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

[Question_Assumptions]

I am talking about OS 9
I have not used OSX.

A lot of people are. Mac OSes from about 7.5 to 9.2 did have significant stability problems and, in many ways, I think Mac OS8 and OS9 were getting more complicated and difficult to use. Before the advent of the iMac and OSX, I had pretty much said that I wouldn't buy another Mac. Those two products changed my mind. Most of the complaints that are bing raised about OS9 (e.g., the taskbar, stability, etc.) are not problems with OSX. I will also add that OSX 10.0 was not ready for primetime, so if you had an experience with OSX 10.0, a lot changed with 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and now 10.4. By 10.2, it was definitely ready for primetime.

[Question_Assumptions]

BTW MacOS pre-X was crap, Ill agree with you on that anytime.

While pre-OSX MacOS had problems, for a long time (at least until Windows95) it was still better than Windows. I worked in a college computer lab through the early 1990s and I could understand and respond to almost any Mac problem that a student had verbally and they'd understand how to fix their problem (unless they were particularly dense) but I couldn't understand or solve a single Windows problem that way. Even if I understood the problem they were describing, I couldn't tell them how to fix it without worrying that they'd mess it up and make things even worse. Basically, the Macs had a handful of common and predictable problems that were easy to fix while the Windows machines could just be messed up in too many ways to keep track of. Of course I pretty much jumped from MacOS to Linux at that point and them jumped back after the iMac, iBook, and OSX.

[Leonard210]

Hey! For-Q!

Welcome to the never ending saga...Hey! For-Q!

Having been exposed as a fraud, For-Q has become desperate. The Doomsday Virus, if it ever existed, has faded from memory. The Mac Heads are relived but remain vigilant. The hatred of For-Q and The Windowsians can never be sated. Fear has driven the Windosians and their leader, For-Q to desperate means before, it can move them again.

Even now, For-Q and the minions of Bill The Supreme have gathered at the Forums of Freep. Their next move? No one can tell. Their only hope is to chip away at the Mac Heads only weapon, The X. Tiny and insignificant next to The OS of Windosian, the smug and condescending Windosians know that if they are to succeed, they must ignore their multiple weaknesses and concentrate on the small vulnerabilities of The X. But how?

It would be 38 earth years of daily assault on the The X to equal the onslaught The OS of Windosian has withstood. Ah, but there is the hope. You see, The Windosians believe that 38 years of daily assault will never be necessary to finally defeat The X. No not years, nor months. The X will fall in a moment, on T.h.e D.a.y.

This is the most dreaded of days. The day of The Doomsday Virus. It is no mere memory, For-Q has proclaimed, it does exist! And on that day, The Day, The Doomsday Virus will unleash it’s devastation on The X and destroy it for all time. You see, The Windosians believe that the followers of The X can withstand only one attack. They have been able to escape detection for all these years, but on The Day, that glorious day, The X will be no more. The Doomsday Virus is the last hope of The Windosians, their only hope.

Tune in for our next episode when you’ll hear For-Q complain, “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too. “Did not.” Did too.

[N3WBI3]

Being as good as win3.11 is nothing to brag about... Pre OSX memory management on macs alone was reason to call it a joke, and not a very funny one for people who had to support Mac Users.

I worked in a college computer lab through the early 1990s and I could understand and respond to almost any Mac problem that a student had verbally and they'd understand how to fix their problem (unless they were particularly dense) but I couldn't understand or solve a single Windows problem that way.

And I worked in one through the mid 90's and while you may have experienced greater transparency in the Apples of the early 90's by the time windows95 came out that was not enough.

[for-q-clinton]

VW "just works",

Are you suggesting my car doesn't work?

[for-q-clinton]

OSX 10.0, a lot changed with 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and now 10.4. By 10.2, it was definitely ready for primetime.

You know whem Microsoft does this people make fun of them and say they need to wait at least until SP1 before upgrading. So are you saying based on your entire post you need to wait for 10 versions of Apple's OS before getting a good one? Of couse that's a bit extreme, but I'm just trying to show the way it's all about attitude and how the systems aren't being compared on an apples to apples basis.

[Question_Assumptions]

Wow, you sure do read a lot into statements, don't you? No. What I'm saying is that my VW requires a lot less work and maintenence to keep it running that the brands of cars that I see my friends buying and driving. And for a long while, I was driving 70 miles a day over pot-holed roads with my VW. When learned how to fix cars by driving American cars. I've become rusty driving VWs because little things just don't keep breaking on them. Even though the car I'm driving is 9 years old and has over 100,000 miles on it, it's still solid. Are other car brands just as good? Sure. But plenty of other brands are not.

[antiRepublicrat]

but if the # of seats on the Internet were switched, I have no doubt Windows number of viruses would be a lot less and OS X would be a lot more

I have doubts. Popularity is only part of the equation. The basic security of the OS, both in design and practice, also plays a huge part. For example, the browswer in OS X is not built into the OS and does not have system-level priveleges. You also have to type an admin password in OS X to install anything. While these are two of the most common system-hijacking Windows virus vectors, they don't work in OS X.

[for-q-clinton]

Not to hijack this thread away from Macs (But I guess we've beat that horse good enough for now)...I was just kind of shocked to hear VWs just run.

Currently Europeen cars have a higher defect rate than Japanese and even US made cars. There are a few good reasons for this and maybe you're referring to an older VW, so that would make sense. But the newer Europeen cars have issues because they started putting in all the fancy gagedtry and have had issues with version 1.0 products (just like Mac and windows...hey see it relates).

[for-q-clinton]

I hear what you're saying and maybe I wasn't clear on when I said the numbers would be higher/lower.

I meant that the number of Windows viruses would be less than the # of windows viruses today and that the number of Mac viruses would be higher than the number of Mac viruses today.

[Question_Assumptions]

You know whem Microsoft does this people make fun of them and say they need to wait at least until SP1 before upgrading. So are you saying based on your entire post you need to wait for 10 versions of Apple's OS before getting a good one? Of couse that's a bit extreme, but I'm just trying to show the way it's all about attitude and how the systems aren't being compared on an apples to apples basis.

Are you a troll or are you serious? MacOS9 to OSX isn't a service pack difference. It's like going from Windows 3.1 to NT. And saying that OSX is solid doesn't mean that earlier versions of the Mac OS weren't good any more than saying Windows XP is solid is saying that Microsoft OSes starting with DOS were worthless. But keep comparing apples and oranges if that's what you've gotta do...

[antiRepublicrat]

I meant that the number of Windows viruses would be less than the # of windows viruses today and that the number of Mac viruses would be higher than the number of Mac viruses today.

Popularity being a factor, that's possible. But don't expect the numbers to switch.

[for-q-clinton]

Ok, let's say OS X 10.0 vs. 10.1.

[for-q-clinton]

Popularity being a factor, that's possible

Come on now...it's just not possible. It's probable and extremely likely. In fact I'd put money on it...and lots of it.

[Leonard210]

Popularity is only part of the equation.

Hi antiRepublicrat. You don't need to fall for this propaganda. (I once subscribed myself.) There is no evidence to support this claim. Given the hatred of some of the Windows folks on this forum alone, is it reasonable to assume that no one has taken that hatred to the next step and tried to hack the Mac? Of course not. The reason seems to rest in UNIX. Is UNIX an "obscure" OS? No. Have we seen anywhere near the security problems with UNIX as we have with Windows? No. If obscurity were the reason for the lack of hacks, why did anyone bother to write for OS 7? Is there some magic that compels Windows folks to attempt to hack the Mac whenever their market share numbers move from 3% to 4%? No.

The "security by obscurity" canard had nothing to do with "popularity." It was all about notoriety. The theory postulated that a hacker hacks for the same reason that a graffiti artist paints, notoriety. The graffiti artist doesn't spray paint the side of a wall to prove that the wall is vulnerable. The graffiti artist paints to boast that he has painted. He boasts of his conquest among his group. He proudly drives past his latest work and points it out to those in attendance. That IS the theory of "security by obscurity". It meant, "If I successfully hit Windows my name will be in all the papers. But if I hit the Mac, no one will notice." Can anyone say, "No one will notice," today, 2005?

There is no such thing as "security by obscurity" for the Mac is anything but obscure. Just look at the hatred spewed by some of the Windows folks around here. If they know about the Mac, how is it obscure? Isn't the iPod the most ubiquitous MP3 player in the world? The word obscure means, relatively unknown, not clearly seen or easily distinguished, shrouded in or hidden. Can you honestly say that ANY of those terms apply to Apple Computer in 2005?

Just look at For-Q. He represents the Windows contingent perfectly. He was overjoyed at having discovered "A" story about "A" Mac that had been infected by "A" virus. Instant notoriety! Universal notoriety! For only one REPORT of a successful attack on a Mac!

The minute a virus is produced that can infect multiple Macs, it will spread through the world press like wildfire. The name of the virus will become known throughout the globe overnight. The successful hacker will be hailed for decades as the first to strike a blow for OS purity.

Tell me I’m wrong.

[Swordmaker]

But if you read my earlier comments that exploit is pretty easily changed to a virus.

No, For-q-clinton, it ISN'T easily changed to a virus. Just because YOU claim it doesn't make it so. Early on you acted is if Mac was invincible. Just go back and read it.

No, I did not say that the Mac is "invincible", that is merely your inability to read and comprehend showing itself again.

I've proven it can be done and now you say well it doesn't count because it's an old flavor (although it's still out in the field).

You've proven nothing, For-Q (that is merely shortening your name, not changing it) you've merely made assertions without any proof... and proven you haven't a clue about computer viruses, trojans, and especially Macintosh OSX.

[Swordmaker]

But I guess you run a big risk the first time you try to patch OS X (if you have a build that is vulnerable to the phantom update).

Why would that be? The problem would only exist if the user had installed and run the trojan program... and why would they download and install the trojan, masquerading as a "security patch" from any place except Apple's secure site using Software Update from the Apple menu? If the trojan has not been installed, then it is perfectly safe. No risk at all...

[Swordmaker]

Ah, I see now you say CURRENTLY. Got it.

Nor or there any computer viruses that have infected Apple Macintosh OSX in the past.

[Swordmaker]

So my option is to either go unpatched or risk running the patch program? Hmmmmm....sounds like a bad deal to me.

For-q, you just choose to IGNORE anything that you don't agree with, regardless of the facts.

THERE IS NO RISK IN RUNNING A PATCH PROGRAM FROM APPLE'S SECURE WEBSITE.

If a user wants to download and install a patch from somewhere else, a trojan not a virus, then he deserves anything he gets.

Your entire purpose here is to spread FUD... you are not doing too well... because you appear to any reasonable person to be totally unreasonable.

[Swordmaker]

...OS X would be a lot more; however, that wouldn't mean Windows is more secure.

Again, you choose to ignore the qualified opinions of every expert in computer security who has compared the relative difficulties of writing virus for Windows and OSX... you are the one with your head in the sand.

The security by obscurity canard has been shot down by people who know, experts in the field. You go ahead and believe that your patched on patched Windows box is the equal of a more modern Operating system that was built with security in mind. The evidence is in... Mac OSX IS more secure than Windows.