Three Reasons (At Least) Why Mac Users Need to Cool the Smugness and Condescension

BizzyBlog ^ | August 21, 2005 | BizzyBlog

[bizzyblog]

As a 20-year Macintosh user going back to when the machines didn't even have hard drives, I confess to being a big fan of Apple and the Mac OS.

I also confess to being a nearly-insufferable Mac evangelist (some would say "delete 'nearly'") until about seven years ago, when, as a result of Windows 98, the differences between Windows and the Mac as a platform for the average user became so small that they didn't matter. Those differences remain small, despite the exceptionally cool advances in the Mac OS through Jaguar, Panther, and Tiger.

(snip)

Also cooling my ardor for the Mac is the remarkable air of condescension still present in "the Mac community," which is pretty amazing considering Apple's puny market share. I believe that the attitudes of too many current Mac users prevent a lot of those who might consider ditching Windows from doing so, simply because they don't want to be seen as joining what has almost become a cult (some would say "delete 'almost'").

So, in the interest of knocking Mac users down a peg or two, I offer three reasons, based on news of the past week or so, that we in "the Mac community" should cool it on the arrogance. At the same time, I'll knock down three myths about the Mac and its users (bolds are mine in all three reasons).

REASON 1--Exploding the myth that Mac users are so much more civilized than the rabble who use PCs:

Seventeen injured during used laptop sale

[for-q-clinton]

No offense, but in that case your knowledge of Macs is woefully out of date. OS X is as much advanced over OS 9 as Windows XP is over Windows 3.1.

I agree OS X is finally a real OS for Macs; however, the Mac fanatics are still singing the same song they did when the first Mac was released. So how is an typical user to know when they aren't lying anymore?

[N3WBI3]

2000 and it's not even supported much longer.

Please point me to these post where I slam 2000? I have said many times that 2k is a great desktop OS and a huge step in the right direction for MS... 2000 has been unsupported for a total of 1.5 months, OS9 is five years past its last sold date...

[for-q-clinton]

To be honest I don't want to go done that road again where I show you a post and then we argue of the context. However, I will say this...when you said the Mac guys are bit ridiculous on their claims (you're dead on). Or you said something to that affect.

[ThinkDifferent]

the Mac fanatics are still singing the same song they did when the first Mac was released. So how is an typical user to know when they aren't lying anymore?

I don't know, how can we tell when MS advocates aren't lying about security in Windows? Your loaded language aside, the first Mac was in fact far more advanced than the PCs of the time, which took until Windows 3.1 to come remotely close.

[litany_of_lies]

I corrected my post for that. I can't believe anyone is willing to pay $250 for a G3 anything, but it's apparently true.

[Golden Eagle]

2000 has been unsupported for a total of 1.5 months

Still spreading your lies I see. You know this is BS, you can download the latest service packs and brand new security patches right this minute from Windowsupdate.com.

[N3WBI3]

Will ie7, the next windows media player, or on the server side any new versions of iis be released for 2000?

[Golden Eagle]

Even if not, it certainly doesn't mean that "Windows 2000 is unsupported", the lie you just can't go without repeating.

[N3WBI3]

It means other than hot fixes there will be no functionality upgrades for it nor will you be able to buy it from MS and keep an office environment homogeneous..

[Golden Eagle]

ANOTHER lie. Just can't help yourself, obviously.

http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=274395

[N3WBI3]

I did not realize CDW was a division of Microsoft... I can find places on the web to buy windows 95, that does not mean as I sad one can "buy it from MS and keep an office environment homogeneous.."...

Lets see what MS says about the extended support that win2000 is currently in:

* Paid support
* Security update support at no additional cost
* Non-security related hotfix support requires a separate Extended Hotfix Support contract to be purchased. Per-fix fees also apply.
* Microsoft will not accept requests for warranty support, design changes, or new features during the Extended support phase.
* Extended support is not available for Consumer, Hardware, Multimedia, and Business Solutions.

You may thing security bug fixes are the be all end all of server and desktop updates but I think otherwise..

[Golden Eagle]

CDW is an authorized distributor of the product. New, unused copies are still for sale, and it is still being supported with security fixes. Your lies to the contrary mean nothing, except that you're a liar. Habitual, as a matter of fact.

[Golden Eagle]

I think you're probably confused with these products, which no longer are supported by the vendor AT ALL, even if you want to pay:

https://www.redhat.com/security/updates/eol/

Looks like that Red Hat 9 was only supported for 1 year, total?

[Swordmaker]

The challenge is out there... write your virus.

...it all depends on what the meaning of the word "Is" is.

. . . Now in the circles I run around we would take that to mean the challenge currently exists and can be won. Now unless you've mastered time travel, how IS the challenge out there?

You're right... it is about definitions. It may surprise you to learn that the definition of "Challenge" does not equal the definition of "Contest". Also "have been" is not the equivalent of "are".

The challenge still exists... and you even enunciated it in your previous post:

"But keep on spouting off...eventually some hacker will say hell just to shut you up I'll do it."

Let's look at the entire section that I posted instead of just cherry picking one sentence. Context matters.

Swordmaker wrote:

"A(n) expert programmer in both the Windows invironment and in various forms of Unix as well as a security expert, stated that on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is the difficulty of writing a Windows virus, the Mac comes in at a 9. Crackers write viruses for the accolade of their peers... and the greatest accolade would be for writing a virus that brings down the "arrogant, condescending, and smug" Mac users! Where is it, For-q?

There have been several substantial CASH prizes for writing a viable, transmittable and self propagating virus for the Mac (the last offering had to be withdrawn because of legal reasons) but all of them have gone unclaimed.

"The US Army and the FBI have selected Macintosh OSX computers because of their inherent security...

The challenge is out there... write your virus. We are not worried."

In response For-q posted:

"As far as the challenge, give me a link to the current challenge and the payout so I can determine if it's worth the money. Since there's a good chance I'll go to jail and have to pay restitution I'll need to see what the rules are before proceeding."

Now, exactly what part of "(the last offering had to be withdrawn because of legal reasons)" did you fail to understand... or can you point out where I stated or implied that there are current contests?

It is not my concern that you got your panties in a wad because you were disappointed you could not win a cash prize anymore... I never said you could. The previous unclaimed contests were held in a legal vacuum... no laws had yet been passed criminalizing malware.

[Swordmaker]

Well I scanned your posts, but still haven't seen where you accepted my bet. If I show you a virus on Mac OS X you'll leave for 1 month. Your silence to this challenge speaks volumes.

You keep bouncing back and forth between "exploit" and "virus". You don't even know the history of OSX or the Mac and claim to have found something that no one else in the entire world, especially expert Mac users and technicians (including me) have never heard of... right.

[Swordmaker]

I agree that's the typical way to handle things, but Swordmaker challenged me to write a virus and that I'd win $25,000 (only to have the challenge withdrawn).

You are temporally challenged.

I stand by my comment that you have reading comprehension problem.

[N3WBI3]

Redhat9 was renamed RedHat Enterprise Linux 2.1, and sold the following year... RHEL2.1 is supported for the next 5 years, and each succeeding release (about one every 18 months) is supported 7 years beyond its release. Redhat is more than happy to offer support for nine, just install 2.1u1 (the exact same rpm set), and but a rhel license..

Redhat Through the Fedora Legacy project continues to support RH9 to the same level

http://www.fedoralegacy.org/docs/yum-rh9.php

(security, functionally, new features) that it has always supported the product (and unlike cdw/Microsoft, Fedora is under redhat).

But I will say I was pretty pissed when Redhat pulled what I thought was a stunt (so much so that I was looking at Suse), though in the 3 years following they have proven me wrong. RHEL support is better than ever they have not give one inch on the 7 year lifecycle, and Fedora has stepped in nicely for the RedHat name. It was a great marketing decision that did very nice things for redhat.

I dont have a problem with MS's five year lifecycle, but they should have either extend it a year because of the long delay for longhorn or extend XP a year. If I am going to XP now, and it leaves the standard support systle in december of next year that means I may end up having to deal with another upgrade in 18 months..

[N3WBI3]

I guess This means windows95 is a current and in support os right? Or does the fact there is a vendor on the Internet mean nothing?

[Golden Eagle]

Yet ANOTHER lie!

Red Hat Linux 9 was NOT renamed Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, in fact they're not even based on the same version of the kernel.

http://www.unixgods.org/~tilo/redhat_versions.html

[Golden Eagle]

Yet ANOTHER lie!

Red Hat Linux 9 was NOT renamed Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1, in fact they're not even based on the same version of the kernel.

http://www.unixgods.org/~tilo/redhat_versions.html