.. . . It does Not say it includes iPods, iPads, or iPhones.

Posting sales numbers for markets that a) Windows does not compete with and b) electronic devices that are not computers is not relevant to a discussion about Windows.

You then try to lecture me on "market share" further demonstrating you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. My degree is in Economics. Your explanations are totally wrong. . . And irrelevant to the point of the article. They are incompetent. Comparing the sales of personal computers to personal computers, regardless of operating system, IS what this article is referring to, regardless of your attempt to falsely claim that Apple's numbers are inflated by iPod and other non-computer device sales. . . Which I rebutted clearly and completely. Why you choose to ignore that factual rebuttal, which is easily discoverable, is anyone's guess, but I suspect you are more interested in spreading your FUD than finding the truth.

. . . most Apple users, for example, believe that they are essentially invulnerable on a Mac or that their computers “just work” when Apple patches security vulnerabilities and software defects as often as Microsoft. In my heart and in my mind (I hold two degrees in Computer Science and am working on a third), I do not believe there is any real quantifiable difference in quality between the two operating systems.

You further compound your FUD with your assertion that "vulnerabilities" being pro-actively patched by Apple is somehow the equivalent of active, in-the-wild "exploits!" . . . and then you advance the totally ABSURD notion that there is "no quantifiable difference in quality" between OSX and Windows! Let's just count the number, a quantifiable difference, of viable malware in-the-wild that have been seen for all versions of both OSX and Windows since 2001.

The fact is, Flintsilver7, after11years, the number of self-transmitting, self-installing, self-replicating computer viruses and worms found in the wild for Mac OSX is still ZERO! On the other hand, the number of similar viruses and worms that have been found in-the-wild for the various Windows oprating Systems number in the multiple hundreds of thousands.That's a quantifiable difference in quality between OSX and Windows. Incidentally, if you want to limit it to Windows7, there are involuntary Windows7 bots out there already. There are, however, zero Involuntary Macbots (despite the claims made by the two guys who claimed to have found a 20,000 computer Macbot two years ago... No one but them, including their own former employer (who discharged them for publishing their claim without reporting their "find" to the employer) has EVER found a member of that bot)... Gosh, Flintsilver7, another quantifiable difference in the two systems! Do you enjoy being hoist on your own petard? I suggest you stop digging before your hole gets any deeper.

The fact is that 99% of Mac OSX users can and do operate their Macs on the Internet bare naked, with no anti-malware applications, except for OSX's built in warning system about the four known Trojan families that will kick in if a user starts to download or install one of the 17 known members of those four families or a newly created trojan that matches the characteristics of one of the families. Windows users are still having to use third party anti-malware applications to remain safe on the internet. That's ANOTHER quantifiable difference between the two systems.

I didn’t say that Apple invented the electronic calendar nor did I imply anybody else did either. I was mocking the use of the phrase “iCal’ed” (again, this should have been clear) as sophomoric. Using any sort of phrase like that immediately marks you as a “fanboy,” and credibility is lost. You did not use this, so do not take that personally. I again believed my intent here to be quite clear.

Oh, whow! Do you really think I don't remember what you wrote and that you can revise what is on this thread for everyone to go back and READ for themselves??? Let me remind you exactly what you DID WRITE:

Here you have a date that some poor soul has "iCal'ed" (because apparently Apple invented both the calendar and the electronic reminder or somehow made it "just work") because some writer made a bad prediction.

Looks as if you DID say exactly that!

It comes with a hefty price, though, as few Apple devices can actually justify their inflated costs

Another poorly considered assertion based on myth and mis-understanding what you are comparing. . . frequently and decisively shot down when examined in detail.

You are absolutely incapable of carrying on a discussion. Well, you might be about other topics, but not about this. While I atribute your inability to respond to what I am saying a byproduct of your obsession, it may be that you just aren't good at this.

You claim you read the article and in the same paragraph you claim the author does not cite the source of any of his number?! Simply amazing! You proved you DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE! Or what part of "let's check in with with Gartner" and the posting of a chart with the heading: Preliminary US PC ( that means personal computer for the reading comprehension challenged) Vendor Shipment Estimates for 3Q10 (units) FROM "Source: Gartner, the pre-imminent (sic) source of industry statistics for tech sales data, do you fail to grasp? Please be aware that the chart specifies what IS inluded in the data on the chart.Note: Data includes Desk-based PCs and Mobile PCs.. . . It does Not say it includes iPods, iPads, or iPhones.

I said I read the original article and that that author did not cite his source. The only mention of a source was the phrase "Gartner says..." and as an academic that is not a citation. I know who Gartner Research is only because I am educated on the matter. What I do not know is what subset of their research he is referring to nor is it my job as a reader to try to figure out what he was referring to. As I said, the article was poorly written and I was not referring to the subsequent MDN article in any way.

You then try to lecture me on "market share" further demonstrating you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. My degree is in Economics. Your explanations are totally wrong. . . And irrelevant to the point of the article. They are incompetent. Comparing the sales of personal computers to personal computers, regardless of operating system, IS what this article is referring to, regardless of your attempt to falsely claim that Apple's numbers are inflated by iPod and other non-computer device sales. . . Which I rebutted clearly and completely. Why you choose to ignore that factual rebuttal, which is easily discoverable, is anyone's guess, but I suspect you are more interested in spreading your FUD than finding the truth.

I was responding to your post (#57) where you make the claim that Apple's locked-down devices are in fact personal computers. Again, this has nothing to do with the original article. I'm talking about your claim. I stand by my statement that any claim that Apple holds more than 10% of the personal computer market is including the three handheld devices. This is not based solely on shipments in the calendar year 2010 as I hope you are aware the world existed prior to 2010. It is unknown (and almost certainly not quantifiable) what the worldwide market share is. You criticize web hits as a method but the fact is they remain the only reliable indicator of older machines and what they represent in terms of market share.

You further compound your FUD with your assertion that "vulnerabilities" being pro-actively patched by Apple is somehow the equivalent of active, in-the-wild "exploits!" . . . and then you advance the totally ABSURD notion that there is "no quantifiable difference in quality" between OSX and Windows! Let's just count the number, a quantifiable difference, of viable malware in-the-wild that have been seen for all versions of both OSX and Windows since 2001. The fact is, Flintsilver7, after11years, the number of self-transmitting, self-installing, self-replicating computer viruses and worms found in the wild for Mac OSX is still ZERO! On the other hand, the number of similar viruses and worms that have been found in-the-wild for the various Windows oprating Systems number in the multiple hundreds of thousands.That's a quantifiable difference in quality between OSX and Windows. Incidentally, if you want to limit it to Windows7, there are involuntary Windows7 bots out there already. There are, however, zero Involuntary Macbots (despite the claims made by the two guys who claimed to have found a 20,000 computer Macbot two years ago... No one but them, including their own former employer (who discharged them for publishing their claim without reporting their "find" to the employer) has EVER found a member of that bot)... Gosh, Flintsilver7, another quantifiable difference in the two systems! Do you enjoy being hoist on your own petard? I suggest you stop digging before your hole gets any deeper. The fact is that 99% of Mac OSX users can and do operate their Macs on the Internet bare naked, with no anti-malware applications, except for OSX's built in warning system about the four known Trojan families that will kick in if a user starts to download or install one of the 17 known members of those four families or a newly created trojan that matches the characteristics of one of the families. Windows users are still having to use third party anti-malware applications to remain safe on the internet. That's ANOTHER quantifiable difference between the two systems.

Sigh...you really are dense. Your first line here builds a gigantic strawman argument from a claim I didn't make, and you then proceed to furiously foam at the mouth and pound on your keyboard with righteous zeal. I know you don't want to believe it but I said exactly what I said and I was clear. Try answering that, not what you really wanted me to say. While I have no obligation to whatsoever to respond to the remainder of this drivel (being based on a false premise) I will point out that you have not provided any source, reliable or otherwise, for most of what you claim. Don't state numbers as fact if you can't back them up.

Look, the reality is none of this matters. Both Microsoft and Apple are very good about patching the vulnerabilities in their software. This does not fix the main problem (and what has been the main problem for years) - the user. Windows UAC was designed to effectively recreate Unix-type elevation. Nonetheless, the average user fell victim to many social engineering attacks. This is true on both OS X and Windows - but it doesn't matter if the malware is written for the other problem. According to Sophos, not only does Mac malware exist, it has since the beginning - and many Mac users are infected right now. Sure, most of the installed malware is Windows-specific - but the point is that if the software had been written for OS X then it would happen.

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2010/11/18/free-anti-virus-for-mac-150000-active-users-and-plenty-of-malware-found/

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2010/11/24/apple-mac-malware-short-history/

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. You're not entitled to your own facts, though, so if you choose to ignore them your argument becomes completely meaningless. I mean, the facts are that Mac malware has existed and exists today. Apple patches security vulnerabilities just as Microsoft does. CanSecWest alone proves that the OSX platform (and iOS for that matter) is not any more secure than any other platform.

I'm sorry, but you are just going to have to get used to reality.