Slashdot Mirror
Mac Install-Base Shown to Be 16%
Kelly McNeill writes "MacDailyNews has an editorial which summarizes reports from various research groups that analyzed the number of computer users affected by viruses. The conclusion was that 16 percent of all computer users are not affected by viruses because they use Macs. The lack of viruses on a Mac is commonly known, but the interesting thing is the fact that the results finally provide the first set of conclusive numbers which illustrate the Macintosh's install-base. So far only "market-share" statistics are commonly published for the public and do not convey install base. (If for example 2 people are using computers and one replaces his 2x in a 3 year period and the other only does once, market-share dynamics dictate that one demographic has 75% market share while the other has only 25% -- even though install base is still 50/50.)"
OK, I won't worry too much about bias now, though if someone has a reason to think the SPA is off-base, please let us all know. This is truly something to celebrate. Now, let's get the Linux installed base to 16%...
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Just because it doesn't have a virus or malware on it, doesn't mean it is an Apple computer. My Laptop is not an Apple, it doesn't have any malware on it (running Linux). My desktop doesn't have any on that I know of, it is running Windows.
I have several other machines of both windows and linux that are completely clean. They aren't apple. I have a Powerbook, that is clean too, but it is an Apple.
...if you actually read the RTFA, you'd notice that the 16% statistic comes from the Software Publishing Alliance, not the editorial itself.
In fact, the conclusion of the editorial is the following two points:
1)More people use Macs than most people realize.
2) People who use Macs don't get many viruses.
Shock! Horror! What next - "The Sky is Blue"? I'm a mac user, and am all for increading market share, but this editorial seems rather vapid...where's the news?
This is good news to hear. In a way, it confirms what I always suspected (especially since I keep my Macs longer than most of my equivalent PC friends -- and I'm a real gearhead). When you get down to it, though, I don't really care how much marketshare/install base Apple has, so long as they can keep cranking out the excellent products that they do.*
*Please keep in mind that I do realize the connection between profitability and new product development. All I'm saying is that the numbers could mean less as long as I'm a happy customer. And boy am I happy.
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
Why aren't there 16% Safari/OSX.*Mozilla users on the web? These numbers are very much made up...
Just because a machine has never been infected by a virus or other malicious software is absolutely NO indication of what OS its running.
I've had a PC of one brand or another since they first came out. And every one of my machines has run versions of Windows the majority of the time. I've had the machine I'm typing this from for three years. It runs Windows XP and has since the day I purchased it.
In 20+ years of PC use I have never been infected by malicious software of any kind. Ever.
Whether or not you've been infected is determined more by the component between your ears and less by your choice of operating system.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
What the hell are you talking about? GOOD software is "the way to go", and openness is a nice bonus. How hard can this concept be?
So far only "market-share" statistics are commonly published for the public and do not convey install base. (If for example 2 people are using computers and one replaces his 2x in a 3 year period and the other only does once, market-share dynamics dictate that one demographic has 75% market share while the other has only 25% -- even though install base is still 50/50.)"
I think you would have to be some sort of idiot to think that this applies to PCs vs Macs. I mean, honestly. WTF? Article writer is implying that Mac users don't buy new PCs as much as PC users, and the marketshare must be close?
I work for an ISP. I get maybe 2 or 3 calls from Mac people in a 5 day week. I handle more than 40 calls in a day. And in my professional opinion, you have to be completely retarded to think that PC/Mac usage is anywhere even in the same ballpark to 50/50.
As well, I constantly hear Mac zealots all excited about their new shiny G5 in some overly pretentious colour like magenta or something and how well it interfaces with their iPod. Most PC people I know are more interested in buying a $600 video card for their 5 year old PC.
Given the data points:
- The vast majority of studies estimate the installed base of the macintosh at somewhere around three to five percent.
- One study estimates it at sixteen percent.
The conclusion is:
- The studies estimating at three to five percent must have been doing something wrong
D...id I miss something here?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
There have been many viruses which don't rely on the user doing anything out of the ordinary in order to get infected, are users really stupid for believing when ms tells them it's safe to browse sites with msie?
Also your point about sending a shellscript to a linux user, you point out that the user has to take extra steps before he can do anything stupid, that's a positive point in favour of the os, in that it makes it harder for people to do stupid things.. And you can only trash his homedir, not the whole machine.. So next time he boots up and logs in, he's back to defaults which is a far cry from a system that won't boot atall.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
820? That's a very small sample size, so you can't really expect the results to be reliable. Besides, what's your site about? If it's a site full of Windows apps, then there won't be many Mac users. Conversely, if you go to a site like macgamefiles.com, you'll find that Macs have the majority of the stats.
Seriously, I might send a Linux user a nice shell script that wipes his home folder; if he's an idiot and chmods it in order to run it and *does* run it and loses all of his files, does that make Linux less secure? Or does that make such user an idiot?
Still, the guy would have to chmod it and run it by his own choice. That's quite different from things like Blaster or Sasser.
it doesn't matter how skilled your users are if you have an unsecure OS.
If the OS itself is completely secure then it's the skills of the admin that affect the infection rate.
For example:
User A is highly skilled, (s)he takes all the proper precautions, but a bug in the network stack compromises the computer.
User B is not skilled, but has a secure OS and competent admin. The user tries to run an executable attachment, but because the admin hasn't signed it it cannot run and the computer stays secure.
While a Mac isn't quite that secure, you can see the difference. A Mac or Linux user needs to run the attachment AND either enter in a root password or have a privilege escalation flaw in the OS.
Actually since you said 'openness' and not 'freedom', perhaps you are talking within the context of proprietary software - in which case you're right: openness per se is pretty much irrelevant. See RMS for further details.
This statistic is clearly pulled from someone's arse, but for some reason you think it's OK because the arseman isn't a well known Mac zealot?
There are several ways to test the validity of a statement, and none of them have to do with who made the statement. In this case, you could ask how the statistic was collected and how large the sample was. You'll notice the number 16% is a fantasy based on an assumption that has no base in any evidence. It's bunk, 'bias' or not.
I can understand how someone would dismiss out of hand something coming from Rob Enderle or a politician, but not how it's possible to accept something just because the source seems neutral. That's just stupid, and shows an incredibly unscientific mindset.
I can't personally find a link to the SPA web site, but if it includes shareware developers, and I think it does, this could very easily be explained.
There's a creeping suspicion that the average Mac users spend more on software than the average PC (and by PC in this context I mean Windows on x86, because it's shorter to write) user. Why is this?
Most PCs sit around in offices and do stuff you'd normally do with Office - word processing, spread sheets, emails. Far from all PCs, of course, but definitely *most*.
A sizable part of the Mac installed base are those who do publishing, or video editing, or DVD production, or something with media in general. These people go out and buy font managers, editing software and plug-ins, each probably running up an average of 80 bucks per product, with the actual editing software running from 200 bucks and up, not uncommonly into 500+ territory. People do this on PCs too, but I would bet on the percentage of the installed base being a lot smaller.
Another sizable part of the Mac installed base are those who sit at home and buy lots of shareware. This has a direct counterpart in the PC world, and they're probably about the same size percentage-wise. Note that games fall in the same price spectrum, that the hard-core gamer is likely to spend more on extra hardware (mice, gpu, keyboard, display) than on software, and that piracy probably helps inflate this segment.
And then there's also the fact that, *for whatever reason*, people seem to use Macs longer. Getting three years out of a Mac isn't extraordinary, it's average. Macs also have a higher value on the used market, so there's no rush to sell it.
I think all of this adds up to a skewing of these statistics.
OSX actually prevents the stupid user syndrome by needing a password to install or change any important files. ie Typical of a secure *nix installation. If my stupid users (I probably have a dozen of them easily in the big networks I manage) ever got hold of something from the malware scene they would need an admin p/w. Obviously they don't have that because we know they're stupid and don't give them a chance to break stuff. Case closed. My compnay also makes a small fortune selling anti-virus software that has no real use. The sig files for the OSX anti-virus s/w are always tiny because there are no viruses. But always the management of these places see viruses as a terrible threat because they all have wintel boxes and learn from that experience.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
Now, can you think of any other reason why that may be? Like making an internet connection is the easiest on the Mac compared to all platforms I know of?
you have to be completely retarded to think that PC/Mac usage is anywhere even in the same ballpark to 50/50
Submitter didn't imply that. That figure was an example.
I constantly hear Mac zealots all excited about their new shiny G5 in some overly pretentious colour like magenta or something
Hmm, now this is a lie. Because for years Apple only made machines in white, grey or aluminium.
Most PC people I know are more interested in buying a $600 video card for their 5 year old PC.
I have the strong feeling you are trying to make a point there, I only can't see what that may be ...
Apple is an Open Source Supporter, but not an Open Source extremist. There are some sets of tools that are better off Open Source and their are others that are better off closed sources. Things like Kernels, emulators and small tools and apps are perfect open source applications. While things that really need a good finishing touch are better off closed source.
So why are the finishing touches need to be closed source? Because those are the "Value Add" in the applications and companies put a lot of time in these little things that make the app from good to great. And they want to have a completive edge over their competitors. Even using KDE and GNOME which to their credit has done a good job but still they havenent became as polished as Windows interface and no where near the OS X interface. Most people who use Apple long enough to get use to the interface find that it comes with a lot of tiny details that just make the system feel complete when using it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"SETI@Home 2.0.4 was the fastest version of SETI for Macs. It relied heavily on the amount of L2 cache on the processor. Since most modern macs have 512K or 1MB of cahe it was able to produce results far better than a PC of the same MHz. But when 3.0 came all that changed. The L2 cache programming was removed and the speed was based solely on the MHz. So then Macs fell behind in WU times." [...]
"The best part of RC5 is that it is Alti-Vec and multi-processor aware, and Macs crunch data 5 times faster than a PC of the same MHz. It is a great way to show off the speed of your CPU."
I can't personally find a link to the SPA web site
Not surprisingly, they ceased to exist in 1999 or something, when they became SIIA. The article references SPA numbers in combination with SII numbers, which seems more than a bit strange.
As most of this article, and the mind blowing pice of critical thinking the story summary is.
Nope... Apple hardware is generally high quality as opposed to what Dell or Gateway might put in a computer.
Also, Apple systems are based on the PPC processor, which is significantly better than x86.
The only real reason to buy x86 is if you can't afford anything better.
Luke-Jr
So which category do I fit into then ? Windows XP, fully service-packed and with a single application installed (Xilinx Foundation, approx $2500, it's all I use the machine for), BSOD yesterday after running a place-and-route for approx 10 hours. I would have used the linux box but it has been busy running a similar PAR for about 2.5 days now. Identical machines, same software, one crashes, the other just carries on working...
No, you're assuming they're assuming that. I read it as 'hey, these guys *aren't* paid to lie - fancy that!'. The truth (or lack thereof) of the article rests on its merits.
It works quite nicely, how ? Do you have any example rootkits that work remotely ? As far as I'm aware, a rootkit is only a threat when it can be installed remotely via an exploitable hole in the system. If you have root access to the system, you don't need a rootkit to make it vulnerable! Just as a data-point, linux rootkits won't work on a mac, for the obvious reason that they're running very different software and potential exploits will therefore be different!
Well, this is down to personal taste of course, but I tend to use commandline ftp even on a windows box... I'm a unix-orientated guy and that's the way I prefer to work. OTOH, you can just type 'ftp://user@host' into the 'Finder->Go -> Connect to server' dialogue box and it'll open up the directory just like any other Finder window. It works the same way for 'smb:', 'nfs:', 'afp:' etc. etc.
Sure, XP has *more* software, and there are a few areas where the Mac still lacks (eg: EDA, hence the XP box), but for the 90% of people who don't fall into that category, it's there waiting for the taking.
Physicists get Hadrons!
That's something I've never understood.
Mac hardware's nothing special - it's primarily the software that makes Macs so great in comparison to a typical Windows/Linux/BSD PC. Why the heck would anyone buy a Mac and then install a Linux on it? Just doesn't make sense.
How come Mac users say something like this, then in the next breath go on about how PPC is a superior platform to x86?
The vast majority of studies estimate the installed base of the macintosh at somewhere around three to five percent.
Incorrect.
The vast majority of studies estimate the market share of the Macintosh at somewhere around three to five percent.
Market share is about current sales volume relative to sales of other products.
Installed base is about deployed systems relative to other deployed systems.
If I own four Macs and buy a PC, then PCs have 100% market share in my home, but 20% of the installed base.
I work around 30+ programmers and various other help desk folks and support teams....of which most of them have a computer at home and at least half of them have laptops.
Not a one of them has a mac. I personally do not even know anyone who owns a mac.
On the other hand -- I am always hearing people talk about how they run Linux at home.
16% is way overblown. Now maybe 16% of Intel PC owners own an Ipod, I would find that a little easier to believe.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
(sigh!)
Mac OS 9 has picked up a multitude of virii over the years, numbering the thousands by now, that is correct. Mac OS 9 is a defunct, and by now obsolete, version of the operating system. Also, the vast majority of these historical virii are no longer active - to wit, you can leave a Mac OS 9 system hooked up to the net, and exchange files for months, and upon running a virus checker will find, usually, nothing (MS Word Macro virii, notwithstanding)
Mac OS X currently has no known active virii that are capable, or actively, exploitig the operating system, and placing users at risk (again, MS Word macro virii, notwitstanding, since they don't affect the Mac user)
When talking about the Mac's lack of susceptibility to virii, the authors refer to current operating system usage, not something 4-6 years out of date.
Otherwise, by the same logic you would argue that Windows is virtually virus free (seeing as how none were around during Windows 1.0 and Windows 2.0).