PC v. Mac

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 6:00 am | By Justin Chappell

[zeugma]

Viruses: PCs are more vulnerable. That's not a PC flaw. It's a reality of hackers targeting the biggest market. Logic says more-popular Macs will attract more viruses. Optimism says they'll stand strong.

The first sentance is correct. The second is only partially correct. It's not a PC flaw. It's an MS-Windows flaw. OS/X and Linux are inherrantly more resistant to viruses because they do a better job of separating and enforcing the difference between root and a user.

[McLynnan]

I feel your fear. Once upon a time I had a Mac -- a Performa. Then I switched to a PC for lots of reasons, but my daughter's new MacBook has me thinking about Mac again. There was something so friendly, streamlined and easy about my old Mac. New software availability has removed all my old objections about returning to Apple.

[antiRepublicrat]

If Apple would make an inexpensive x86 tower that had upgradable graphics I would buy one.

And I doubt they will. It looks like their home machines will remain specialized small form factor, and the only upgradeable one (aside from memory and HDD) will be the Pro desktop tower.

[pepperhead]

I hope you don't expect to get a truthful answer. ;)

[Sloth]

Some people would have you believe it's merely a coincidence that Mac users and homosexuals constitute the same percentage of the population.

(j/k... sorta)

[DesScorp]

While your artsy types are still largely enamored of the Mac, the Uber-Geek now calls the Mac home too, because of it's Unix foundations. When people say that PC people were the geeks, well, that's been changing for years. There were some harcore DOS geeks, but the real computer science types started using Linux and BSD years ago. When OSX came along, they had the best of both worlds. OSX is not really a Mac OS, not really an Apple, if you know the history behind it. It's an evolved version of Steve Jobs' old NeXTstep OS (which he convinced Apple to buy in 1996)...the "true" Mac OS (last seen in version 9.2.2) is an evolutionary dead end; like Microsoft's Windows 9X line, the more features they added, the less stable it got. So while Apple bought NeXT, the reality is, NeXT swallowed Apple whole. And NeXT was the coolest of hardcore geek companies...the smartest minds in computer science (and in science generally) used NeXT machines in the universities. Tim Berners Lee created the world wide web on a NeXT machine. NeXT made the first computers that had both rock-solid Unix operating systems, and attractive graphical interfaces. Apple's OSX is a direct descendant. Go to any Linux user group meeting, and you'll find a lot of the guys with Apple laptops now....they run their servers on Linux, but use OSX for day to day computing.

Ironically, with the vast improvements in Windows with XP, Windows is now the "easy to use" computer. There are power users on Windows, but power users tend to drift to Macs or other Unix boxes now.

[L98Fiero]

"If a Mac will at least do what it is advertised to do,"

Make you feel superior? That's all I ever got froma Mac ad.

[L98Fiero]

"OS/X and Linux are inherrantly more resistant to viruses because they do a better job of separating and enforcing the difference between root and a user."

And the fact that practically nobody uses them helps as well.

[antiRepublicrat]

Some people would have you believe it's merely a coincidence that Mac users and homosexuals constitute the same percentage of the population.

[dennisw]

Last week Dell was selling a perfectly capable computer for $379 (free shipping) that comes with a 19" LCD. Why on earth would I spend 2 or 3 times as much for the Apple equivalent.


Today this Dell will cost $50 more but with the same beautiful 19" LCD monitor
http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=2d11h13&s=bsd

[Delta 21]

3 kids and all their surfing and chatting and inceasant MSN tag-a-long virus popups and hotlinks to auto-hijackers, etc....

I have learned much more than I need to.

[monkapotamus]

[antiRepublicrat]

Last week Dell was selling a perfectly capable computer for $379

Things that upset the price comparison:

• 2.5 GHz Celeron D, 522 MHz bus vs. 1.83 GHz Core Duo, 667 MHz bus (the Dell is far less powerful)
• Comes with XP Home, far inferior to OS X
• Real OS install disk costs more
• 256 MB DDR RAM vs. 512 MB DDR2 RAM
• 80 GB ATA 100 HDD vs. 160 GB SATA
• CD-ROM vs. DVD/RW (slot-loading even)
• Integrated Intel Extreme graphics with shared memory (can't upgrade, no AGP slot) vs. ATI Radeon X1600 with 128 MB of GDDR3
• Crap integrated audio vs. quality audio with a 12-watt amplifier and optical out
• 10/100 Ethernet vs. gigabit Ethernet
• No wireless
• No bluetooth
• No remote
• No speakers
• No Firewire/IEEE 1394
• Cheap mouse vs. Mighty Mouse
• No phone support vs. 90 days
• Missing several hundred dollars worth of software that comes with the Mac
• No integrated camera/mic
• Uses more electricity and produces more heat, will cost you in the long run
• It takes much more room

IOW, practically every feature except for the monitor size (a current Dell sale) is inferior to the Mac. Of course it costs a lot less. Apple just doesn't sell in that ultra low-end el-cheapo marketspace.

[antiRepublicrat]

Typo, 533 MHz bus.

[Covenantor]

"...PCs are a smattering of companies who build for one platform - inevitably, things jar....

Smattering...LOL. How about global and vast no. of companies.

In any case I recently powered up my late dads' Mini-Mac out of curiosity. I admit to being impressed with the tiny footprint and OS-X 10.4x. Love Safari for web browsing. Only difficulty is the right hand-left hand switch of window buttons.

Just might get a core duo and bootcamp to run my WIN cad and video programs. Only downside seems that your stuck with the graphics chipset, until they release the core-duo towers.

[antiRepublicrat]

Only downside seems that your stuck with the graphics chipset, until they release the core-duo towers.

The mini has integrated Intel graphics, but they are a generation ahead of what you find in cheap Dells (it'll actually run the hardware-accelerated bells and whistles of OS X). Still, not impressive, but it is a home machine.

Going to the iMac gets you a Radeon X1600 with 128 MB RAM. Pretty good, but still not ultra-impressive.

You are right that you'll have to wait for the tower for a truly impressive machine capable of the fastest video on the market. But the tower won't be Core Duo, at least Core 2 Duo (64-bit, lot faster than Core Duo) for the low-end tower, most likely the new Xeons (based on the Core 2 architecture) for the mid- and high-end towers.

[Swordmaker]

And the fact that practically nobody uses them helps as well.

Ah, the "Security by obscurity" canard that is always trotted out by people who really don't know why Macs are REALLY safer than Windows machines. Let's see... Windows - 114,000 known malware. Macs - three proofs of concepts built on already closed vulnerabilities. 5 years and counting with ZERO self replcating malware in the wild.

Is the Mac "Obscure"?

• FACT: Popular Science Magazine(Scientific survey of 6000 computer users in Nov 2004 and Consumers Reports Magazine (Scientiic survey of 3500 computer users in Jan 2005) both reported 16% of individual computer users were using Macs... that translates into about 25,000,000 Mac users. It may be that subscribers to those magazines are more inclined to be Mac users, but...

• FACT: the Software Publishers Association of America reported in January of 2005 that 18% of all software sold is Mac Software. That would translate to 16,000,000 Mac users...

• FACT: 12% of all laptops sold in the United States last quarter were Macintosh... add in also that Apple's best selling model was available only in the last month of that quarter...

• FACT: More than 50% of all computers sold last quarter are laptops...

• FACT: Apple sold 1.3 million computers in the last quarter (historically the slowest quarter for computer sales), 61% of them in the US... or 793,000 computers (By the way, that is better than 5% market share of all computers sold in the US that quarter)... multiply that 4 quarters and Apple will sell somewhere north of 3,175,000 computers in 2006. Given the measured 6 to 7 year useful lifespan of Macs, the the 2005 figures of 16,000,000 to 20,000,000 figure is about right.

• I would say if you go by the actual research that has been done and reported rather than the assumptions PC users make, that Macs are not very obscure at all.

How many Mac users does it take before "practically nobody" becomes a sufficient number to attract crackers?

Let's see...

• FACT: Crackers wrote a virus in 2004 for which only 12,000 computer were vulnerable...

• FACT: Crackers also wrote malware that impacted fewer than 100,000 routers in 2005...

• FACT: Crackers wrote a virus that could hit only 30,000 cell phones.

Well it seems that just from these few examples that Crackers are satisfied with far smaller targets than the Mac installed base.

Why would they ignore 16 to 20 million Mac users?

Numerous and unprotected Mac users????

Numerous, and unprotected Mac users who, on average, have more disposable income than the average computer user??????

Why indeed?

Why not read this article for the answers to why Windows is far more susceptible to malware than OS X and Linux.

[Swordmaker]

Check out the previous post in answer to the "Security by Obscurity" canard.

[zeugma]

Well done Swordmaker! I normally repost my old post about the 'witty worm'. I like your post better :-)