Slashdot Mirror
Mad as Hell, Switching to Mac
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.'"
He is upset over the flaws in an Operating System so he switches architectures? He wasn't a PC bigot, he was a Windows bigot.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
...must we post a story about every person who thinks that platform X is better than platform Y and 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.
I don't get it. Administering Windows XP in a corporate environment isn't that hard. There is no reason why a company that hires a competent sys admin (or multiple sys admins) cant configure and administer Windows XP so they are nearly virus-free, spyware-free and spam-free. Lock those machines down! Put in a good corporate firewall! Don't allow users to run as admin (never)! Don't allow users to install software, active-x or other junk. Use centrally maintained anti-virus and anti-spam. In a corporate environment there should be a limited list of authorized programs, nothing else should be permitted.
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.
Well, that's an extremely good question no matter how you try to belittle it. The only valid reason I can think of is the perception that it's safer (not security) and easier to use a Mac, which is likely true to a varing degree depending on implementation.
You know, I'm a Mac user. I freakin' love Macs. I think Steve Jobs, for all his flaws, is a hero.
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.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
> I have a 500$ emachine that does everything the he/I wants to do. I run windows update on a regular
> 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
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
We've heard many of the other comments from disgruntled Windows users before, but one that bears repeating is that Windows does tend to try to be all things to all people. Sure, there's a Home version of Windows XP (it's missing, among other things, domain networking ability), but it still contains far too many propellerhead parts that gunk up the works.
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."
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
I love the mac about as much as the next guy, but do we really need these "x switches to Mac" threads posted on a daily basis? This practically begs to reduce slashdot to just another forum for mac vs pc flame wars.
I'd like to think we're past that stage.
8==8 Bones 8==8
You know, not that I'm saying windows is the best platform in the world... But considering the issues he outlined in this artical, I'd say he is dealing with the wrong vendor for his computing solutions... With a good vendor (Dell, HPaq...) you will get the same level of hardware/software compatibility you will find on a Mac platform. The author also isn't doing a good job of choosing software. Basically, it seems to me his basic problem is going research finding good hardware/software solutions. I bet he'll have many of the same problems on the Mac platform.
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.
The primary reason is that Macs Just Work(TM), which is exactly what this guy is after. He doesn't want to bother with packaging, experimental drivers, non-ability to sleep, and other issues that come with Linux (especially on laptops). Plus, Macs can run a lot of Officially Supported Microsoft software that the industry feels it needs in order to be compatible.
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
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.
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".
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
As an 8+ year Linux user, I will readily admit I have several similar complaints. Note the columnist presents a large chunk of reasons for switching as being related to H/W working (or not). Rather than bashing on about "windows is teh suck" or anything, he's citing the dizzying array of mobo's, memory, BIOS's, peripherals, and [re]releases of OS's as being a leading reason why a windows box Just Can't Work. Too many variations; nearly impossible to build two identical boxes unless you specifically do so at the outset. That Apple controls the H/W in their boxes to a greater degree may mean less choice and higher price, but with that comes greater overall reliability. I'm officially saving some cash to buy that reliability for myself/family.
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...
Exactly. IBM used to be the big scary bad guy, but now they're a decent company providing some good products/services. Apple fans hated IBM way before they started hating MS, but now IBM provides processors for PowerMacs, they are big supporters of linux, and they still do a lot of cool R&D.
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.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Because if Linux doesn't work right off the bat, your average newbie is completely fucked. Linux distros attempt to make up for the complex process of installing device drivers by prepackaging the drivers for every device they can imagine in the main install. But if you don't have one of these predefined devices, you have to wade through about 3000 Linux forums where all the users tell you to go to RTFM.
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.
I love how people love Macs because it's a very closed proprietary system that can then be controlled by a single entity. Isn't this what the /. crowd is supposed to be railing against?
.....
That being said I get my new mac on
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
He's upset at the lack of support that comes with having entirely different vendors supporting the hardware as opposed to the operating system.
From his blog:
"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.
Not every argument requires reduction to absurdity.
I use windows XP all day long...I'm hooked up on the internet and surf and download and blah blah blah all day long. Not once have I been hit with a virus or a trojan or an email attack. I've used computers since 1979 and have seen only a handfull of actual viruses. Meh...maybe I'm just lucky. And everyone I personally know is lucky also as they've had the same experience. The one time I came upon a major virus was...suprise suprise...on a Mac! Granted, it was running System 8 at the time. But it was the one that spread itself on Syquest disks and we had customers that would send us data on Syquest and it would infect the computer as soon as it was inserted. That as a pain to take care of.
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?
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I tell my daughters that as children, when they get sad, and cry, its normal; it helps one to release their stress so that they can heal faster. And, as they get older, they will find themselves not crying anymore, but getting angry. It's at this point that they will then begin to think an acceptable solution to what appears to be a repeating problem; I tell them that this is what is called "Growing Up".
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.
The popularity myth is just not true. Apache is, by far, much more popular with web servers than IIS, and which server gets exploited more often without hope of a quick patch?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
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.
I couldn't agree more. Death to the monopoly, not necessarily to the company.
fD
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)
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
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
Too much Law; not enough Order.
But you haven't provided any sort of evidence whatsoever to support the correctness of the popularity myth. So far as I am aware, no one has. Yet, many people accept it because it comforts them to think that their platform would be just a secure as the other guys if it weren't so darn popular.
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.
God is imaginary
Right. Like "use regedit to change the registry entry 94651IJCYAIUD85THOAUEY73 from 07 to 0F and then reboot the machine" is any better.
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?
God is imaginary
I want a browser to do just that.... browse.
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.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
It sounds like this guy had an especially bad day at work--I don't see where he made his case for tossing out his PCs and switching to Mac. Let's take a closer look....
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.
I am so smart!
I am so smart!
S-M-R-T!
I mean S-M-A-R-T!
it's a very closed proprietary system that can then be controlled by a single entity
/. crowd is not a mono-culture. Some of us actually believe that a company that consistently shows for the most part that they are interested in making products that excel in usability, interoperability, and security are OK to spend a penny on now and then. Because if we don't support those companies that do support open standards and practices and who decide occasionally to share their innovations in that medium, there's going to be nothing left but a incredible mess of crap.
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
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.
The problem is that your friends and neighbors using or not using macs *does* influence your ability to use it. More mac users means...
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.
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.)