MAC OS X share nears 8% of market

[gazzax2]

I am not impressed by Apple. I have had 4 ipods and they just weren't innovative enough, given how populaur they are and how much money apple could spend in development of them.

 

[Apollo]

No they aren't.

Don't fall for the FUD.

Ahh, a delusional machead, who thinks the almighty Jobs will protect your make forever.

I can't wait for the day a really powerful Mac virus hits the wild. I might even hold a party, depends.

 

[Apollo]

I am not impressed by Apple. I have had 4 ipods and they just weren't innovative enough, given how populaur they are and how much money apple could spend in development of them.

I find Zune to be a more pleasurable experience than iPod's. And I have used iPod's for a long time.

 

[Apollo]

Ha ha ha. One virus and you'd throw a party?

A successful virus might be less likely now than ever. If MS claims to have the problem aced — after 20 years — why wouldn't Apple that last was attacked when System 8 was current?

Exclusive Windows users are too used to them. For many, it's inconceivable there shouldn't be any at all. For Mac users, especially those who've always used Macs, it's simply business as usual, no big deal.

You guys pin all your hopes on a single virus, continually forgetting that even if it came to pass, it would still be only one virus, a situation little different than the grand total of 54 that claim to have attacked pre-OS X systems, even before the net. There would have to be more than 100,000 viruses for Mac before the scale even begins to balance.

If all those plain-vanilla Windows users pray for one single Mac virus because Mac users deserve their cummupance, think of the virus writers who pray to create the first. That virus writer would be famous, and probably get rich quick because of it.

Well, it's been eight years. *Shrug*

One virus is enough. You can laugh and say how many viruses Windows XP and below have, but it doesn't matter, Mac has a successful virus that is a real threat.

Isn't one of the main reasons for switching to a Mac is that you don't have to worry about viruses?

No I pray for a Mac virus, so the macheads can shut up. The unfounded smugness of a machead is the most annoying thing about Macs. Well...it is the only annoying thing.

Although, you seem like a ok person Keeland. Sheep is another matter.

To be honest, Mac's weren't all that great until OS X and Jobs.

And come to think of it. Wasn't it the Mac that was the first system comprimised at that security conference. And they comprimised it through a Apple created project.

Then this May, another security company released a HUGE hole in Safari that would have severely ruined the image of the "safeness" of Macs. Apple finally patched it, but it took them until the security firm released this information after repeatedly warning Apple about this Safari problem.

 

[Apollo]

I might be wrong, but I think it was Apple's Newton that was hit by the very first virus.

Safari has had more than a couple of holes plugged. But those holes represented potential security-attack weaknesses, not virus weaknesses.

An attack, a potential attack, a vulnerability or potential vulnerability isn't a virus, a point avoided by the anti-Mac press. It confuses all of these, on purpose. You may notice this as obvious now, the next time you read an article warning of the next OS X vulnerability. (Apple, by the way, has never said it is invulnerable to attack or viruses. What Apple does is plugs any hole very, very quickly with free software updates.)

By definition, a virus replicates itself from machine to machine. That's very unlikely to occur on the Mac platform because of its Unix underpinnings as well as the safeguards added to its flavour of Unix with OS X.

A virus spreading from Mac to Mac was very difficult pre-OS X, as well. The only virus that had any measure of success was included in a software CD distributed by a Mac mag. But even it fizzled because any Mac on a network or on the net needed (and still needs, but with OS X, moreso) user intervention to allow any app to install.

Windows' biggest hole is the registry that granted permission for apps, including viruses, to install unbeknownst to the user. The Mac, whether running OS X or a pre-OS-X system, never had registries.

With Vista, MS plugged that hole with interventionist popups (and whatever else) so now Windows viruses will be as scarce as hens' teeth.

I think the salad days for viruses, on either platform, have come and gone.

Forgive me, the Safari problems are vulnerabilities, but in some cases, the vulnerabilities were worse than viruses.

Apple wasn't very fast about fixing up Safari. This security firm warned Apple about the problem in February, and on and on it went and was never plugged. They got so frusturated, that they had to force Apple's hand by telling people what the problem actually was and how to use the vulnerability. Apple knowing full well about it for months.

The UAC is the measure that prevents these types of things correct. Vista by far, is a lot more secure than any other version of Windows. If you get a virus on Vista, it is truely your fault and you can't really blame MS.

Apple did once boast that they never got viruses. Along with that bullshit about it "just working" (which is pretty much true) blah blah blah.

I must say, it was a smart move for Jobs to go back to Unix and FreeBSD for OS X. Before that, there were kernal panic after kernal panic after kernal panic.

 

[Apollo]

I didn't know it took that long for Apple to fix Safari. I didn't pay much attention, I guess, because I don't like or use Safari. Nor do I use Apple's Mail.

I figure that those are the first apps that would be employed to make use of any vulnerability. And I also don't like Mail because there is no way to turn off HTML, possibly another way for the bad guys to profit. So I use Mozilla's stuff. It's tons better, even without using extensions (which I do).

Apple's TV ad with John Hodgeman as the ''sick'' PC didn't state Macs couldn't catch a virus. But the odds against it are enough to imply it.

Vista, though, killed that ad.

I hadn't heard of pre-X OSes having kernel panics; I suppose it could be used as just another term for crash. And if it isn't, it's the same result.

I never had much problem with crashes, though I've read how creaky OS 9 had become. I'm posting this using 9, and it's been running for hours. But OS 9 is heavy-maintenance compared to OS X (and unlike X, 9 needs Norton and/or Disk Warrior to keep it afloat). X needs nothing but its built-in utilities.

Those PC vs. Mac ads are propaganda films. The information they give on Vista is outdated, or just plain not true. Yet, no one calls them on the fact, or even cares. It is really sad seeing those ads, because it is all lies now.

What does MS do? Nothing, they just fucking sit there and does nothing. They don't bother to clean up Vista's image. People still don't know that Vista is a solid machine much much better than XP. Really the only reason to buy a XP machine, is if your buying a low power machine. And that is the reason why XP will only be seen on low power machines.

If you want XP now, you have to go buy a piece of shit clunker, that happens to be brand new.

Mozilla is the way to go in terms of a lot of things. They aren't better than Outlook, or a lot of MS products. But Firefox is hands down the best browser. Or at least it is now with FF3.

I did mean crashes in OS 9, which was pretty bad.

 

[D-Base]

That's good to know. It's great that there's concurrence. It will make both MS and Apple products better.

Asfor the virus discussion... I've been running XP since 2003. I always used a free antivirus (AVG free for the first 4 years, than Avira). Never had any problems with it. And I'm online 24/7... so what's the big deal? Isn't not as if PC users are fighting a battle every day...

I've only used Mac OS 7.5, I had a Powerbook once. I didn't get that OS. Since 2000 I'm a PC user.
Nowadays, in the country where I live, an Apple computer (iMac) with the same parameters as a PC costs exactly 5 times more.

Check it out:

http://store.apple.bg/IMC-Apple-Store/WebObjects/Asto.woa/wa/stockPageByName?name=iMac - aluminium cheapest is 2273 lev.

a PC with same HD, CPU. RAM you can get for as much as 500 lev.
http://www.jarcomputers.com/l_bg/?m=7&i=533325

And I read someone mentioned how OS X looks better than XP. Nowadays, there are plenty of free software that can transform your PC onto a completely new OS given your preferences and desires.
I'm not sure if the same can be said about OS X. I have seen a lot of XP's that looks and act exactly like OS X, you just need the proper customization software...

I used to use Windowblinds, Styler XP etc but I am using the default XP settings right now...

 

[Corny]

wait .. macheads talking about FUD? how did you get that word in your RDF?

 

[andysayshi]

I think the salad days for viruses, on either platform, have come and gone.

I tend to agree. The model we see from both Vista and OS X now, where the OSs are quite secure, and occasional threats are nullified by patches to the OS itself, rather than requiring third party protection, is the way it should have been from the start.

Windows wouldn't have the virus-ridden reputation it has if MS had properly addressed security issues themselves at a responsible speed. Expecting Windows XP purchasers to go out and buy additional virus protection is like a car manufacturer selling a car but expecting the buyer to go elsewhere for headlights and indicators.

 

[trawler69]

I think software companies are about the only businesses that can get away with selling something that is faulty, customers just seem to accept it and spend however much time it takes to download the fixes and the fixes of fixes. I can understand Linux users putting up with it as the software is free, to a lesser extent I can understand Mac users though the fixes seem to be less and the OS is also very cheap in comparison to Vista. When windows users revolt perhaps MS will sit up and listen. They do seem to have done this to a certain extent by continuing to support XP until they have a replacement for Vista. They would never have backtracked on this if the take up of Vista was what it was intended to be.

In my work I visit loads of offices and I haven't noticed one that is running Vista.

 

[Apollo]

I think software companies are about the only businesses that can get away with selling something that is faulty, customers just seem to accept it and spend however much time it takes to download the fixes and the fixes of fixes. I can understand Linux users putting up with it as the software is free, to a lesser extent I can understand Mac users though the fixes seem to be less and the OS is also very cheap in comparison to Vista. When windows users revolt perhaps MS will sit up and listen. They do seem to have done this to a certain extent by continuing to support XP until they have a replacement for Vista. They would never have backtracked on this if the take up of Vista was what it was intended to be.

In my work I visit loads of offices and I haven't noticed one that is running Vista.

Microsoft supports all it's OS's for about 7 years after they kill it.

Microsoft is still supporting Windows 2000, which is about to loose support this year or next year.

Also, I just want to clear this up. Even before Vista, users could always downgrade to any previous version if you asked. (well I don't think any, but probably back to Win2k.) This isn't some new phenomena, like people would want you to believe.

And businesses are super slow to adopt any new OS. Businesses would prefer that Microsoft resell Windows 2000 with a few minor upgrades.

 

[trawler69]

I shouldn't have said "support" I should have said "sell" they back tracked and are now going to continue to Sell XP on low spec machines until there is a replacement for Vista. I believe that PC world now offers a free "downgrade" to XP from Vista.

BTW my ex has set up a few new users on Vista and says it is a pain in the arse compared to 98 or XP.

 

[Apollo]

I shouldn't have said "support" I should have said "sell" they back tracked and are now going to continue to Sell XP on low spec machines until there is a replacement for Vista. I believe that PC world now offers a free "downgrade" to XP from Vista.

BTW my ex has set up a few new users on Vista and says it is a pain in the arse compared to 98 or XP.

I find Vista better than the competitors. I don't know how setup for it is though. I am a firm believer that you don't actually buy Vista, you buy a computer with Vista on it.

I do have to agree with MS's decision to support XP on low spec machines seeing how Vista just isn't made for such machines.

 

[trawler69]

Whispers what is FUD or RDF?

 

[sheep]

Whispers what is FUD or RDF?

FUD = Fear, uncertainty and doubt. or bl*ckwolf

RDF
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework

 

[sheep]

German publisher drops 12,000 PCs for Mac
see
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/07/04/german_publisher_drops_12000_pcs_for_mac_more.html

Do I hear 9% in 2009?

No matter what you run, It is good that Gates & Co. are losing their domination of the OS market. Their should be lots of room for OSX and various distros of Linux. May the poorest of the breed die off.

 

[Apollo]

German publisher drops 12,000 PCs for Mac
see
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/07/04/german_publisher_drops_12000_pcs_for_mac_more.html

Do I hear 9% in 2009?

No matter what you run, It is good that Gates & Co. are losing their domination of the OS market. Their should be lots of room for OSX and various distros of Linux. May the poorest of the breed die off.

Hmmm, seems they are going to use the Mac hardware. Doesn't necessarily mean they are going to use OS X.

According the article, the computers will either be running OS X, XP, or Vista.

I wonder how long it takes them to set a few of those computers up with XP or Vista to deal with their heavy duty business stuff? A month, maybeee two?

 

[Apollo]

Why would it take months to load and set up XP or Vista on the machines?

Macs run OS X, XP, Vista and Linux, natively. Partition the drive into four and all of them could be in one machine.

Nooo, I mean how long before they start using Vista or XP more heavily than OS X for day to day business functions.

OS X will be wonderful for getting out their magazine, but it isn't a business OS.

And I know that OS X now comes with Boot Camp, or is it Parallels?

 

[Apollo]

They're using Windows now, I'd imagine, so there's probably no change.That's a myth that's slowly disappearing. I ran a search for ''OS X'' ''business applications'', and this story topped the list, so I include the link here. I didn't bother looking at the others, so there likely are better ones.It comes with Boot Camp. But that's a pain because the machine must be rebooted. Parallels and another, open-source app, the name of which I can't recall, run Windows — in a window — on the OS X desktop. So no rebooting required.

I heard Snow Leopard is suppose to be more business oriented, idk about that though.

I personally don't think Apple should venture into business too much. They are gonna get tangled with a lot of problems, and they won't be able to do that whole tight lipped thing with other businesses.

And the company is getting rid of ALL it's windows machines for Mac's. But some will be running Windows.

 

[Apollo]

I think it's politics between that company and MS, which is losing tons of companies because of its licensing greed. The cost of its licences is blowing up in their faces.

Apple isn't reaping much of the whirlwind, however. Most of the companies — and even countries — telling MS to get stuffed are switching to Linux, I think.

I think the cost of buying a dozen PC's is less than the cost of buying a dozen Macs. I mean, businesses don't need powerful machines unless they are doing graphics, and MS does have business volume licenses for their stuff.

Or, they could just buy a lot of PC's.

The only people who really deal with liscensing Windows is computer makers, and those computers are still much less than a low powered Mac.