MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Whatever happened to getting facts and doing research when writing an article? How does he know Macs are not targeted by virus writers? Why does he assume there are more viruses for Windows because there are more people using Windows? It couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the fact that Microsoft has security holes out the yin-yang and they won't be fixed anytime soon, could it? Could I possibly ask any more questions? Where is my hat?

In reverse order:

2) The press needs to be educated about the security of OS X, and I haven't seen Apple do much of that. In fact, most of the material about OS X security is over the developer section of their site. It is unreasonable to expect reports to assume--as most macdailynews posters do--that OS X must be locked tight because it is based on BSD UNIX--for one thing, the first major internet worm that got major press coverage was a worm that took advantage of security failures in BSD flavored UNIXes. Second, UNIX derived systems are not flaw proof--hell, debian's site lists more than a dozen security updates just in August 2003. Come to think of it, when I installed OS X I immediately downloaded three security updates. What were they updating--OS X vulnerability to strong language? OS X has very strong security--particularly when the machine is being used as a home/office computer with the root account disabled--but that isn't exactly the most publicized thing in the world even by Apple. Has anyone seen ANY comments from Apple about OS X security in the wake of the recent worms, or any corrections by Apple to any of these reporters?

More importantly:

1) Three percent isn't a false stat. 10 to 12 percent is a false stat. When you doctor statistics by arbitrarily setting conditions, that is creating false statistics. Note that the article referenced gives no idea where the math comes from--or what the article writer considers to be "business" vs. "personal" computers. Were Macs sold to the educational market counted? Were they not counted? Were some--those sold directly to students--counted, while others--sold to institutions--not? What about ones sold to faculty, but used at home? Huh? Huh? And if I use my iBook at work and at home, is it personal or business? What would have made it business? If my boss paid for it, would it have been a business computer instead of a personal one? Or are computers purchased by small businesses "personal" rather than "business" computers. The 10 to 12 stat is completely manufactured horseshit--only a former Enron accountant would be impressed. Every time I see that 10 to 12 percent figure given the post loses all credibility as far as I'm concerned, and undercuts any other arguments the person makes with Enron math.

The user by the moniker of "Opinionated Jerk" fails to consider the distinction between (1) market share and (2) installed base. These are not the same thing; and while I don't claim to know what the figures are for each, I'm confident they are not the same value. And there is another figure as well -- which is the percentage of computers which are purchased directly by consumers. Many people inherit the choices of their IT deparments in corporations, and this goes down in the numbers as 50 or 100 or 500 or 1000 Windows workstations. But in many cases this is in fact a SINGLE purchase made by a single officer in a corporation.

Just something to keep in mind when throwing percentage figures around.

"The 10 to 12 stat is completely manufactured horseshit--only a former Enron accountant would be impressed. Every time I see that 10 to 12 percent figure given the post loses all credibility as far as I'm concerned, and undercuts any other arguments the person makes with Enron math."

LOL!

Sorry Pal but your credibility = ZERO!

The 10-12 percent is related to INSTALLED BASE and is complete FACT!

A fact that you poor Wintel drones always fail to account for.

Apple machines outlast their Wintel counterparts by a factor of more than 2 to 1. Mac users don't have the need to upgrade their machines every 2 years like most Wintel sheep do. The 5-6 year old Apple machines are capable of running the latest versions of the Mac OS far better than older Windows PCs can run the latest version of Windows.

For this reason, Mac users keep their computers longer, also destroying another long held MYTH of the clueless Wintelites that Macs are more expensive.

All the 3% sales figure proves is what I have said above.

Nice try with the FUD, but as usual, you have failed miserably to make any points with people who KNOW the facts.

"Apple machines outlast their Wintel counterparts by a factor of more than 2 to 1." --- My PowerMac 8500/120 certainly has (with a G3/400 CPU upgrade).

"Mac users don't have the need to upgrade their machines every 2 years like most Wintel sheep do." --- For me it was more a matter of cost than need. I didn't want to pour a lot of money into a new graphics card and additional RAM, but I would have certainly appreciated the additional performance. However, I can now justify a G5 with a clear conscience because of my frugality!

"The 5-6 year old Apple machines are capable of running the latest versions of the Mac OS far better than older Windows PCs can run the latest version of Windows." --- That may very well be true, although you can perform a P4/2GHz motherboard upgrade for a couple of hundred bills (plus new RAM) if the rest of your hardware is worth it. Theoretically I can run MacOS X on my upgraded PowerMac although I doubt that it would be very responsive.

Don't get me wrong. I love my Mac and I am really looking forward to leapfrogging to a G5. But I am practical enough to admit that I paid more for my Mac and I kept it longer as a result. I also admit that I envy the cheaper upgrades available for Wintel machines. With my CPU upgrade, for example, I waited until the release of the G4 drove down the G3 cards to $299 before taking the plunge.

PC upgrades cost more than you think. That is if you want the same kind of lepa you made going from a 604 to a G3.

I bought a P4 1.6a 18 months ago. I recently upgraded to the new P4 2.4c with Hyperthreading. CPU was cheap and pin compatible - but the FSB speed of the 2.4C (800MHz) was unsupported by my old mobo so I needed to get a new mobo. The one to get was using the 875P core logic chipset from Intel. It supports Dual channel RAM running at up to 400MHz. In order to see a real improvement in performance you need new RAM. I got a good deal on two big sticks of RAM. It turns out that the dual channel 875P boards are fussy about memory so the resultin PC is kind of flakey under load.

After all this, I went out and bought a used G4. Easy peasy without fuss. I ran the thing under load for the entire weekend w/o incident. And it encodes Mpeg2 faster than my P4 while being usable for other things at the same time (dual CPU).

I feel stupid for investing almost $800 CDN on the PC after playing with the Mac for a while.

Can we find an email address for this gentleman so that we may gently set him straight?

"Nice try with the FUD, but as usual, you have failed miserably to make any points with people who KNOW the facts."

More like I failed to make any points with people who make up their own facts. People who make up their own facts are delusional. There aren't may people who make points with the deluded.

Yes, you can pump up Apple's alleged share by excluding from your calculations the markets Apple does poorly in, then further redefining what you are counting to machines owned instead of machines bought, etc.

Counting as part of Apple's share the Classic Macintosh in my den is a nice try, but it's still Enron, and made no less impressive by stating "you wintel drones." Hey numbnuts, I've got four Macs and one PC--that's a wintel drone? How much kool aid does a brutha have to drink????

Virus writers do not create the holes they exploit, Microsoft does that. So, Windows is indeed a "target-rich environment". Microsoft provides many targets.

Where are these facts that people keep talking about? Dr. Gizmo doesn't state his references.

IDC report: Apple grabs 7 percent of U.S. notebook market share

Explain that fact away, Opinionated Jerk. This oughta be good...

Mark: explain away what? 7% is great. Put down the kool aid.

Funny, I was going to remark how funny it is that macdailynews carries on about how installed base is what matters, not market share--and then suddenly there's a good market share story and it's a big deal. Where's the qualifying comment from editor stating, "It's nice to see the press recognizing stronger market share performance by Apple, but we all know that market share doesn't really matter." Macdailynews bragging about market share--it's almost like Intel saying clock speed doesn't matter.

MDN is not "bragging about market share." You are foisting your own delusional feelings on it. MDN are simply reporting the fact. Nowhere do they "brag" about market share. And they certainly do not use the figure incorrectly to support a bogus argument. The point is that there are more Mac users out there than 3% and this is the important fact to know if you are deciding to write Mac software or viruses or address the Mac market in some way. "3 out of 100 computers online are Macs" is incorrect. The reality of the situation in closer to 10%. This is a vast market, millions strong and the "3% Lie" is designed to make Apple's Mac platform look tiny, when in fact, it simply is not a tiny platform.

Hey, Opinionated Jerk, you just proved everyone else's point. Your installed base is 80% Mac and if you have only bought a Windows machine (and no Macs) in the past three years then your market base for the past three years would be 100% Windows. Clearly the two are not the same.

Macs do typically last longer in the installed base than Wintel machines. From personnal experience ranging from technical lead up through VP of Engineeing over the last 17 years at companies ranging from a few dozen people up through several thousand, the installed Macs were replaced much less often than the installed Windows (or DOS way back when) machines. I've even seen Mac Plus machines still being operationally utilized 12+ years after purchase.

There are two separate numbers: Current Market Share and Current Installed Base. They are very different numbers. Anyone who says they are not is just not facing facts.

Frank: Actually, my market share is 100% Mac for the last year, 0% PC. The breakdown is one PC bought 2 years ago, 1 iBook bought new in March, one orthocep iBook bought off ebay in May, a Rev. D iMac bought off eBay in June, and a Classic Macintosh given to me over the weekend. There's a reason why market share matters more than "installed base," however--market share can (within reason) be quantified, measured and compared while "installed base" is almost entirely anecdotal. Only one of my Macs was bought in a manner which is reportable or measurable. The Classic Macintosh wasn't even a sale and its use (or nonuse) will never register anywhere. Does a 1MB RAM Classic running System 6 count as part of the installed base? Does installed base mean anything if you're going to count a machine with less computing power than a palm pilot?

The question isn't whether market share or installed base are two different numbers--of course they are. The question is, what are you actually defining as installed base, how relevant or reliable is your estimation of installed base, and, more importantly, would "installed base" even be an issue discussed if not for the low market share? Again, I note that Toyotas are better made than Fords, last longer than Fords, don't have to be replaced as often as Fords, and yet what does Toyota talk about--MARKET SHARE, not the number of 10 year old pickups out on the road.

I've heard all the arguments about how Mac OS X is impenetrable and while I agree that it is far more difficult to "hack" a Mac, their scarcity makes does make them less of a target.

Why? Because one of the things you want to do with a virus is spread it.

Let's say one in ten machines on the Internet is a Mac. Even if you found a way to automatically infect the machine, finding another Macintosh to spread it to would take longer.

So between the difficulty of hacking a Mac and the fact that, once you do, spreading the infection to another Mac is time consuming, I think most virus-writers would rather leave well enough alone--there are far easier targets.

Also, as an aside to those who preach about BSD UNIX, I'd agree though I would point out that Apple has written quite a bit of code which sits on top of it. How secure are QuickTime/Safari/iTunes/iChat? How about coreservicesd, automount, and DirectoryService (which are currently running--at least on my machine--as root)?

The issue if I were an Apple ISV or VAR would be installed base -- if I'm writing my software or basing my hardware on things that can be or are written in Carbon. If I were purely basing my sales (ISV or VAR) upon Cocoa apps then I would be about half installed base, half current sales (market share). If I were interested in selling things solely OS 9.x (or earlier) related then I would be solely interested in installed base.

Clearly, my interest in installed base or market share has nothing to do with the relative size of either the installed base or market share. It has to do with my target market.

Now, if I'm a worm/virus developer (and I am NOT) I would be interested in installed base, not market share. I would be interested in how many machines are out there I can get into and what level of damage I can do. I have little or no interest in the number of machines being sold. I care about how many are currently out there.

And to Peter, the "scarcity" of the Mac would be a perfect reason to target them. Thinking for a moment in terms of the percentage of zealots out there, even if only 5% of the Wintel users are por Windows/anti Mac zealots, then there are as many anti Mac zealots as there are pro Mac zealots using Apple's system. Now even if there were this few and if the same percentage of zealots wrote the same percentage of worms for the Mac as Windows, about one in 10 to one in 20 worms/viruses would be against the Macs. This has not happened. There exist 40,000 to 75,000 Windows specific worms/viruses/trojans/etc. (depending upon what source you use for your basis), and there are 35 to 50 comfirmed Mac specific worms/viruses/trojans (again depending upon the source of your information). Clearly the installed base and the probable number of possible worm/virus writers is not the relevant cause. The numbers just do not correlate at all.

About spreading... spreading happens when people boot up, log in and start downloading these nasties. Almost all Mac users know and routinely communicate with other Mac users (some of us probably have a couple dozen or more Mac users in our address book). If these were to propagate by the same mechanisms as the Wintel nasties then they would spread through the Mac community just as fast.

""Nice try with the FUD, but as usual, you have failed miserably to make any points with people who KNOW the facts."

More like I failed to make any points with people who make up their own facts. People who make up their own facts are delusional. There aren't may people who make points with the deluded.:

Sounds like we have a pot calling the kettle black here yet again.

Here are some numbers for you. You can look them up for yourself. You just need to teach yourself how to use a search engine. ;o)


Computers in the world today
Windows PCs: 240 Million
Macintosh: 32 Million
Other: 3 Million

Percentages based on above figures
Windows PCs: 87.2%
Macintosh: 11.6%
Other: 1.2%

New OS's
Windows XP: 46 Million, 19% of Windows.
Mac OS X: 3.2 Million, 10% of Macs.

P.S. Of Mr. Jerk,

You were supposed to be trying to convince us that you were a Mac user remember? NO WAY!

Mac users aren't so FRICKING STUPID!

"Counting as part of Apple's share the Classic Macintosh in my den is a nice try, but it's still Enron, and made no less impressive by stating "you wintel drones." Hey numbnuts, I've got four Macs and one PC--that's a wintel drone? How much kool aid does a brutha have to drink????"

Please go away.

Your lame arguments and hyperbole is getting tiresome. I've never met a "Mac" user that spent so much fricking time apologizing for the Wintel crowd and their misleading BS they call facts about Apple's true market penetration.

This "I own Macs and therefore I have the right to apout off like a complete moron" might work on your Wintel message boards, but it won't work for you here.

One thing I can say...You picked the perfect handle for yourself. ;o)

Omigod! YOU'RE SHITTING ME!! All this stuff about Apple 10-12% installed base is just regurgitating Jack Campbells article! Worst Mac rumor site, served five years in jail for real estate fraud and tax evasion Jack Campbell! Oy vey.

Take a look at your numbers--it works out to a little over 1% of the computers in the world running OS X. Whoo boy! 1%!!!!

You know what...that 3% market share is more impressive.

Btw, I'm really starting to wonder what the source of those numbers actually was. Doing a google search under "240 million windows pcs" and "32 million macintosh" turns up Mr. Tax Evasion's original article and a few sites taking it as gospel--and no underlying source of the figures. Further searching shows 240 million to be the number windows media player downloads, 32 million being the number of quicktime 4 downloads. Could that have been the underlying basis for Jack's numbers--kinda screwy, if so. Windows XP 46 million seems to refer to the number of copies of Windows XP sold in its first year, as released by M$. Again, not a terribly relevant figure in Sept. 2003. Interesting.

Still, 10% to 12% doesn't work out as the result when you take the position of a software developer looking to produce a program for modern computers. Approx. 93% Windows XP, 6% OS X. Not exactly overwhelming, and not 10% to 12%.

RV: When have I ever said a thing pro-Wintel *AT ALL*? What is this obsession with the "Wintel crowd?" Are you completely psycho?

I think Macs (particularly OS X) are better than Windows machines on their merits. I'm not impressed by spin doctored or exagerrated numbers, particularly ones that depend on puffing Apple ranks with antiquated hardware.

"RV: When have I ever said a thing pro-Wintel *AT ALL*? What is this obsession with the "Wintel crowd?" <SNIP>

I mentioned the Wintel crowd because it is obvious that you are one of them. Don't insult me and the rest of us here with this "I'm a Mac user" crap! You may as well have WINTEL TROLL stamped in big red letters across that bulging browridge you call a forehead, its that bloody obvious! Amusing that you would think we would believe your Mac owner line after reading just a portion of the comments you have been pontificating here since early this AM.

You made the mistake of letting your love for the Craptacular world of Windows get the better of you. No true Mac user would post the kind of garbage you have posted in this thread, leave alone repeating it with ever increasing levels of anti-Apple, anti-Mac remarks in every subsequent response. A real Mac user doesn't DELIGHT in the 3% market share = total market LIE we have to read almost daily, and a real Mac user surely wouldn't argue about the validity of the Apple INSTALLED BASE numbers and why older Macs DO COUNT.

You did both JERK. Several times as a matter of fact! But your remarks about Jack Campbell really sealed it for me. I know how much you Wintel zealots HATE pro-Mac journalists, especially Jack Campbell. Those unflattering comments you made about him in this public forum were definitely out of line but seem true to your questionable character. Too bad he was not my source for those numbers.

Bottom line:

If you don't see anything wrong with the media spreading lies about Apple's market share being equal to their installed base and thus accounting for 3% of all computers on the planet, then you are part of the problem, and really have no business posting here on a forum dedicated to Mac users who actually use the products and understand the needs for a healthy and long lived Mac community. I know I speak for the rest of the MDN regulars when I say that we certainly can do with out another Wintel talking ASS masquerading as a Mac user on this forum.

I am always amazed at how pathetically UN-creative you trolls truly are.

"Then again folks... if they they actually had any real creative talent they would be using a Mac instead of bashing them...now wouldn't they?" ;o) LOL!

I've wasted enough time with this clown...I'm outta this thread. I suggest letting it die. This guy isn't worth your time.

OK, thanks for clearing that up--you *are* a psycho.

I've read this thread with increasing incredulity as each message went on. I for one see nothing wrong with the original article posted by 'Opinionated' - a healthy dose of scepticism levied against some dubious statistics (lies, damn lies and....) which are ultimately meaningless anyway.

R.V. seems to need to proselytise to the Mac faithful in an increasingly hysterical manner, all over the issue of Market Share for God's sake. Shrieking, "No true Mac user would post the kind of garbage you have posted in this thread", sounds like the response of a fanatic to me. It's individuals of questionable character such as he that leads me to wonder whether ordering my G5 was such a good idea.

Of course it was.

I'll just have to remember to avoid posting to forums where independent thought is considered an affliction, and following the party line is the only way.

Oh, no doubt this comment makes me a 'Wintel Weenie' or some other tiresome derogation. Undoubtedly I'm on the payroll of Billy boy and his cronies and have been 'Brainwashed' by the Redmond witch doctors, because of course, no TRUE Mac fan could ever support a position of anything other than utter hatred of M$ and itís machinations.

Itís fascinating to me that sometimes, even idiots think different ; )

This page is utterly nuts.

Guys, there is no proof that Apple's 3% market share is "a false stat". Unless you have data in hand that shows the methodologies used by IDC et al to be flawed, it appears that Apple accounts for about 3% of overall new personal computer sales. Big deal.

So what the heck's the problem? Is it that the installed base is actually higher than that? Maybe it is, and maybe it's even 10-12% (though I'd want to see solid proof).

But -- and listen carefully here -- MARKET SHARE DOES NOT MEAN INSTALLED BASE. Nobody claimed that it does. Anyone with a whit of business vocabulary knows that market share is used to mean percentage of recent sales, and not number or percentage of new and old computers in use. Percentage of recent sales is what market share means.

So if sales of Apple computers account for about 3% of new computer sales, and a writer says "Apple's market share is 3%", THE WRITER IS CORRECT.

Again, what's the problem? Is it that writers should ALSO mention installed base, and developers should focus on installed base? If so, fine; go and tell 'em!

Is the problem that Apple's market share seems to be rising above that 3%? Great; if it is indeed growing, then future market share numbers will reflect that. But for recently measured periods, it appears to be 3%. So what?

In short, get the following through your heads. Yes, it may be that Apple's installed base is higher than its market share (maybe even impressively so). It may be that installed base is often at least as important as market share, and deserves more reporting.

But none of that even remotely makes the measured 3% market share "a false stat"!

Sheesh! Quit embarrassing yourselves and Mac users everywhere with this inanity.

Aside to Opinionated Jerk: I had to howl with laughter at the post, "...'Opinionated Jerk' fails to consider the distinction between (1) market share and (2) installed base" -- when it appears that you are almost the ONLY one here who understands and considers the difference! Good on you.

Aside to R.V.: I guess that, like Opinionated Jerk, my ability to think makes me a "Wintel troll" in your rheumy eyes. A bit of an odd domain name I carry around for a "Wintel troll", it would seem -- but that's all part of the disguise and the anti-Mac conspiracy, right? Booga booga!

Mac'em X

Ok, first of all, wintel machines are not expensive to upgrade at all, I built a 2.4ghz machine in one shot for about $490 give or take. It isn't any big surprise if you find out one kind of RAM works better than another, or this board doesnt support that FSB, that is, it's no big surprise if you've done your research, which anyone about to spend more than $100 oughta be doing. Second, Macs are awesome machines, I've had a 800mhz Imac since a good while back and it has yet to become to slow to bear, and it's still pretty stable, except for one major incedent that caused the whole system to go down...My only problem with Mac's, they dont have ANY support for most software I use, and the Mac versions of a couple titles are RIDICULOUSLY priced. So it just isnt practical for me. And I wont even go into the !@#$ itunes thing.

trailery darmowe x-x trans anonse x-x trans porno x-x tanie laski gif x-x tanie laski jpg x-x tanie laski pics x-x oferty dupsko x-x julia na zywo x-x fajne filmiki sex x-x mature wyrywanie free x-x matureyoung tgp x-x maturzystka buzi x-x pornol na plazy porno x-x rozjebane 50 latki video x-x siusiu na plazy darmowe x-x chibolas video dvd x-x chascarros bizarr x-x lesbianas mojadas x-x dojrzale mamuski pics x-x smbd x-x pornusy pod prysznicem live x-x