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.)"
I find it feasible. at a recent science conference with several hundred people, those with non-Mac laptops were a very small minority. (out of the non-Macs it was about 50/50 Windows/linux.)
this is only tiny sample and I'm not exrapolating from it, just using it as an example how Mac usage is very high in some places so 16% isn't so far fetched imo.
An interesting related article and discussion on interpreting Google's zeitgeist OS numbers. And what it might mean for % usage of OS (which for Mac ends up being the 3-6% people usually speak of, 3% from Google's direct number and another 3% from Google 'Other' OS).
Don't vote for Eugene Papansanovich for Congress!
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.
The owls are not what they seem
They have
Now, this data is obviously skewed with respect to the total distribution, since the people who run something like SETI@home are probably more technologically inclined than the average computer user. This would mean that the percentage of non-Windows OSes is higher in this sample. On the other hand, the software for BOINC (SETI@home) is still somewhat Windows-centric, which would in turn increase the Windows share in the sample.
An interesting data point, nonetheless.
And I'm not making that up as much as I want to, almost every week a customer wants to buy a new box and when I ask them why it turns out their existing one is so infected as to be unusable. Most of the time, I clean them up, give them Firefox / AdAware / AVG and pocket a lot more profit than if I had simply sold him a new whitebox.
Money for nothing, pix for free
I run a website that gets a lot of hits due to information links carried on bittorrent sites. I see a startling high percentage of firefox, linux, and various unixes. I therefore conclude that Bittorrent is at this time not for the average idiot, although it is getting more that way every day.
Now google, on the other hand, is not completely without bias. The people in my family who are very clueless about the internet do not use google, they use the default MSN search that comes with Internet Exploder. This is a big deal I think. Lots of people who are clueless use these default searches, not to mention people whose browser has been hyjacked and must use the hyjacked search site. Those people are not (and won't be) running linux, firefox, or unixes.
So I think to really get some meaningful stats about installed bases for Firefox, Opera, Linux, and the like, we must survey lots of sites (1000's) from all manner of target demographics. Any other method of statistical analysis would have some bias.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
And I still find the 16% really hard to believe, no matter which way it is intended to be represented.
I don't find it hard to believe, although I think the figure is (A) an upper limit and (B) has probably 1 digit of precision.
The thing is, I guarantee you there are a lot people who are happily working on macs that are five or even ten years old. They don't show up in the market share figures, and they don't happen to be the kind of people you associate with, that's all.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Sophos seems to think there's a few and I'm sure a quick google will find something more ;)
These are typical examples of the knd of things I'm talking about.
Cowhand is not a virus or spyware, it's a rootkit component to be installed after you've already used an exploit (virus, direct attack, or social engineering) to get in. If this is an "OS X virus" then so is tinyproxy or socks. Strike one.
Amphimix is a demonstration exploit that can only be used through a social engineering attack. A social engineering attack can't be completely defended against by the OS, but Apple has taken steps to mitigate this one (less well than I'd like, but probably adequately) and there are zero examples of it in the wild. Strike two.
Renepo is a payload only, it's got no remote propogation mechanism... Sophus notes "that any attacker trying to plant this worm in your network would need to get root access on one of your boxes first, meaning that you would already be "owned". Strike Three.
Sorry, Casey.
Of course nothing is as bad as the numbers for Windows but to say that your completely safe is pure arrogance.
I didn't say that you're completely safe. I said that there are zero exploits currently out there for OS X. Of course "past performance is not proof of future gains", but the level of risk is so low that you're more likely to suffer data loss or system damage from running A/V software than not running it.
If you're running a webserver or some other "attractive nuisance", then there's a whole different level of risk and a whole different approach necessary. But for a desktop user? I'm not sure I'd even recommend turning on Apple's firewall unless you're on a shared LAN... and even then I'd want to check the settings before I treated it as anything but a placebo.
I could serve as an example here...
I bought a G3 tower (beige) in 1998. I still use it. It's a Debian PPC Samba domain controller.
I bought a G3 Powerbook in 1999. I still use it. It's a chat/email/web-surfing machine, running OSX 10.3.9.
I bought a generic PC in 2002 to make Unreal Tournament maps and playing games (like UT, of course). I've since upgraded it and it has become 2 PC's, but I gave the old one away to my dad (for use as a word/excel/notepad-type record keeping machine for his business). Mine runs Win2k+SP4. Dad's runs the same, but doesn't have an internet connection, so it doesn't get updated (or exposed to nasties, so no harm no foul).
I bought a Mac Mini for use as a HTPC. It's working well. It runs 10.3.whatever-it-shipped-with, and is not (yet) connected to my network (and therefore not the internet either).
Mac installed-base is 75%, PC gets 25%. Are my numbers factored in correctly? Probably not. I'm guessing that I'm counted as 1 Mac. That's either by chalking me up to whatever I have the most of, or by counting my last purchase (the Mac Mini) as replacing whatever the previous purchase was. And one of those PC's wouldn't be counted at all because I acquired it over the course of a year and a half as parts (and shouldn't be counted, since I gave the old one away).
Another thing to consider: Mac people tend not to replace their Macs at all. They add to the collection. It's amazing to see, but you can take a totally clueless designer-type, sell them a new Mac, and watch them become a combination of designer and geek. Once they have 2 Macs, they start asking questions about "how do I get them to talk to each other?" and "wait, can't I make the old one do work just like it used to and still use the new one?", which are questions that the typical disposable-PC person won't even dream of. Once they see that they can indeed use more than one computer at once, they quickly learn some basic networking and system admin stuff, which leads them to more and more geek stuff. Eventually, they leave the newbie-geek phase and head off into more difficult stuff.
It happened to me (though I wasn't a designer to start with, I was a wannabe geek), and I've seen it happen to others. PC's hold people back by being cheap, disposable crap.
You're generally correct about businesses.... but it really depends on where you work. I've been to a number of print shops in town, and almost all use about 50% Macs. Lots of newspapers use primarily Macs too. (Granted, our local paper seems to be migrating to PCs because of how cheap they can buy Dells and the like... but the writers still use primarily Macs as their notebooks and home desktops of choice, and they generally whine and gripe about the corporate change in course.)
I've also seen a few dentists and chiropractors who use all Macs in their offices. They're a minority, but they're out there. There are a few specialized packages for Mac OS X just for these fields.
The problem with that number is the data it's drawn from. The 16% is the number of internet connected computers not affected by viruses, and they just assume that all of them are Macs. What about Linux or BSD? Aren't they similarly unaffected by the Windows virus scourge?
I think the truth is that 16% is divided up among Mac, Linux, BSD, Solaris, and probably a few more. There have been other reports in the last few years showing Mac and Linux roughly even, at up to 7% each, which doesn't seem at all unlikely to me.
It's still good news though. Common wisdom is that Windows is something like 92% of the installed base. This article suggests it's more like 84%, and I find that encouraging.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The black powerbooks are arguably the most upgradeable laptops ever built. The wallstreet, with its dual cardbus bays and dual media bays, was exceptional. I ugpraded mine to a g3/500 which not only increased CPU speed by 66% but also almost doubled battery life. A CD burner was another nice ugprade for it. (I think they have superdrives for them now?) I don't know if the G4 upgrade works with the wallstreet, but I've recently seen a "G4 pismo", upgraded something like this:
i smo.html
http://www.geekculture.com/blurbs/reviews/XLR8G4P
Not only is that G4/550, but check out the memory. It's not a new laptop, but it's still not too shabby.
Upgrading a PC, you usually replace the CPU, the logic board, power supply, memory, and the optical drive. That means you're keeping... the case? heh, what's the point?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
My microwave oven (which is not on the internet) doesn't get virusus either. If a machine isn't on the internet, you don't count it when talking about online security.
On a normal non-OS targeted site, I have never seen Mac usage more than 5%, and I've seen statistics for dozens of fairly high volume sites. I like macs as much as anyone (I have 6) but let's be realistic here - 16% is not an honest number.
This article implies that Linux, BSD, and so on all have a 0% marketshare. I think the person creating this statisitic was confused, and thought only Windows and Mac OS X exists, and so in the data that only 84% of the people were running Windows so assumed everyone else is running on a Mac. Even then, 16% for the combined marketshare is more then I believe, I'm currently believing the W3School's 6.2% as the combined marketshare of Linux and Macs... I also believe there 25% Firefox statistic too, even though I'm sure most people here will flame me for that.
I believe that statisitic because as I meet people, around 20% of them already use Firefox, and around 95% use Firefox afterwards... I also know many people who just recommend it after I told them about it and they love it, even those people who literally know nothing about a computer, heck, the person who probably has switched more then me can't even spell computers. He's this really, really cool frat kid, he's grown to hate IE because of the spyware and popups and viruses and crap, doesn't know what "IE" is though if you say it to him, but he knows its not Firefox, and tells everyone to use Firefox.