For those who continue to bash Microsoft - A Question

cjm wrote in post #3245268
I do not know if anyone mentioned in this long thread as I only read the OP but I think the reason MAC's don't get viruses is not because it Can't but because the people that make viruses don't bother inventing them for MAC because it wont screw with enough people.

You're perpetuating the "security from obscurity" myth. The reason Macs are less vulnerable is because they're based upon BSD UNIX, one of the most secure operating systems available. It's been around as a networked-based operating system (mainframes with remote terminals) since the early 1970s (really, the late 60s if you consider its immediate predecessor). This is why it's so secure - it has always been a networking OS. Windows and DOS (or mac OS 6, 7, 8 and 9, for that matter) really were not. Security only became an issue for PCs when the W3 was developed.

cjm wrote in post #3245312
Xerox Tony-S? So we'd be complaing which OS is better Xerox or Brother? LOL

That or the Sinclair or Commodore...

Personally, I think Amiga was the one that really revolutionized personal computing. I never owned one, but wish I had when they Ruled The Earth.

August 15 Photography wrote in post #3245227
I dont understand why there is even a debate on this issue. Why do people spend so much time trying to convince the other person that their system is better?)

What I find objectionable, and what I generally only respond to, is when factually-inaccurate statements are made about Macs. It seems to happen quite often ("Macs are more expensive than PCs"; "Macs have fewer viruses because there's so few of them"; etc., etc., ad nauseum). Personally, I could care less what kind of computer a person uses. For photo work, it seems to me that the minimum is a Core Duo (or equivalent for the AMD users) and 2 gigs of RAM with a decent video card or chip - regardless of OS.

But for someone who's looking to buy a computer, they need accurate facts to make good decisions. I'll correct misinformation about Macs at every opportunity I get, because I don't want any of my POTN brothers or sisters to make such an important decision based upon inaccurate facts.

Tony-S wrote in post #3245369
What I find objectionable, and what I generally only respond to, is when factually accurate statements are made about Macs. It seems to happen quite often ("Macs are more expensive than PCs"; "Macs have fewer viruses because there's so few of them"; etc., etc., ad nauseum). Personally, I could care less what kind of computer a person uses. For photo work, it seems to me that the minimum is a Core Duo (or equivalent for the AMD users) and 2 gigs of RAM with a decent video card or chip - regardless of OS.

But for someone who's looking to buy a computer, they need accurate facts to make good decisions. I'll continue my zealot's crusade to skew everything said that could be portrayed negatively about Macs at every opportunity I get, because I don't want any of my POTN brothers or sisters to make such an important decision based upon facts. I'd rather have it done based on my reality

Fixed it for you.

There is an old saying that still holds true:

The proof is in the pudding.

If Linux and Apple are so great, why do they only capture 10 percent of the market combined?

Apple has been around longer, and Linux is free; and they are still niche players.

Glenn NK wrote in post #3247807
If Linux and Apple are so great, why do they only capture 10 percent of the market combined?

Largely because of historical reasons. When "PCs" first came out (e.g., Apple I), IBM was had to play a fast game of catch-up. In their rush to get a computer, they contracted a tiny company called Microsoft to supply the operating system for their new computer. Of course, the first adopters of PCs was the business community, since most people couldn't afford $6,000 for a computer back in the 1980s. IBM's fatal flaw was that they did not insist on exclusive license for DOS. That allowed MS to license it to other computer manufacturers.

Village_Idiot wrote in post #3247686
Fixed it for you.

As usual, you resort to distortion and deception since you are apparently unable to defend your position.

I find this to be funny and true.

http://www.thebestpage​intheuniverse.net/c.cg​i?u=macs_cant

Tony-S wrote in post #3248037
Largely because of historical reasons. When "PCs" first came out (e.g., Apple I), IBM was had to play a fast game of catch-up. In their rush to get a computer, they contracted a tiny company called Microsoft to supply the operating system for their new computer. Of course, the first adopters of PCs was the business community, since most people couldn't afford $6,000 for a computer back in the 1980s. IBM's fatal flaw was that they did not insist on exclusive license for DOS. That allowed MS to license it to other computer manufacturers.

Thanks for the history lessons. But that still doesn't really answer the question as to why Linux and Apple only have 10% market share, which is the question that was asked.

Wow...can I nominate this for the mis-information and bad analogy thread of the year?

To answer the OP in my opinion if Mac or Linux had as much market share as windows there would not be even close to as many vulnerabilities. Actually, that isn't my opinion, that is a fact. Many here seem to like to use apples to fish stick arguments by trying to draw comparisons between operating systems and other things that have no relevance. But this proves no point other than to underline their ignorance.

Bottom line is, Mac and Linux are inherently more secure operating systems for two very important reasons.

#1 When making system level changes, Linux and the Mac FORCE the user to type in a password. Windows (exempting vista) runs everything with administrator level privileges by default. This difference is not trivial, it is huge.

#2 The code source for Linux (and therefore the Mac kernel since it is Linux/BSD) is open and peer reviewed. When you have 10,000s of independent eyeballs looking at something there is a much greater chance of spotting flaws.

Of course if the Mac had 95% market share it would be more targeted and there would be more exploits. But I think the point is it would be MUCH less than windows in its current incarnation.

Do I use a Mac? No it is too expensive for me. I use and love Linux. I think it is far superior to windows. Should most people right now use Linux? No probably not and for most people I recommend...surprise..​.windows! Sometimes the best thing is not necessarily what is inherently the best, but what is the path of least resistance.

BTW: The above poster windows why if Mac and Linux are so good why do they only capture 10% market share. Simple...piracy. It is windows piracy that enables it to retain its dominant market position. I know that is counter intuitive to allot of people, but I believe it to be the truth. If people actually had to PAY for windows they would be more inclined to check out alternatives. Remember, even though windows is pre-installed when you buy a dell and most people in this country pay for it that way, that is not the way most of the world works. Microsoft just today worked out a deal with Vietnam to get their government equipment on legal copies of windows software. And that's the government! Think the average person in the 3rd world is going to pay 100s of $$$ for an OS? No way! They are going to buy a pirated copy at the market for 10 cents. One of the things that really keeps Linux down is its lack of market share leaving little incentive for developers to make software and drivers. If all of a sudden a billion people in Asia switched to Linux because microsoft forced them to pay up $200 each then that would dramatically affect the market and give Linux the critical mass it needs. I suspect microsoft knows this.

mikez wrote in post #3248091
I find this to be funny and true.

http://www.thebestpage​intheuniverse.net/c.cg​i?u=macs_cant

Nice! I love it.

A lot of people play games?

I'd say it's a vicious circle: A lot used MS Dos, then switched to Windows. Thus a lot of programs were written for it, thus a lot of people used windows thus...

Who cares?

Sathi wrote in post #3248130
Wow...can I nominate this for the mis-information and bad anaology thread of the year?

To answer the OP in my opinion if Mac or linux had as much market share as windows there would not be even close to as many vulnerabilities. Actually, that isn't my opinion, that is a fact. Many here seem to like to use apples to fishstick arguements by trying to draw comparisons between operating systems and other things that have no relevance. But this proves no point other than to underline their ignorance.

Bottom line is, Mac and Linux are inherantly more secure operating systems for two very important reasons.

#1 When making system level changes, Linux and the Mac FORCE the user to type in a password. Windows (exempting vista) runs everything with administrator level privilages by default. This difference is not trivial, it is huge.

#2 The code source for linux (and therfore the mac kernel since it is linux/BSD) is open and peer reviewed. When you have 10,000s of independant eyeballs looking at something there is a much greater chance of spotting flaws.

Of course if the MAc had 95% market share it would be more targeted and there would be more exploits. But I think the point is it would be MUCH less than windows in its current incarnation.

Do I use a Mac? No it is too expensive for me. I use and love linux. I think it is far superior to windows. Should most people right now use linux? No probably not and for most people I recommend...suprise...​windows! Sometimes the best thing is not necassarily what is inherantly the best, but what is the path of least resistance.

BTW: The obove poster wondows why if mac and linux is so good why do they only capture 10% market share. Simple...piracy. It is windows piracy that enables it to retain its dominant market position. I know that is counter intuitive to allot of people, but I believe it to be the truth. If people actually had to PAY for windows they would be more inclined to check out alternatives. Remember, even though windows is pre-installed when you buy a dell and most people in this country pay for it that way, that is not the way most of the world works. Microsoft just today worked out a deal with Vietnam to get their government equipment on legal copies of windows software. And that's the government! Think the average person in the 3rd world is going to pay 100s of $$$ for an OS? No way! They are going to buy a pirated copy at the market for 10 cents. One of the things that really keeps linux down is its lack of market share leaving little incentive for developers to mmake software and drivers. If all of a sudden a billion people in asia switched to linux because microsoft forced them to pay up $200 each then that would dramatically effect the market and give linux the critical mass it needs. I suspect microsoft knows this.

Sure you can. And thanks for contributing to it.

In2Photos wrote in post #3248121
Thanks for the history lessons. But that still doesn't really answer the question as to why Linux and Apple only have 10% market share, which is the question that was asked.

I think he did answer the question. The point is that in the market things tend to have inertia. A perfect example would be VHS winning over Beta-Max because it was adopted by the porn industry. Once VHS had that inertia it allowed them to dominate even though they were the inferior format.

Sathi wrote in post #3248212
I think he did answer the question. The point is that in the market things tend to have inertia. A perfect example would be VHS winning over Beta-Max because it was adopted by the porn industry. Once VHS had that inertia it allowed them to dominate even though they were the inferior format.

Aw yes. And Minidisc was better than CD and DIVx better than DVD, and SACD better than DVD-Audio...But yet none of them won out either.