Mac OS X security myth exposed

Techworld ^ | 24 June 2004 | Matthew Broersma, Techworld

[antiRepublicrat]

You don't realize this because you allow your clients to run as Administrator. I doubt whether you've even tried to run in anything other than Administrator under Windows.

I do, and it usually restricts my ability to do my job. That is unless I spend hours crafting a custom set of permissions tailored to exactly what I'm doing. Of course, you don't get this ability on Home Edition, which is what's shipped on cheap PCs.

Mac gives you basically "Administrator lite" when running as administrator. You can screw up your own stuff, install and remove programs, etc., but you (and worms running under your permissions) do not have the power to hose the box. This is default, no expert XP admin knowledge needed.

[antiRepublicrat]

Windows does provide doors. IHVs choose to leave them open by default. That's not Microsoft's problem.

And what about the XP install disk I have directly from Microsoft? As far as I can tell, the status of the doors seems to about the same as OEM XP installs.

[antiRepublicrat]

And the day that OS X and Linux ever have as many desktop users as Windows, they'll have to actually focus on real usability problems.

You do NOT want to go into the area of Windows and usability. Windows' usability only looks good when compared to Linux, but it's pretty bad when compared to a Mac.

[IncPen]

it's pretty bad when compared to a Mac

You're too kind. Windows' interface design is abhorrent.

I frequently show Microsoft screens to clients (and get a big laugh) when I'm demonstrating how NOT to design an interface.

[N3WBI3]

What usability problems does OSX have?

[N3WBI3]

Great post..

[antiRepublicrat]

What usability problems does OSX have?

We can start with the Dock, which is pretty but not great for usability. Of course the only reason it's there is to woo Windows users used to the taskbar. Message to Apple: taking off of Windows UI features is not a good thing for your UI, although it does help with marketing. Luckily, the Dock can be replaced with something more useful.

[N3WBI3]

The dock is just as usable as the task bar of windows, there will be people that have a preferance one way or the other but neither can claim the other is more usable.

Of course the only reason it's there is to woo Windows users used to the taskbar.

Actually the menubar at the top that has existed as long as I can remember is more similar to the taskbar than the dock (in my opinion).

[antiRepublicrat]

The dock is just as usable as the task bar of windows

That's the problem. I understand that Apple did it for marketing reasons, but Windows is not the OS to look to for UI design.

Actually the menubar at the top that has existed as long as I can remember is more similar to the taskbar than the dock (in my opinion).

Unlike in Windows, the menubar at the top is excellent UI design.

[Bush2000]

And what about the XP install disk I have directly from Microsoft? As far as I can tell, the status of the doors seems to about the same as OEM XP installs.

99% of all users purchase their computers from OEMs. They don't purchase retail installs.

[Bush2000]

What usability problems does OSX have?

http://www.macopinion.com/columns/intelligence/02/02/20/

Apple's new user interface doesn't hold water

Top Nine Reasons the Apple Dock Still Sucks

[Bush2000]

Both you and Swordmaker are complete hypocrites. You blame Microsoft for damage that users do to their machines -- even though you allow them to run Windows in Administrator mode that will virtually guarantee that result. Hypocrites. Here's a tip: Try restricting the privileges of users before you complain. Then we'll talk. Until then, you're just incompetent admins.

[antiRepublicrat]

You blame Microsoft for damage that users do to their machines -- even though you allow them to run Windows in Administrator mode that will virtually guarantee that result.

That's from an admin in business POV. Almost all of the home machines don't have the advantage of an admin and run Windows in its default settings, which is far less safe than a Mac's.

Until then, you're just incompetent admins.

I see, in the MS world, it's the admin's job to make up for the shortcomings of Windows. That's why the admin TCO for OS X and Linux is lower than that for Windows. But in my case I run admin because I need to, but with the installer service disabled, while my kids' profile is so locked down they can only run their educational games.

[antiRepublicrat]

99% of all users purchase their computers from OEMs. They don't purchase retail installs.

So nobody upgrades their OS, they just buy a new machine? You weren't listening. That shows OEM installs follow the standard Microsoft install, possibly due to contract with Microsoft. Maybe if Microsoft changed their standard install, then the OEMs would follow.

But in any case, that's still millions of by default poorly configured Windows installs out there that came directly from Microsoft. You'll do anything to get Microsoft off the hook.

[antiRepublicrat]

First, a lot of the OS X UI derision you'll see is because of those die-hard Mac fans being mad just because it's different. They wanted their old OS back. I saw this in Windows when our organization was upgrading from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95.

But as far as Tog goes, I agree with his assessment of the Dock and other things. How good can something be if you're trying to copy the Windows UI? Tog does offer some advice and links to a couple of tools to bring your Mac UI into perfection

"Mac is indeed back! For the first time, with a few simple add-ons, you can turn your Mac into a monster machine, capable of outperforming not only an OS 9 Mac, but Windows XP"

Of course many people will ignore this since the Dock, while not good from a UI perspective, is pretty cool.

BTW, you should look through Tog's site, where you'll find lots of major usability flaws in Windows.

[N3WBI3]

Great articels, lets look at some of the comments

OS X Part 3: Usability It has been favourably reviewed especially by Windows users -- but how good is it to a Mac user?

So windows users 94% of the market on the whole have given it positive reviews. Now I believe many windows users dont have a clue what a really usable interface shoule look like, but I had no clue you agreed with me on that.

Still, on the whole, OS 9 offers a pretty good user experience -- it's just that, as with anything else that has been around 15 years or so, features accumulate that don't always work together as consistently as they might, and old features which are hard to drop may not always be the way you'd do something now, with the benefit of hindsight.

Much of the complaing in this article is about OS9, not OSX

For now, suffice it to say that Netscape 6 is one of the worst ports of an interface I have seen.

Complaints about thrid party ports? come one you can do better.. Many of the complains (bouncing icons, shading) are settings that can be changed.

[Bush2000]

That's from an admin in business POV. Almost all of the home machines don't have the advantage of an admin and run Windows in its default settings, which is far less safe than a Mac's.

Dell and other OEMs have the final say on how the machines are configured. Remember? The DOJ fought for -- and gave them that right.

I see, in the MS world, it's the admin's job to make up for the shortcomings of Windows.

No. It's the admin's job to do the minimum work of running the machine in an appropriate user mode. Or, are you saying that creating user accounts isn't an appropriate admin function?

[Bush2000]

So nobody upgrades their OS, they just buy a new machine?

Show me any statistic which shows that upgrades are a sizeable portion of Windows OS sales. But I can save you a lot of trouble: They're not.

That shows OEM installs follow the standard Microsoft install, possibly due to contract with Microsoft. Maybe if Microsoft changed their standard install, then the OEMs would follow.

No, Microsoft has no right to tell the OEMs how to configure Windows. It's an antitrust thing. Remember?

But in any case, that's still millions of by default poorly configured Windows installs out there that came directly from Microsoft. You'll do anything to get Microsoft off the hook.

Millions? Reference, please.

[antiRepublicrat]

Show me any statistic which shows that upgrades are a sizeable portion of Windows OS sales.

You're missing the point, which was that you blamed OEMs for improperly configuring Windows, while the configuration is the same as Microsoft's own. Besides, even if retail sales are a small percentage, it's still millions of machines.

Yep, that tsunami was nothing to be concerned about, it only killed less than one-tenth of a percent of the world's population.

No, Microsoft has no right to tell the OEMs how to configure Windows. It's an antitrust thing. Remember?

They only lost the ability to tell OEMs they can't offer other OSs or install other software in the OS. Otherwise, the OEM's configure Microsoft-standard, as is evident by their config being the same as the retail config.

Millions? Reference, please.

I can't find hard numbers of current sales, but extrapolate from this article citing 650,000 retail sales of XP during only two months in 2001 -- and that's when XP sales were lagging behind 98 sales.

[antiRepublicrat]

No. It's the admin's job to do the minimum work of running the machine in an appropriate user mode.

And where's the admin for the hundreds of millions of home installs? Is everyone supposed to become a computer expert just to be relatively secure? That's what Mac OS X saves them from.

And for business, do you mind paying for the extra admin work to make up for the shortcomings of the OS and its initial configuration? I'd prefer to save the money.