Slashdot Log In
Mad as Hell, Switching to Mac
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu May 26, 2005 08:35 AM
from the i-want-you-to-go-to-the-window dept.
from the i-want-you-to-go-to-the-window dept.
justAMan writes "Security dude, Winn Schwartau, has posted an article on Network World about switching his company to Macs because he's fed up with the security issues plaguing Windows-based systems. He also offers his view on why Windows is inherently flawed and why it will eventually fail because of those reasons.
From the article, 'This is my first column written on a Mac - ever. Maybe I should have done it a long time ago, but I never said I was smart, just obstinate. I was a PC bigot.
But now, I've had it. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Uh oh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Uh oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which brings up an interesting point. Does anyone remember back when Microsoft's bread and butter was BASIC? IMHO, it will be impossible to kill Microsoft even if Windows is supplanted. Microsoft will instead move to being a premier software provider for another platform, and continue to hang around as IBM did after they lost the market.
Parent
Re:Uh oh... (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be awesome. Microsoft is capable of writing good software, the problem is that protecting their monopoly is always getting in the way. If they lose Windows and have to reinvent themselves as a real software company... well, let's just say I might buy a Microsoft product again.
Parent
Re:Uh oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if MS dies or not. I just don't want them to be able to use a huge marketshare to slow down progress for everyone else.
Parent
Poor Bill can't win (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a Mac zealot and I hate Redmond crapware as much as anybody.
However, not adding features to useful, stable products is a trend that ought to be encouraged.
Microsoft takes a lot of flak for abominably bloated software filled with bells and whistles that nobody uses. Maybe we shouldn't criticize them for freezing the features and fixing the bugs.
-ccm
Parent
Re:Very closed? Uh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Dude, that's a hell of a lot of slick top [apple.com] there. Your description belittles something that those of us who love Linux only wish we could duplicate. Heck, Microsoft would love to duplicate it, too. Plenty of the tools to do what Apple has done are available to us, but actually pulling it off in a unified manner, putting a truly user-friendly face on that core, that's a tall task.
If it wasn't hard, there'd be several similar implementations. Just duplicating the nice printer setup UI they have for CUPS would be a good start, but I don't think I've seen that yet... much less point-and-click software update with push and server administration UIs.
I'm not saying our desktop UIs are terrible, but... an OS X experience is not what they deliver. Apple also has a pretty deep stack of stuff you won't find elsewhere, even well beyond the UI and ease-of-use space, and since OS X has developed a *nix-like ability to absorb anything else. It's a useful combination, and a very useful platform as a result.
Parent
Re:Uh oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and let's not forget the "reboot and pray" step where you hope that you didn't hose everything because all the system configuration is in a single corruptible binary file along with everything else's settings. What exactly was the point you were trying to make?
Parent
What's wrong with corporate system admins? (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't that hard. The permissions and controls on Windows are extremely fine grained. Learn about them and use them.
I think there are a lot of clueless or bad sys admin who use "everyone knows Windows" is insecure to cover their asses for doing a bad job. The same lousy sys admins could screw up Macs too.
Re:What's wrong with corporate system admins? (Score:5, Insightful)
Easier said then done. A lot of software is designed to only work as admin. One such example I have to deal with is a printer that sends data it captures to a remote server ( electronic claim processing ). Won't run as normal user, security audits to find the exact permissions don't find what's needed to make it work as a normal user. Power user and above. I have three examples where I work, and I know I'm not alone.
The problem isn't windows per se, it's the developers. There's all this bad inertia with the developers, and until MS addresses this, we will continue to see windows wonkiness.
Parent
Re:What's wrong with corporate system admins? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how the standard response from anyone on windows network security is to put the windows machine behind another machine running an OS that does not have the history of massive security problems.
When was the last time you heard of a firewall running (IOS/Linux/BSD/whatever) having an unpatched vulnerability on a network service that (1) you cannot turn off and (2) you cannot tell not to listen on every port?
I of course refer to the RPC endpoint mapper on 135 vulnerability that plagued windows a while ago. Stuff like that is why windows is known as a joke in the security world.
I agree however, that the vast majority of windows problems are caused by clueless admins. However, it is MS's own fault in a sense. A major selling point is that you do not need to understand networking or really much of anything to administer a windows network. This has led to legions of drooling point and click admins who lack even the most basic understand of security and networking principles. Interestingly Mac's are just as easy (if not easier) to admin, BUT they are much more secure by default. Plop a windows box and a Mac in front of a newbie and see which one is "0wned" first.
Finkployd
Parent
I don't think that theory holds water. (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the reason Macs are so secure is that Apple has designed the system such that it is extremely secure from the lowest level to the top. For example, OSX does not have a root account enabled by default. Everything lives in their own permission space and if you want to break out, you use sudo (and thusly have to enter your password).
Less commonly mentioned, however, is the way Apple encourages secure programming with Keychain and their authorization framework. The Keychain encrypts passwords and makes it very hard for an application to get passwords from other applications, meaning that in order to steal valuable information you'd first have to comprimise another application (which is actually quite tricky to do). Even if you do succeed in altering the application, the Keychain notices this and warns you, saying, "Hey, this application changed since it last used me, are you sure you want to allow it access?"
Add to that that Applications cannot alter themselves, and you have a pretty secure foundation for developers (which also, by the way, provides special UI for password entry that is highly resistant to keylogging).
At the lowest level, the PPC architecture is inherently harder to exploit with classic buffer overflows and printf exploits. The PPC system does not keep the current return address on the stack the way that x86 does. PPC chips have an explicit link register for this purpose.
What that means, in practice, is that in order for you to exploit a single function with a buffer overflow, you must inject your code, overwrite the previous function's (the caller of the current function) saved link register (on the stack, along with other saved registers), and then have both the current and previous function return without segfaulting or overwriting your exploit code.
While doable, this is a huge pain to get just right, and it means that the conditions where a buffer overflow can succeed are less prevalent. Add in the fact that instructions have fixed alignment (but data does not) and are of fixed width, and you have a significantly harder egg to write and deploy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that virus writers can do this stuff. It's just that it's much harder and raises the entry bar.
Parent
A testament to OS X's stable nature (Score:5, Informative)
Something that amuses me is the fact that OS X crashes out so infrequently (about once every 18 months) that when it does happen, I immediately assume I must have a hardware problem. That really is a testament to the solidity of an operating systemthat you might expect the hardware to go before the software crashes. And that's not to say I've had any hardware issues to speak of (outside of dropping an iBook onto a tile floor...)
Windows (and Linux) folks are really missing out, in my somewhat humble opinion. I'm most content with my G5 [blakespot.com], iBook [blakespot.com], and new Mac mini [mac.com].
blakespot
Re:A testament to OS X's stable nature (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll start with the basics. Buy quality hardware. Buying a cheaper processor because you can overclock it and double the voltage while pumping koolaid into it is probably not within the design specs.
I'm sitting at my work computer here so let me just take a look around at what we've got. Dual Xeon 2.4 ghz on a SuperMicro motherboard. Ultra 3 SCSI drives and a SuperMicro server case.
What's running on it you ask? Windows 2000 Professional. I use it 5 days a week - and heavily too. Right now I see 45 windows open. Matlab with numerous graphs (with lots of data loaded on them and in the stack), Outlook, Excel, lots of note pads, lots of file directories, 3 SSH programs running, 5 Mozilla windows (most with multiple tabs), an HP48G emulator, Microsoft Streets and Trips, Mozilla Sunbird, Mozilla Thunderbird, Pro/ENGINEER 2001, RealVNC, Winamp, etc.
This list is pretty typical. These programs regularly get closed and reopened depending on what I'm doing. Looking at my task manager I have 66 processes and 915MB of ram in use. The machine was last rebooted On February 8th due to an Internet Explorer upgrade (according to my event log). That's three months of regular use without a reboot.
This OS was installed on July 25th, 2003. It has bluescreened once. ONCE!
If any windows machine I build and use has a blue screen I typically assume it's a hardware failure. Windows 2000, while having numerous bugs, is incredibly stable. I've had only limited experience with XP so I can't comment too much.
I don't know where you're buying your hardware or what you're doing with it, but try buying some quality hardware before you go blaming the software. I have more than my share of complaints about windows, but if it crashes regularly then maybe you should look someplace else for the cause. There are probably half a dozen machines in this lab, plus my home computer, girlfriend's computer, and laptop - all of which are quite stable.
Parent
Mad As Hell (Score:5, Funny)
Being All Things (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't really say that alternatives such as Mac OS X and Linux aren't as full of similar unnecessary parts as Windows. By, IMHO, when using OS X, the extras seem less likely to be in your way. A lot of this involves the interface; a good desktop manager in Linux should keep things similarly simple.
Someone said it when they were using Word for Windows, flummoxed by the myriad of controls: "Good lord, I don't need to launch a Space Shuttle--I just want to write a letter!" No wonder some new computer users have the movie "WarGames" running through their head each time they touch their PC--it's complexity seems to guarantee that something new will happen each time you use it...and not a "good" kind of "new."
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to think we're past that stage.
and in the same issue... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2005/05230
He didn't exactly justify his switch..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows is complex, trying to be everything to everyone.
True. Many mac apps, especially those from Apple, will sacrifice features to keep things simple. Other apps keep the complex stuff hidden behind the simple stuff.
When a new operating system or service pack is released, there are tons of changes to the functionality.
Yes, the updates I get from Apple seem to focus on bug fixes, while Microsoft seems to create these huge updates that add new features and often break old ones.
WinTel machines use different versions of BIOS. They are not all equal, nor do they all have the same level of compatibility.
Well, that's the price you pay for being able to buy PCs from a number of different manufacturers. Apple is the only source of macs, they control the BIOS and the quality. Sounds like a trade off.
Some Windows software applications are well written; others take shortcuts. Shortcuts may work in some environments, but not all, and ultimately the consumer pays in lost time, availability and productivity.
You could also say the same thing about Mac applications.
Hardware. There are hundreds of "WinTel-compatible" motherboards, each claiming to be better than the next. Whatever.
This is a reason to switch to macs?! He's complaining about security, then instead of going into more detail about that, he complains about hardware.
Memory. Not all RAM is equal. Some works well. Cheap stuff doesn't.
So buy better RAM! Jeez!
Hard disks. Same problem: cheap or reliable. Your call.
So buy a better hard disk! Why is this a reason to switch to Macs?
I'm very happy with my mac, and it's well designed and built (and I've added good quality RAM and a couple of Seagate hard drives), but this guy could have gotten accomplished his goals without taking the drastic step of switching to a Macintosh.
My own experiences... (Score:5, Insightful)
In my personal experience, I agree with the substance of the article more than the style. We've had both Windows and Mac OS machines in our house for some time now - home-built Windows desktop for games, a Gateway laptop that I lug around, and an iBook that my wife uses heavily are the current lineup (PowerBook coming soon). I'm no slouch when it comes to administering and maintaining Windows machines, as I've been in the trenches of IT for about 8 years now at DEC/Compaq/HP, with a few side jobs here and there.
Aaaanyway - my Windows machines are patched regularly (just about every Tuesday), I run anti-virus, anti-spyware, and firewall software on both (the desktop runs consumer-level stuff, the notebook is used to connect to work, so it runs the corporate versions of same). I routinely run all the beloved "maintenance" tasks on both the Windows machines to keep 'em running normally. And you know what? I still have to reimage the Windows desktop machine every 6 months or so, 'cause things just stop working. The notebook needs a reimage about every 4 months or so.
I don't use Suspend or Hibernate on either machine - when I did, I had to fix things even more often. As a lark, I took a more hands-off approach to maintenance on the Windows machines for about 6 months just to see if my maintenance tasks were making things worse, and there was no change. Desktop Windows install failed within 6 months, laptop within 4.
By contrast, my wife's iBook, which also gets rather heavy usage, only had 1 problem - my wife left it in reach of our 2-year-old son when she got up to answer a phone call, and he pulled it off the desk and used it as something to stand on to reach the other fun stuff on the desk (didn't quite give him the height needed, but points for the effort). He got excited when our cat got up on the desk, and started jumping up and down... on the iBook. There were no native failures at all - especially in the OS or applications. Antivirus and firewall were installed more as a precaution than anything else, and there were 0 problems with spyware, etc. The iBook went to sleep when the lid was closed, and woke right up when it was opened. Effectively the only times we had to reboot the machine were after installing updates, and not always then. I recall maybe twice in 2 years did the some piece of software (or the OS) wedge itself so badly that a restart was required.
I'm not a zealot for either platform, and I have played reasonably extensively with Linux as well (it's got a long way to go before it will be a viable desktop OS for the casual user, in my opinion). When I was a bit younger (and didn't have kids), I would tear down and rebuild my computers regularly. My friends and I would get together and rebuild our computers. While I still appreciate the skill required to do it well, I don't have time or inclination anymore (I'm also looking to change careers to get out of IT, which may be related...) to tinker extensively. System maintenance is moving further and further away from being interesting or fun.
My wife's iBook and my Gateway laptop are used for substantially the same thing - word processing, spreadsheets, email, web browsing, etc. The usual productivity grind. The iBook does it with less fuss and bother, and doesn't require as much maintenace. As my priorities change, the Mac platform becomes more and more attractive. I do enough work at work - I don't want to do more of the same at home, and Windows on the home machines is becoming a bother.
In my own, purely anecdotal experience, the Mac is looking better and better. If they had a spreadsheet component of iWork, it would do literally everything I need, but Office for the Mac is no slouch. We'll probably always have at least one Windows box for games (and one of these days, I'll get smart and make a proper image so reinstalls don't take so long in case of failure), but we'll be moving more completely to Mac in our house.
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I think it's a sad state of affairs that people consider it a news story that some nobody columnist has decided he likes Macs better than Windows. All this cheerleading for "switchers" is really pathetic.
Hey, Windows users: Use whatever you like. I don't give a fuck. If one of you decides that switching to the Mac is a good idea, it really donesn't make my preference of computers any better.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that exactly one of the points that the author of the article is complaining about Window's based computers???
From the article:
Windows is complex, trying to be everything to everyone.
Couldn't the same be said about internet browsers? I want a browser to do just that.... browse. I don't need it to fix my spelling, that's what my dictionary is for.
Having numerous computers, from all walks of life (Windows, Mac, several flavors of Linux). Each used for their specific purposes. When I want to sit down and play some Half Life or other games, it really doesn't make sense to have all macs or all linux boxes. However, when I want to play around with some audio or video editing, then the Macintosh is where it's at. Finally, who in their right mind would host any type of server on a Windows or Macintosh machine? Hence the Linux boxes.
Point being, there are all sorts of uses for each of the computer types out there. (well.... this turned into more of a rant then I had originally planned.. what are the three things you aren't supposed to talk about in polite company? religion, politics, and.... oh yes, os selection)
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone says that, but a browser is not that simple.
Most people expect a browser to display html, download files, handle multimedia content (flash at a minimum), make use of cookies and have the associated management tools for the cookies, have javascript support and associated management tools and options (e.g. disallow sites from opening popups, but have a little icon so you can enable for a certain site), have java support with associated options, have tabbed browsing with associated options for all links (e.g. open in new window vs open in new tab), etc, etc.
A browser is a platform upon which many types of applications can be built, that handles a variety of very different content and executable code. And it's all supposed to be so user-configurable that even if someone has cookies and javascript disabled, the application is supposed to be functional. And it's supposed to look good no matter what the font settings or resolution on the local system.
This is why web applications and web browsers are complicated. If you really want a browser to just "browse," get netscape 3 or lynx or something.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, you're obviously not a Mac user. The browser IS simple; the browser doesn't fix your spelling. The browser uses standard system APIs for text input, and the OS checks your spelling using the same standard dictionaries. The same spell checker is used whether I'm posting to Slashdot in Safari, writing an e-mail, chatting in iChat or X-Chat, or typing in TextEdit. This means that if I right-click a word and select "Learn Spelling", I'll never be bothered about that word again, no matter which application I happen to be using. It also means that if I change my preferred language in System Preferences (or just change to a different dialect, like British English instead of U. S. English) and relaunch my applications, spell check works with the new language automatically.
Finally, who in their right mind would host any type of server on a Windows or Macintosh machine? Hence the Linux boxes.
I use Linux for my dedicated servers too, but the fact that things like Apache, Samba and sshd are installed by default on my laptop comes in awfully handy from time to time. Not to mention a local copy of the complete Apache documentation, which is nice when I'm trying to remember the syntax for some obscure mod_rewrite thing while I'm on the road.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Informative)
FYI: Spellcheck is not a Safari Browser feature, it's an OS feature.
All OS X apps which are programmed correctly automatically take advantage of the OS X spellchecker for anywhere that standard text is going to be entered by the user. If I type something as truly stupid as "donesn't" in mail.app, a textbox in safari, or anywhere else, OS X will underline it with the squiggly red "you are a dumbass" line, and I will see it before sending it off.
For shitty typists like me, it's a terrific feature.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Informative)
Google toolbar would also be considered an extension...
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Mac OS X came out I've been a happy Mac user, but I'd just assume the world stay on Windows (or Linux)... Why? Because the fewer Macs there are the less target they are for virus and exploit writers.
Sure I believe Mac OS X is more secure than Windows (how could it not be), but let's not fool ourselves. Securing something as complex as an operating system is no trivial task. Given the average user's distaste for software update, a critical mass of the all-too-uniform Mac OS X could create an unpleasant security situation. Compare to Linux which (at present) has the diversity to survive any attack.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Informative)
Here are the latest security reports regarding IIS 6 and Apache 2, since Jan 2003 (which is when IIS 6 was released):
Since Jan 2003: 1 of 3 advisories unpatched for IIS6:
http://secunia.com/product/1438/ [secunia.com]
Since Jan 2003: 2.5 of 24 unpatched for Apache 2 (2 unpatched and 1 partially patched):
http://secunia.com/product/73/ [secunia.com]
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe a follow up article on how Apple's browser "Safari" is complient with XHTML, CSS 2.0, XSLT 2.0, XML 1.1, SVG 1.0, and XPath 2.0. Another follow up article might be a function by function comparison of Apple's and Microsoft's Word Processor, Spread Sheet, Data Base, and Presentation Manager.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
The look of OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
OS 10.3 (and I assume, 10.4) really limits the amount of customization that can be done to the interface. I know that the interface can be changed with a little work, but it's admittedly very low on my list of priorities. My point is that out of the box, Apple doesn't let you change the "look" of OS X to any major extent by just pointing and clicking, unlike Windows.
I get the impression that this was a deliberate choice by Apple, in order to maintain a uniform user interface. I can understand that decision, even if I don't fully agree with it.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Funny)
My problem is when people aren't tolerant - my IT director here is a "Windows-only" person... in spite of the fact that we're a radio station doing audio production on Macs. He hates them with a passion, refused for the longest time to let them on his network, and keeps trying to put PCs running Windows 98 into the studios for doing audio... in spite of the constant crashing every time he tries.
Right tool for the right job, right? Isn't it about efficient, secure, reliable usage? In this case, the only tool I've got is the IT director.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Funny)
They have that!?
Holy crap, I'd better stop pointing out that Futurama and The Family Guy were never very funny.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Interesting)
COMPUTERS ARE NOT A RELIGION
I can use either PCs or Macs... And I have both (shrug).
My PC is better for some things, the Mac better for other things. They're just tools to me.
(and for the AC up above, Steve Wozniak DID work on the Mac hardware, WAS with Apple at the time it was developed, and IS a heck of a cool guy).
N.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. More mac apps.
2. More mac developers.
3. More mac hardware.
4. More websites that don't require IE.
5. More mac games.
6. More mac support.
7. Better cultural acceptance (I'm *so* tired of walking into a lan party and getting flamed for my mac.)
Not to mention the fact that it means fewer calls to you for tech support because they can't get rid of bonzai buddy. Or fewer attack zombies wandering the internet to bring down your company's network.
In small numbers, no, it doesn't matter, but it's one of the unfortunately truths of a small platform or standard that how widely its adopted can greatly affect the user experience. You can't play a multiplayer game by yourself.
Parent
Flame on... (Score:5, Informative)
I do use a 2003 Server at home and at work and I have yet to have a single virus or malware infection. I do apply patches, run a firewall etc.
Yes, it is possible to set it up such that you can execute remote content automatically and get infected. But it is also trivial, and now it is a default setting to configure it NOT to execute remote content. Since Mac can not run that content anyway - that will not be a loss of functionality compared to a Mac.
P.S. I do like Macs, especially their laptops. If I was back at university doing physics data analysis that would be my platform of choice nowdays instead of Linux. But I definitely do not feel a pressing need to switch from 2003.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is part of the point -- why on earth do we have to keep applying patches, running firewalls, and running anti-virus software just to keep our computers running?
If you have to install a patch every six months to a year because of something truly awful, that's not so bad. But to have the current patch-mill is just insane. Why do you have to have a firewall and an anti-virus to be safe? Why not just run safe software?
Likewise, the article wasn't just about security, it's also about quality. Are there decent PC's out there that don't start breaking within 9 months? If there are, they certainly aren't being sold to consumers. In our office, we have laptops from several vendors. Some of them have lost use of their ethernet ports, some have lost use of their PCMCIA slots, and some have lost use of their USB ports. But the Mac ones, even the older iBooks and Powerbooks, are still running fine. We have the same situation with our desktops, though not to the same degree.
The basic point is that, to use WinTel, you have to spend a LOT of time and effort just keeping the stupid thing alive. With Mac, you spend your time actually working.
Parent
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm..with my Linux and Mac boxes, I've not had a virus since...ever.....
That's one of the things about windows that kills me...I've not had a virus in over 100 days...I only have to reboot once a week now...I generally only reboot when I install new software or updates (ok, the mac is guilty on the reboot on updates too)....
The windows world has convinced users that this is somehow normal behavior. That it is normal to re-install a whole operating system on a regular basis? C'mon...even back in the mainframe days....you didn't get this kind of nonsense. Uptimes should be measured in years if you don't have any power failures....updating an application or most things short of a kernel upgrade should NOT require you to bring the box down for a reboot.
It seems the largest innovation MS has given us...is to accept mediocrity as the norm.
Parent
"Windows is complex" (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing that I've always admired about Apple is that (like Google) they seem to have a corporate culture which heavily encourages new features to be integrated ELEGANTLY into existing frameworks. They really seem to spend time, thought, money, and even passion on finding a "clean" way to do things.
My impression of Microsoft has been rather the opposite: when they've decided to add a new feature, just add a new "required" desktop item; toss it in the Start menu; add a fifteenth tab to the Options dialog; create a bazillionth DOS8CHAR.DLL in the Windows directory; and you're done! The corporate culture seems to encourage slap-dash engineering of a form that would be frankly chucked out at Apple, Google, and other "cultured" companies.
Parent
WTF is he talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Security problems? has this guy actually HAD security problems, or has he just read of the threat of problems and anecdotes of others that have had problems? I read them all the time too, but it's not enough for me to change OS AND hardware just because the press overplays this threat.
I run virus checkers, adware checking...am behind a hardware router/firewall. Basically the same thing I would be running on OSX also. I don't even think about it and just get on with my day.
He's created a strawman argument. It has no weight.
Windows is complex, trying to be everything to everyone. This complexity comes at a terrible price: downtime, help desks, upgrades, patches and the inevitable failures.
And OSX doesn't have any of this? Linux doesn't either? Sorry, you use a modern OS you'll have upgrades/patches/downtime from time to time.
When a new operating system or service pack is released, there are tons of changes to the functionality.
Read up on some problems people are having with Tiger and get back to us.
WinTel machines use different versions of BIOS. They are not all equal, nor do they all have the same level of compatibility.
Um...ok. What's your point?
Some Windows software applications are well written; others take shortcuts. Shortcuts may work in some environments, but not all, and ultimately the consumer pays in lost time, availability and productivity.
Again, this is a windows only problem?? It happens everywhere. But it would be nice if he were to cite examples...but he didn't have time to bring facts into the picture.
Hardware. There are hundreds of "WinTel-compatible" motherboards, each claiming to be better than the next. Whatever.
Some would call this choice. Also others would call it cheaper. Still others would call it the power to make what you want. Whatever.
Memory. Not all RAM is equal. Some works well. Cheap stuff doesn't.
Again...hello? RAM isn't equal on ANY platform! There is cheap stuff being sold and bought everyday on the Macs too you know. People don't want to overpay Apple for RAM, so they try to get something cheap and WHAM, they end up with problems.
Hard disks. Same problem: cheap or reliable. Your call.
Last I checked, Apple used the same type of Hard disks as everyone else out there. I could take a HD out of an Apple and put it in my PC and vice-versa. So how is this a "windows" problem?
Now, I'm NOT a Windows lover by any stretch of the imagination...but come on. If you're going to attack it, at least do it in an intellegent manner. This guy was just full of himself, gave no real facts or data and just spouted crap. I love Macs too, love them to death. Just wish I could actually afford a good one. One that would equal my desktop machine now. Yeah, I could afford a Mac Mini, but it's too underpowered for me. Maybe one day I'll save my pennies and get a Mac...but not because I'm "mad as hell". I don't choose something because something else sucks. I go with something because that something is right for me. It's like this last Presidential election. Many people voted for one candidate only because they didn't like the other one. They didn't vote for the person because they liked him or believed in him...only because they didn't like the other guy. WTF is that?
Parent
Re:Invalid Opinion (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, there are security problems with windows, but no, you have to be a giant fucktard newbie to actually ever be affected by them.
So not installing a third party firewall, a third party antivirus scanner and third party spyware software makes one a "giant fucktard newbie"? Perhaps you should address why all these third party applications are needed just to give a Wintel box a basic level of security?
Parent
Re:what is he talking about? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was at the "helm" as a consultant turned IT manager/overseer while a full nationwide exec search was conducted to permantely fill the position for just about 11 months. The previous exec literally dropped dead a few days before an entire network upgrade: all new workstations, servers, cabling, routing equipment, and software packages went into effect. Four full timers on IT, 5 half-timers (24 hrs a week) on help-desk, and me.
In my time, we never had (1) any problems with patching, (2) a single piece of spyware found on any machine, (3) a single virus or worm or other such outbreak of unauthorized software, (4) any data loss or corruption and (5) a single BSOD. I had a core group of 12 servers that were "mission critical", whose uptime from the day I started to the day my replacement came aboard was perfect.
The point being, that your mileage may vary. With everything in this industry, YMMV. It should be stamped. We did BIOS upgrades, we had hordes of clueless users, we had clueless employees - the same problems as anyone else had. But we never let MS or Dell or anyone be our scapegoats, and we ended up really really meeting our goals and exceeding what anyone thought was possible.
Parent
Re:Crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard disks. Same problem: cheap or reliable. Your call. : Again, solved by Apple by not allowing "cheap".
Are you one of those people under the weird assumption that you cannot put non-Apple purchased memory and hard drives into a Mac?
Although I do not really see what this has to do with Windows vs Mac, Apple has their hardware quality control issues just like anyone else (avoid the i* stuff and only go with the power* stuff).
Finkployd
Finkployd
Parent
Re:Crazy (Score:5, Funny)
There is a PowerPod?
Parent
Re:*Opens Window* (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Who and Where? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's use XP as the example here. I do phone support for DSL, and I have to help new users set up a static IP address. On OSX, it's "click on the apple at the top left, go to system preferences, a window will open. click on the network icon in that".
On XP, do I bother to ask them if they see a "My Network Places" icon on the desktop? It's often (but not always) hidden. If it's not there, do I ask them to go to the control panel, which may or may not be listed under Settings? Which may or may not be in classic view? Which if it isn't is one more nested icon, if they don't get confused and think I'm talking about the same thing? Do I say fuck it, tell them to click start, go to run (can this be hidden, some have a hard time finding it?) and type in "ncpa.cpl" ? You have no idea how difficult it is to spell for them over the phone. "What do you mean november, do i spell that out, or abbreviate it n-o-v?".
Once there though, I have to have them right click on "local area connection" (what, there's more than one?) select properties, that is if they're not too clumsy and they don't accidentally drag it a bit, bringing up the "create shortcut/copy/move" menu. Then a second window pops up. The item they need has a checkmark by it, ever try to talk one out of thinking they don't need to check/uncheck something? Sometimes if the resolution is wrong, they'd have to scroll to see it. Sometimes, only IPv6 is installed, on factory new machines. So, now they have to open it up, either by highlighting "internet protocol" and clicking on the properties button (do i have to right click?). But try to explain to them to click on the words, not the checkbox. Or maybe they can just double-click on the words "internet protocol" maybe not, depending on settings.
Then, A third window pops up. And they have to select static or dynamic. But hey! Even though they've selected static, they still have to choose whether to use static DNS, or dhcp (wtf?!?!!?). And do they have to type in the dots, (cause they are already there!). And it always auto-fills the subnet for them with 255.0.0.0 even when it's not a class A address (even if it were, how often do they think that that subnet is actually used?!?!).
And then, they have to click OK, and then on the previous window, either OK or close. It could be either one, I'm thinking a SP changes this button label.
And if the magic dll faeries are in a good mood, it just might work.
So tell me, which is more complex than the other again?
Parent
Re:Who and Where? (Score:5, Informative)
We give out 64.x.x.x IPs. They need to have 255.255.255.0 subnets the way the our DSLAMs are set up. It's a class A IP though, so it autocalculates 255.0.0.0. However, we have a few 216.x.x.x IPs also. And while I don't see so many of those, I distinctly remember the customer saying "it already has 255.0.0.0 in there". The first is dumb, even people with 1.x.x.x - 126.x.x.x IPs are rarely on a network segment with 16 million other hosts. On the latter, it's just plain wrong. Score 0 for M$.
IPv6?? ROFL. thats just a lie. Ive never seen any PC that didnt have just one TCP/IP stack per interface ona default install.
New Dells. Has happened too often for me to chalk it up as a fluke. And it doesn't also include IPv4, it only has one. The wrong one. Score 0 for Dell.
typing the dots has no effect because MS assumes that you are typing the dots and moves the cursor to the next octet when a dot is typed.
Confuses the customer. If it's already there, they don't have to type it. When they don't, then it bitches about invalid octets. Score 0 for M$.
start menu -> control pannel -> network connections -> MENU -> view -> details
Wow, yet another way to do it. That's exactly what I need. Time will tell if this one is consistent, or inconsistent like the others. Judgement reserved.
When you click "use the following IP address" it doesnt let you obtain dns automatically. IT unghosted all the fields, not just some of them.
Then why does it have another radio selector? I only mentioned it because it sometimes seems to work, other times doesn't. If the top radio button set does, why put the other in their to confuse the casual user? Score 0 for M$.
of course on linux you can enter commands to change just about everything so that is, in your world, the easiest because i could just say ' ifconfig interface XXX add x.x.x.x netmask x.x.x.x ' or some such similar thing.
Yeh, nice isn't it? A single command, that nails 3 of the numbers right away, and only one more to add the nameservers to
Score 1 for unix.
Parent