Posted on 08/21/2005 5:35:07 PM PDT by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at bizzyblog.com ...
When the vast majority of spammers/hackers/attackers in the world target the Windows platform specifically because its use is so widespread, do you expect it to be easy to keep up on everyone?
If you're not willing to do some legwork to protect yourself, then don't own a computer.
Excuse me for being cynical, but computers shouldn't be 'user-friendly'. The aim to become 'simple' gave us America Online.
I have a Mac and a PC side by side at home and I've inherited the task of running a mac/pc network at work. I make life easy by only letting Macs access the net, cause I just don''t have the time and don't want the headache. Yes, true that the Microsoft monoculture contributes to the problem, but if you patronize hacker blogs and newsgroups you soon find thats the motivation is more than opportunity. Writers of malicious code go hardcore on PCs because they have a craven hatred for Gates, Balmer and Redmond. It's their great joy in life to wreak anarchy on Microsoft, and again it falls back on the reputation of the company and the low priority they put on security. I know power-users of PCs who take prudent countermeasures and have as few problems as Mac users, but the bulk of people on the net aren't technocrats and they're the ones who suffer from this plague. Computers have not made their lives easier, which is what Gates endlessly promised them wasn't it?
Wow, just use your own logic, but this time apply it to Microsoft. Was the windows 2000 exploit fixed BEFORE an exploit in the wild was found? If so, then by your logic absolving Apple of any wrong for fixing an EXPLOIT before it was found in the wild should also apply. I think this ties back to #1...Mac users are smug, arrogant, and condescending (and let me add, don't really make good arguments based on logic...unless circular logic counts).
Very true.
And today each platform is trying to improve the areas it is perceived weakest. *nix is trying to become more mainstream via MAC and Linux--MAC trying to become more useful and Linux trying to become more user friendly. PC/Windows has been moving more into the higher end systems.
Kind of like how the democRATS and Republicans of yester-year actually had polar opposite views of the positions they hold today. Will Windows become the high-end system and Linux the everyday desktop in 10 years as they each try to take over each other's market share?
It's like hearing a neighbor talk about all the things he needs to do and not do in order to keep his car running properly (pumping the gas pedal a certain number of times before turning the key, hitting the dash board to get the fuel guage to work, adding new oil weekly because it leaks, etc.) when you own a car with 100,000 miles on it that's only ever needed routine oil changes and works just fine. At some point, you want to tell the neighbor to buy a new car and a better brand when they do.
Or you could own a computer that doesn't require you to constantly protect yourself. Yes, I know that thought just never seems to cross the minds of Windows advocates.
The PC was infinately faster, running my programs, but took some bashing to make it work.
The unix box was a friggin miracle, from a computational standpoint - but you have to have a dedicated unix-driver to own it.
Well, OSX puts the Mac GUI on top of a Unix kernel and has X Windows So it tends to address your first and last concern by merging the two. It's easy to use with the power of Unix behind it. The current problem with Windows isn't speed or ease-of-use (XP and .Net make it mighty easy to use) but security.
And after all that, I miss my main-frame.
They still have their place. The problem is that so few people are taught batch programming techniques these days. Batch processing is still the best way to handle certain types of data if you don't need interactive access to it.
I have a lot of MacAholic friends (mostly graphic artists) but what do you do if your stock trading software is only written for the Windows environment.
I know Macs are very good for lots of things and have great design, but there are some programs that only run on the Windows platform.
Let me know when you find a car that doesn't require you to look out for erratic/drunk/bad drivers.
I like my Mac. My husband has a Dell desktop running Windows XP, and I have an iBook running OSX 10.3 (haven't upgraded to Tiger yet). We both use both computers on a daily basis. I will say that my iBook has never crashed or hung up, while XP has (although much less often than 98SE used to!).
After wrestling with Win98SE on a 4.5 year old HP for much too long, I wanted a laptop that would just WORK. Apple gave me that, and for a very reasonable price (I have a student discount).
To all those that think they are safe because they don't run windows are sorely mistaken. Security by obfuscation is not security...it's the equivolent of putting your head in the sand and hoping the hackers don't find you.
If you were a hacker and wanted to wreak havoc, who would you attack? Linux which is mainly used on servers and secured behind corporate firewalls? Mac which is used in graphics design and not a large portion of desktop environments? Or Windows where they have a large footprint in Server farms and dekstops?
If I wrote a virus that attacked 100% of Macs, the impact would be neglible on most corporations and home users; therefore, I won't waste my time.
Yes, I can imagine someone who doesn't know what it feels like to not worry about viruses and not get bitten for that lack of concern to say that. I'm technical enough to be a system administrator. I'm not concerned. Feel free to be worried for me, though.
If you were a hacker and wanted to wreak havoc, who would you attack? Linux which is mainly used on servers and secured behind corporate firewalls? Mac which is used in graphics design and not a large portion of desktop environments? Or Windows where they have a large footprint in Server farms and dekstops?
But the bottom line is that Macs and Linux machines are not subject to virus and worm attacks like Windows, thus those of us who use Macs and Linux don't have to constantly run around installing and updating software to keep them out. It's a non-issue.
If I wrote a virus that attacked 100% of Macs, the impact would be neglible on most corporations and home users; therefore, I won't waste my time.
Assuming that you could. I never underestimate a Windows advocates' ability to ignore the poor security architecture of Windows with the excuse that everyone must have the same problem. The truth is that at several points during the development of Windows, Microsoft had a choice between open, easy, and flexible or secure and more difficult to use and almost every time, Microsoft chose "open, easy, and flexible", which is why Microsoft systems are so "open, easy, and flexible" for hackers.
You're a systems administrator? Not to be mean, but is it a mom & pop operation because in an enterprise you'd get fired for that type of attitude.
poor security architecture of Windows
Ok, what in the Windows architecture is so poor? Remember you said architecture, so please keep it in regards to architecture.
Note to N3WBI3...see this is the type of person I was referring to in our first posts to each other.
Absolutely, neither Apple nor Microsoft can be held responsible for third party software flaws. The best they can do is provide the patches to fix them to their users.
According to Microsoft, Internet Explorer IS an integral part of the OS...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.