Mad as Hell, Switching to Mac 1262
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.'"
WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Invalid Opinion (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, there are security problems with windows, but no, you have to be a giant fucktard newbie to actually ever be affected by them. The only problem not requiring gross negligence or browsing the strangest, most dubious
If you are thinking of replying to this, and you've ever had a virus, spyware, a trojan, your browser hijacked (or been the victim of an exploit not DIRECTLY targeted at you), then please, save yourself the time and don't bother. Your opinion means nothing.
Why oh why... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Uh oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:what is he talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)
> basis and have never had a problem. What a whiner. What do i care about different bios versions?
Have you ever tried managing 1000 machines with 1000 average users? Please folks, having a PC at home does not make you an IT specialist. Nor does running linux make you a unix admin.
jfs
Switching to Apple (Score:1, Insightful)
I hope this guy realizes,... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose the type of work his company does not rely on software thats only available for Windows. Because a lot of us run Windows not because we want to, but because we have to.
Am I the only one who thinks knee-jerk, lets convert 100% right now, shoot first ask questions later, is a bad way to convert from Microsoft to Macs (or Linux, Sun, etc.)?
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."
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.
Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to think we're past that stage.
Ok... (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy claims to be a security expert (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 1: Avoid Fishy Sites. :)
This is 90% of the problem people assume that the internet is safe, and routinely surf the web, allow ActiveX controls to run unfettered, install Gator because it allows them to remember all their passwords. The internet is not a safe place, whether you are on a Windows, Mac, or Linux. It is a safe place for BSD users, because BSD is dead, so no one writes anything for it.
Step 2: Get updates every couple of months
Windows update, and apt-get make this process easier. Even Linux when it's not updated can get compromised (though not as easily nor as quickly as Windows).
Step 3: Use a Firewall of some sort.
99% of exploits require direct access to the machine, even the most basic firewall will prevent that access.
These are very basic tips that I think even Joe Blow on the street can learn if he is willing to listen. Sometimes that listening takes 2-3 times of his machine getting compromised and reloaded at $105 a pop.
"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.
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.
Re:What's wrong with corporate system admins? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why oh why... (Score:3, Insightful)
> is just plain "fed up"? Of course, as long as we include the statement "I used to be a platform X
> user ONLY, now I'm switching to Y," then it matters a whole lot more.
When 98% of the business world would never dream of switching from windows to mac because of the cost and difficulties, when a company does it successfully and easily, and is happy with the results, it IS news. It's a wake up call to the brainwashed masses.
jfs
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with corporate system admins? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but equivalent software that doesn't require a daily reboot of the server does.
jfs
Re:WTF? (Score:1, Insightful)
No. If he wants to use a Mac operating system, well... unless he does some serious work at porting Mac OS X to the x86, or could settle for the 500x slowdown running it in PearPC, I betcha he'd want an Apple chip.
If he read any reviews of Tiger, as a desktop platform he probably realizes it can't be beat by Windows or any of the x86 flavors of Unix.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh... (Score:4, Insightful)
As for "why not Linux", then consider that, from a H/W point of view, a Linux-based system doesn't fare much better. The core O/S kernel may indeed be more secure (I agree that it is), but when a particular flavor of USB widget card, sound card, camera, or whatever isn't supported, it's largely -- I think -- for the same reaons: too many combinations of H/W, chipset, BIOS, and whatnot, and not enough people who have scratched a given itch to get it working in a particular combination. I've abandoned my particular install of MDK 10 due less to the OS and more to the ability for it to have H/W work without hassle.
which is likely true to a varing degree depending on implementation
Exactly...
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.
Re:Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
First Off you can get MS Office for the Mac. So you don't have to push OpenOffice
Secondly a well named company. Apple has been in the news alot lately and a lot more then Linux.
Third Cool hardware. If you are going to upgrade you might as well get some cool hardware out of it.
Forth wow factor. It is easy with Apple products to make a demostration with it and wow the execs.
Fifth. User friendly you can debate that linux is user friendly and perfectly good as a desktop until you are blue in the face. But the normal person will be more comfortable with Apple which has the reputation of beeing easier to use then windows for many year.
Sixth knowing that it will work. Other then putting Linux on a bunch of hardware designed to run on windows and taking you chances and replacing anything that may not be compatible. Just put all the old stuff aside and go with new hardware. And many vendors who say their are linux compatible just lie to you. Like Dell but that is an other story.
Seventh. Forced uniformaty. If you put Linux on all the systems it will be only a mater of time untill someone who doesn't like Linux will bring there copy of XP from home and reinstall it on their system. And shortly after that the network is invaded with a virus again.
Eighth. Looks good to share holders. You will look a lot more professional when you have an iMacs or PowerMac in every cubical. Apple is as much a part of interior design as functionality thus it makes your company look uptodate and modern.
Ninth. Becides secuity most people working on Apples are more productive. The interface is clean and doesn't get in the way like windows or most Linux WMs
Tenth. Support if there is a problem call Apple. It doesn't mater if it is a hardware problem or software problem if there is a problem it is Apples problem.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is a great server operating system. Its flexibility and open nature make it very resilient, and being able to compile the kernel with just the features you want is a major plus when it comes to security. But until the Linux community can rally around a single, unified vision for a Linux desktop OS, it will never be anything more than a hobbyist's desktop OS. Having 40 billion distros simply is not helping Linux's push to the desktop.
Re:Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Switching to Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
We've heard those over and over and over again. And every single time they've been refuted. You want proof? Look at IE VS. Firefox: malware writers are becoming aware of Firefox, and there are reports of Firefox users having popups occasionally, because of a flaw in the javascript language. Firefox somehow managed to keep fixing itself for the consumer's experience, whereas IE is just a nightmare!
Another example?
I remember having a discussion in 98, or 99, with a big time mac fan. She said that her computer crashed "sometimes" but not too regularly that it impaired her work. Then we talked about viruses. Of course, I was using win98 SE at the time, and had mcafee installed. She said there were no viruses for macs. How wrong she was. There are viruses for Mac OS. Only for versions before OS X though.
Part of that is the kernel. Unix kernels are amongst the eldest still run today. And they are popular for servers. Linux is Unix based. It's not perfect by any means, nor do I think anything will ever be. Unix has been around since, what, the 1980s? It's used on servers. So why don't people write viruses to take down servers? The answer is they try, but the security is just superior on those kernels than in the windows kernel!
Mac OSX is based on Darwin. Darwin is a rock-solid platform, tested and proved!
Why can't you accept the fact that for all they've done, MS went down the wrong path. They used to write cheap software. Now they charge more for it, but the way they write it is still with the same thought in mind: maximize profit.
That's why they'll always be behind everyone else: they try and make it seem like they innovate, but in reality it's just copying what others have started doing. Microsoft is just a big marketing machine for a mediocre product. That's all.
Re:"Windows is complex" (Score:3, Insightful)
MS works well for what it runs on. Linux tends to have a few more problems, because of the decisions not to use the BIOS code after boot, and the lack of support from hardware manufacturers. All in all, for stability and security, Apple is probably the best choice of the three.
Proprietary (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said I get my new mac on
Actually, both. Or neither. (Score:4, Insightful)
From his blog: [blogspot.com]
"But, really, in the last few months, my frustration went over the top because I openly admit I am tough on laptops. I schlepp two of 'em everywhere 'round the world and I see no reason a $2000 box should not be able to take $2000 worth of airport abuse.
So, my beautiful new Sony 17" VAIO with 1920X1200 res (Freaking gorgeous) began to have mechanical problems. I can recognize a HW versus SW prob and this was hardware but the Sony folks, in an effort to save having to send a guy to me, tried to convince me "Reinstall Windows." NO! That is wrong! This is a HW problem."
While some might prefer to build, write, administer, and hold absolute control over their computer systems, most people just want to use them. They also want support on their computers to be as painless as possible.
That's one of the bigger advantages to a Mac over Windows or Linux: It's easy to find who to call when it breaks.
vested interest (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as they unplug that broadband connection, then I completely agree with you! Otherwise, they are zombies that provide a platform for attacking or spamming my non-MS machine.
Re:what is he talking about? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I hope this guy realizes,... (Score:3, Insightful)
No kidding. In our case, we simply cannot have ANY cross-platform problems going back and forth with our two main mega-corporate clients. They're 100% Windows, therefore, whether I hate it or really hate it, most of our users are on Windows as well.
For the guy who approves my paychecks (a very important man!), the decision to not piss off these two large clients was worth risking my gloom and doom security scenarios. In the long term, we can probably afford to eat some downtime due to viruses, spyware, etc, but we almost certainly cannot afford to lose one of our two largest clients. In another 5 years? Maybe a different story. But for now, this is The Way It Is.
No decisions can be made [well] in a vaccuum; IT problems are no different. This is precisely why the "cowboys" you mention in your last paragraph are such a problem (whether pro-Windows, or pro-something else).
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?
Re:Uh oh... (Score:1, Insightful)
And Safari's were patched.
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.
Re:Flame on... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more. Death to the monopoly, not necessarily to the company.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which "Quality PC Vendors" did you have in mind?
Re:Commentary (Score:3, Insightful)
A very old argument (Score:3, Insightful)
For those of you who don't recognize it, that's a direct quote from the US Declaration of Independence -- s/Government/System/g
That's so good, I put it on my second website [linuxbeachhead.com]
Re:Flame on... (Score:1, Insightful)
Hey, what's this? A preview button. Aw hell, that means I'd have to read what I just typed.
Re:This guy claims to be a security expert (Score:3, Insightful)
I think inertia is a big reason why this guy (and others) suffered this long with Windows. Because I'm younger than him, but realised the pain Windows gave me in 1999 (after 6 months of use), and finished switching entirely to Linux in 2001, switching one app at a time. Deciding which app to switch was simple : each time one Windows app failed badly on me (like Outlook loosing more than a year of my emails), I switched it to the Linux desktop (and never had such big problems since !). Which means that by 2001, EVERY app on Windows failed badly on me, no wonder I suffered so much.
Well, where are you wrong ? Simple, in your "simple" steps of securing Windows. They will not secure you much I'm afraid, there's a good chance you are a zombie without even knewing it, if you applied only these.
1 : Avoid fishy sites
Sorry, but my wife goes wherever she wants on the net, and me too. We NEVER had ANY problem on Linux when doing that. The Internet may not be a safe place, but at least, Linux is a safe boat for it. Could say the same for email. You just showed the hassle it is to use Windows : you have to be alert, on your toe, whatever you do on Windows. No such thing with Linux. And my wife is a standard clueless user
2 : Get updates every couple of months
In two months time, you have plenty of time to become the next internet zombie on Windows. No such thing on Linux. On Linux distro, the few servers that run by default are protected by a firewall set up for you at install time. So you have nearly zero chance of being eaten by a worm or virus. If you put a server visible to the internet on a Linux box, you have to know what you are doing (though it is simple to do), and then, yes, has then to update your server regularly.
Your sophistic sentence of course is FUD : yes Linux can be compromised, even when well updated. But not as fast, not as often as a Windows box, and most of the time, not automatically (need of a black hat to crack the box with a rootkit).
3 : Use a Firewall of some sort
Stupid to rely on this. No firewall will protect you if there are flaws in one server of your box accessible to the internet, especially if the flaw allows an attacker to get remote access to the machine. You are all wrong really : even the most powerful firewall will NOT prevent that access then.
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)
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
Re:Flame on... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Windows is complex" (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is a company that wants to make money. It capitalises on ripping off people who don't know any better. They're good machines, they're well designed from the ground up, but I believe you're kissing their ass a great deal too much in your post. Think about that nasty widget security flaw and the KHTML stuff mentioned in other replies to your post.
What is better for most users (Score:3, Insightful)
The shortcuts programs can take are less likley to affect system stablity.
Memory Not all RAM is equal. Some works well. Cheap stuff doesn't. : Makes save you from this trouble by only allowing you to buy the expensive stuff...Hard disks. Same problem: cheap or reliable. Your call. : Again, solved by Apple by not allowing "cheap".
So a philisophical question - is it better for a company to use more expensive products they are sure will work for 99% of the userbase, or to use parts with an acceptable failure rate of 20% and just bake extra support costs (handled by India of course) into the equation? Is it better for most users to allow them an option of using cheap parts if they buy on thier own instead of forcing it on them in disguise as "bargain" systems?
Windows is complex, trying to be everything to everyone. : Have you seen an Apple commercial recently? Or the "switch" ones?
How are those related? In the first case you have an issue of functionality - in the second marketing. And we all know marketing != reality...
Popularity myth (Score:4, Insightful)
Correlation does not necessarily imply causation-- just because it is popular and has the most vulnerabilities does NOT mean that those security lapses are BECAUSE it's popular.
Re:Uh oh... (Score:2, Insightful)
First Off you can get MS Office for the Mac. So you don't have to push OpenOffice
you are 100% correct.
Secondly a well named company. Apple has been in the news alot lately and a lot more then Linux.
I'm assuming you do not or have not worked in a corporate environment before. Name recognition is great, but all they will look at is how it affects the bottom line. Buying new hardware is NEVER and easy sell.
Third Cool hardware. If you are going to upgrade you might as well get some cool hardware out of it.
See previous response.
Forth wow factor. It is easy with Apple products to make a demostration with it and wow the execs.
Powerpoint is easy on any platform. Execs, unlike us readers of slashdot, will have no idea or care what machine was used to create the presentation - only the content.
Fifth. User friendly you can debate that linux is user friendly and perfectly good as a desktop until you are blue in the face. But the normal person will be more comfortable with Apple which has the reputation of beeing easier to use then windows for many year.
As long as we're making wild assumptions, the average person would be more comfortable working on a Windows system. Chances are, that is what they have used for their entire working and personal computing habits. People resist change. Apple IS easier to use if you are not familiar with Windows. But I would hate to work tech support for the company that switched from Windows to Apple...I can hear the countless calls "I can't find my computer...where's the start menu...etc."
Sixth knowing that it will work. Other then putting Linux on a bunch of hardware designed to run on windows and taking you chances and replacing anything that may not be compatible. Just put all the old stuff aside and go with new hardware. And many vendors who say their are linux compatible just lie to you. Like Dell but that is an other story.
Please reread what you wrote. Getting all new hardware solves no problem. THe majority of venders don't support apple or linux. replacing the hardware just sets your company back. employees need to be trained on new software(2yrs later when the vendor releases it) or need to figure out a manual way to do it. basically, you spend countless dollars on training and other worthless setbacks. Loss of productivity.
Seventh. Forced uniformaty. If you put Linux on all the systems it will be only a mater of time untill someone who doesn't like Linux will bring there copy of XP from home and reinstall it on their system. And shortly after that the network is invaded with a virus again
Why does an employee have access rights to do this in the first place?! Virus protection is my least favorite argument for switching away from Windows. Once Apple or Linux becomes a more mainstream OS, mark my words, there will be countless virii for them.
Eighth. Looks good to share holders. You will look a lot more professional when you have an iMacs or PowerMac in every cubical. Apple is as much a part of interior design as functionality thus it makes your company look uptodate and modern.
You are correct. Apple computers DO look nicer. However, shareholders look at the financial position of the company. Once they see a massive reinvestment into hardware and cash flows locked up, investors will sell off their shares. The plumetting stock price means the CEO fires the person responisble for the hardware switch and lays of an assload of employees to cut costs, rectifying the financial statments.
Ninth. Becides secuity most people working on Apples are more productive. The interface is clean and doesn't get in the way like windows or most Linux WMs
You are probally right. THe reason my department missed its sales goa
Windows is the GREATEST o/s ever!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Because of the complexity and problematic nature of MS Windows, I have a steady job. A good-paying one at that.
Of course I run Linux at home for all the important-to-me computer stuff I do at home, only because I am too cheapskate to shell out thousands of dollars for a high-powered fully-loaded overpriced Mac. I run Windows at home only for gaming, and have a "disposeable" machine for that, which I always keep a Norton Ghost image of the hard drive on my Linux server so that I can rapidly restore the Windows box to a known-good, clean state whenever it gets infected or craps all over its own files.
Again, thank you Bill Gates for making such a craptastic operating system that the whole freakin' world is addicted to like crack cocaine. It has provided me with a good steady source of income. Keep it coming.
PS: I read a really insightful quip from a pro-Mac user on some blog site... It goes like this:
---
Two computer guys talking about their weekend one Monday morning...
Windows guy: I spent all weekend doing (fill in the blank) TO my computer.
Mac guy: I spent all weekend doing (fill in the blank) WITH my computer.
Re:Proprietary (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it just goes to show that sometimes owners of proprietary systems get it right by making an awesome product instead of trying to sucker you... sometimes.
Re:Invalid Opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
People on slashdot should realise that an OS is a tool and not a religion. I switch operating systems like I change my underwear. Certain tools are better for certain jobs. Windows is fine for gaming and desktop use. Linux is great for servers. OS X is great for DTP etc. This says little about the kernel underneath, but says a lot about what sort of userland software is available for those operating systems.
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?
Re:Flame on... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Windows is complex" (Score:3, Insightful)
Those things have absolutely nothing to do with how elegantly the Mac OS X GUI is implemented.
Re:Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's cute. Instead of replacing only what doesn't work, replace everything! This is a plus? :->
Seriously, there are some good points there. But when it came down to putting my parents on a Mac or on Linux, well, I chose Ubuntu. Works, they're already on Firefox & Thunderbird so there's no 'migration' there, and for the funky media formats I can use the actual win32 codecs and be done with it.
Plus, they can run actual Windows for games, if it comes to that.
The interface is clean and doesn't get in the way like windows or most Linux WMs
I've had no complaints from my parents about the UI so far. It's at least no worse than Windows.
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.
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.
Very closed? Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
The hardware? You mean because Apple takes a ton of commonly sold components and puts them together in their fancy boxes? Just like Dell and HP do? You mean because they've spearheaded most of the now commonly-used device interface standards?
The software? You mean because Apple puts a slick top on their completely open source, community-contributed Darwin OS? You mean because a fair number of their component technologies have been developed starting with existing open source projects? You mean because a fair number of their own in-house technology ideas have been opened either in source or in standard? You mean how there's only a few proprietary standards that they're using to store files, communicate on networks, or connect to devices?
There is a hell of a lot of difference between Apple and M$. You can argue about whether it's because of "who's on top" right now, but the stunning difference between even Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X and how the hardware has evolved in the same time wrt/ all the things I mentioned above suggests to me that someone (hopefully more than one) at Apple has a freakin' clue that's more than just trying to get on top.
And that being said, the
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)
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.
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.
The author is arguing "fool's bargain" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A testament to OS X's stable nature (Score:2, Insightful)
Win2k is a good product.
Winxp is a bloated pile of shit. No functionality over win2k.
Unfortunately MS has not innovated in going on 5 years now. All this power under my desk and my interface is feeling really clunky and old.
Ubuntu doesn't fair much better in that regard, sorry linux geeks, but as far as interface goes, you guys follow more then you lead. Although I really admire the underlying architechture of linux.
As for the ugly, windows security is a mess. An absolute horror. I'm what you would consider 'tech savvy', and I've been rootkited twice, which is my reward for not keeping my system locked down every single second. For the average person I would imagine it's a nightmare, because an out of the box installation of windows is basically instantly comprimized.
Longhorn will be more of the same. Ugly, bloated, poor interface. It will probably signal the beginning of the end for MS on the desktop.
Re:WTF is he talking about? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can say that I haven't gotten spyware either. But I'm quite adept at removing it from family's, friends', and (until I bought her an iBook) my wife's computer which I personally maintained.
This is not to say that an intelligent, diligent person cannot keep spyware, malware, and all sorts of nasty crap out of their computers. It is to say that the problems we face are ones of social engineering. If I can't physically remove IE from a Windows PC, some program is going to launch it for the user no matter what protections are in place. Unless I administer a firewall, or screen a user's email, they are going to put malicious flotsam onto their hard drives, one way or another.
Remember that the real problem isn't Macs vs. PC's. It's one of "How much does the user actually need to know to stay protected, and how wary must they be of unknown content?" Is it enough to tell them not to re-enter their password for files they get in their eMail? On a Mac it is, but on Windows there are browser exploits out the wazoo, faulty RPC stacks and other remote exploits that spread viruses without user intervention, and sometimes you can't tell what you've gotten in your inbox until it's too late. Not to mention that oftentimes, one spyware or malware program putting its foot in the door is enough that several others can tunnel in unattended.
I, for one, am not placing all the blame with the users in this argument. Users do a pretty good job just trying to use their computers as a tool to increase their productivity or provide some entertainment. To expect more from them is an elitist notion that just won't hold up when you consider what computers are really for. And if you take inventory of the alternatives, "Anything but Windows" is about as true as it gets, especially because he's looking for something that will get out of his way and let him work with minimal maintenance and hassle. I like Linux, too, but in the face of these criteria, the Mac really is the best.
Jasin Natael
Re:Flame on... (Score:2, Insightful)
But the author of the article referenced in this thread says: We need an open Simple Operating System (SOS) that meets the needs of the majority of people who buy PCs for everyday home and enterprise tasks.
What is more simple: an OS that has a system-level spell checker available to any native application or spell checkers that have to be installed & maintained at the application level. How many times have I had to add my wife's name to spell checkers on my WinTel workstation at work? Well, count up the apps I use. How many times have I had to add her name on my Mac at home? Once.
Lock-in (Score:5, Insightful)
The hardware? You mean because Apple takes a ton of commonly sold components and puts them together in their fancy boxes? Just like Dell and HP do? You mean because they've spearheaded most of the now commonly-used device interface standards?
Ugh. What a complete red herring. Yes, a Mac is built from off-the-shelf components. What does that mean for me as a user? Suppose I like Mac OS X, but the hardware is too expensive for me, or doesn't meet my specific requirements, etc. Where can I go to get a competing piece of hardware to run my Mac applications on?
Likewise for the software. Sure, if your applications are all just pure console programs, you can typically run them on your favorite Unix clone. But the real value of Macs for many users lies in the graphical Mac-specific applications, and for those you are tied to the proprietary bits of Mac OS.
Truth is, with Windows you get software lock-in, but at least the hardware is an open market. With Macs, you get both software and hardware lock-in.
(And yes, I am a Mac user. But let's not pretend that the Apple world is so wonderfully open.)
Re:Flame on... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sure (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Flame on... (Score:1, Insightful)
Not me. What I expected from the very beginning was that JavaScript would simply not have any facility at all to programmatically open, resize, move, lower, raise, hide, or change the decoration on a window. But it does, even though this doesn't actually help the end-user in any real way 99.9% of the time.
Yes, I agree that JavaScript already exists and there are sites that exist (which one may have to use -- such as my credit card's web site) that force browsers to implement it, but it's not an essential part of the browsing experience. It's just a technology we're stuck with because the people who designed JavaScript started adding features just for the hell of it. But I still expect that a truly good browser would be able to just not implement that part of the API at all, and then maybe that would catch on and all this window-creating/resizing/changing business would gradually go away.
Honestly, when I go through the drive through and pick up a burger, some fries, and a Coke, they don't send someone out to open the passenger door and pull out the tray in my dashboard and put the Coke there whether I want it or not. Instead, I am assumed to be intelligent enough to open up some space for the thing I'm receiving if I think I need it. And browsers should be the same way.