Assume a completely even playing field where each of the three main consumer OS's, Windows, linux, and OS-X each has 33.3% of the market. Which environment would a trojan/botnet writer target and why? Put another way, how difficult would it be to develop a similarly intricate for linux or OS-X if a malware author decided to target those platforms?
This is an interesting question, but it lacks some details that may make a large difference. First, was it a single Linux distribution or a mixture of the ones currently available. Second, are we talking Windows Vista, or are we talking about the current mix of Windows versions deployed today?
Potential reasons why it is easier to target Windows:
Malware authors are familiar with Windows and Windows development tools and often are not experienced in coding for other platforms.
Even with an even distribution of OS's, MS still dominates certain application segments on Windows, with MS Office, Outlook, and IE. Other platforms have more varied application sets by comparison, making it harder to make a virus work via an exploit for a particular application.
Windows in general runs with more network services listening by default than either OS X or Linux and each one is a potential hole.
Windows fails to operate using standard protocols, so assuming most networks in the future are mixed, for full functionality Windows servers often have to run two services for a given function, versus one when using Linux or OS X. (For example, a Windows box might be listening to the local network using UPnP SSDP to discover network services, as well as ZeroConf, which is implemented by various applications on Windows, whereas OS X and Linux use only the standard ZeroConf.)
Windows has a different user base from the other OS's and it is often a less security conscious one overall. That could change, however if market share does.
On the other hand, Windows has a few advantages as well:
More anti-virus tools and services are available for Windows
Windows makes better use of sandboxes in some instances than the vast majority of Linux distros.
The question is pretty academic though. Market share is not going to shift drastically overnight, nor distribute evenly. Market share has an enormous affect on the products themselves. Right now Linux and OS X have appropriate levels of security so that it is not a big issue for their users. If security threats increased for either platform, security improvements would also increase because the developers are motivated to not lose money.MS is currently a monopoly so the fact that Windows does not have sufficient security to deal with the malware ecosystem does not cost them much money at all, so they are nt motivated to fix it. If Windows had 30% of the market, they would no longer have a monopoly and they would fix their security problems or go out of business.
Having a diverse computing market makes things hard for botnet operators, because it lessens the effect of any vulnerability and because it motivates better security through competition between the players in that market. The theoretical you propose would change things in many, many ways. In some ways, Linux and OS X would become bigger targets and have to adapt their security to deal with it, but we'll never know what would hold up as the "best" six months or two years afterwards.
Are you sure you aren't picking on Sony because they tend to be on the higher end of the price range for PCs? Sony's are average for reliability, though perhaps still better than Apple. If you were serious about reliability you would probably be pricing out a Lenovo.
Lenovo ranks very middle of the road for reliability for 2007. Apple is the top ranked vendor according to Consumer Reports. Behind them is Sony, by a small margin, and (in the laptop category only) Dell. Then there is a significant drop to the middle range of reliability where you have Lenovo and Toshiba, then another drop and HP and Gateway. I picked Sony because even though when objectively tested they are not quite as reliable as Apple's systems, they are the closest major brand.
I'm relying upon Consumer Reports for the numbers, because they're the best source I know. They have no bias, take no advertising dollars from anyone, don't accept free hardware to test, buying everything from normal retail channels, and their entire business relies upon their reputation. I trust their testing and surveys just a wee bit more than your unsupported assertion.
I wasn't talking about value, I was talking price. A Ford is still cheaper than a Lexus, just as a PC is cheaper than a Mac. But whatever, you can substitute Honda or Toyota for Ford if you want in this lousy analogy.
Your analogy is flawed. In such an analogy, you cannot substitute Honda or Ford for PCs. It would have to be every other manufacturer of car except Lexus. Some are cheaper and some are more expensive. In fact, I can go configure hundreds of gaming PCs that are twice to three times the most expensive desktop from Apple. Thus, Apple machines are cheaper than PCs by your argument, after all we're just talking price, not value.
I'm just pointing out the comparison fallacy Mac fanboys love to use. They always start out with a Mac and then try to make the PC like the Mac. Well of course the Mac is going to be the best at being a Mac, so the PC's price gets inflated.
Except it isn't a flawed methodology and it isn't the whole methodology. When comparing Apple machines to everything else, you have a fixed variable. Say you wanted to compare the prices of Lenovo machines with others, a good place to start is finding one or more Lenovo systems, then looking for a vender that offers something similar. Choosing a random machine from another vendor an hoping Lenovo happens to offer something similar to compare to it, is not really a useful starting point.
You reconfigure both machines, the Apple and the other systems to be as close as possible, but if there is nothing offered from some vendor that is even close, well it isn't a very good comparison, is it?
To use a car analogy it really is like saying Lexus is no more expensive than Ford because once you take the top of the line Ford, add all the upgrades, then add even more stuff aftermarket to make it the same as the Lexus, you've spent around the same amount of money.
Yeah, it is sort of like that, except you can't really add aftermarket reliability, now can you? When you're talking about the cost of Apple versus other vendors, what is the point of making a comparison at all unless you're comparing similar offerings. I have a 18 year old, used, TI calculator worth about $0.10. By comparison, Lenovo systems are tens of thousands of times more expensive. Lenovo systems are overpriced. Gee was that useful to anyone? Nope.
My guess is that we will see ODF support in Office before 1st January 2009, and that is a good thing.
My guess is MS Office will support the current version of ODF via a plug-in you have to download separately, and which will have several intentional flaws in it to make it slightly incompatible with OOXML and.doc and the conversion will slightly mess things up. Further, by 2009, there will probably be a newer version of ODF fixing all the initial problems and adding a pile of features that users request... it will take MS another few years to implement that version. Basically, I see MS stalling as much as possible, while simultaneously trying to add to OOXML features like DRM in the hopes that they can prevent ODF from ever being widely adopted as a worldwide standard. If it comes to it, expect basic OOXML reading and writing to be built into Windows and IE as they try to once again leverage their monopolies to undermine user choice.
I think what will likely happen ( and what I've heard has happened with the one company I know that has to send docs to a Norwegian govt agency) is that the govt will be charged a surcharge for having to create non standard documentation.
First, you use the past tense "happened." Since this policy has not gone into effect yet, are you saying a company has said they will charge a surcharge and convert to ODF, or are you saying a given department already asked for ODF, was given it, and paid an additional fee? I'd be really amused if I got a bid from a vendor and they also requested that I pay a fee for their conversion of the file they're sending me. I wouldn't pay, since who'd want to do business with someone so unaccommodating, but I'd be amused. Likewise when those companies file their taxes, for permits, or for any other government service, I'm sure requesting a fee for conversion will go over really well:)
What's even more interesting about the instance I know about is that since there are serious header/footer issues in ODF, both an ODF and word doc get sent, but the ODF version (being essentially useless) won't be used by either side
Umm, I get ODF files regularly from coworkers and from other businesses and I've never seen any header/footer problems. What problems are you talking about? Google turns up a few minor bugs in specific implementations (some alignment stuff with the Word plugin, for example).
Like most companies dealing with other businesses and governments, we're flexible on formats and only negotiate them when there is no free way for us to convert formats or when we cannot read the format because we don't know what to use. (Examples would be when a reseller asked us to convert to a proprietary help system format we don't use or have a license to, or a.doc file that won't open in any of the versions of Word we have handy.
Actually, I don't see this as much of an issue. For the most part, all documentation comes as PDF format these days, including most of the interactive forms I get. The only things I get in an editable format are powerpoint presentations (about half of them with the rest being PDF or HTML) and the occasional form. We certainly never, ever send out.doc files and no one has ever complained or requested them from us.
however most companies do not let their users install or use random plugins so that "niche group" is 90% of the business world.
However, most companies in Norway do business with their government, so while they may not let users install plug-ins, they will probably install them for the users, probably as a matter of policy before the 2009 deadline. I'd argue any company that refuses to install a free plug-in so they can do business with a customer, will probably be dying soon anyway.
No, I'm saying that your comparison is not useful, because you fish around until your "comparable PC" costs the same amount as the Mac. Even going so far as to dismiss all other vendors other than Sony, and specifying the brand of harddrives that the laptop maker must put into the computer. It's crap.
No it isn't crap. BMWs are more expensive and more reliable than Fords. But I suppose they're both just cars so it doesn't matter if one employer will give you a free beamer and the other a Ford? That wouldn't influence your decision despite the tens of thousands of dollars it represents. I picked Sony, because they are the only company that even comes close to Apple for laptop hardware reliability. Do you really consider a machine that is twice or three times as likely to fail as some other machine to be equivalent? A lot of that depends upon what quality of hardware you put in it. Is it whoever is selling the cheapest lots of 120Gb hard drives today (like Dell has done in the past) or is it the same model of higher quality drives, from a vendor that does more extensive testing and, hence, charges more?
To use a car analogy, it's like arguing that a Lexus automobile is not expensive, as Mercedes automobiles cost about the same. If I was to say, "What about a Ford automobile?" you would make up some mumbo-jumbo about how they don't compare
You're damn straight they don't compare. Ford was rated the 19th best automobile for reliability in 2006, while Lexus was ranked first. You wouldn't rather have the most reliable car in the world instead of one of the worst? That truly has no value to you at all?
Besides, if you really want to play that game, start picking out random PCs and then pricing out the comparable Mac. You'll find that the Mac is going to be more expensive in every case, if Apple even makes a comparable computer.
Ahh, but you can't because strangely Apple doesn't make a machine that is comparable to every model produced by every other OEM in the world. And guess what, not many OEMs produce machines that are easily comparable to Apple's offerings. That is why you try to find other companies that make machines that are very similar and compare hardware and prices. I suppose you're one of those people that buys government grade meat in a can because it is "the same thing" as a nice, hanger steak from Whole Foods because "they're both beef" right? Reliability is a valuable feature and it can be objectively measured and it has been by several research companies and consumer advocacy companies. Ignoring it makes anything else in your comparison moot.
I can't give you a direct citation because consumer reports is a pay site. They don't accept advertising dollars or even free hardware to review as that would introduce potential bias. They buy all their machines anonymously, through regular retail channels. I can refer you to this article which references the 2007 report, briefly at the bottom. I highly recommend a subscription as being an informed consumer can save you that much money in the long run anyway. The relevant quote is:
The Consumer Reports top-rated Windows laptops in the 15.4-inch workhorse category are:
Apple Macbook Pro 15"
Sony VAIO VGN-FE790
Dell Inspiron E1505
It only references the overall picks though, not the specific reliability ratings. For reliability in 2007, Apple is the runaway winner, followed by Sony and surprisingly, Dell this year (they were below average in 2006 for laptops and still are for desktops). Lenovo is right about in the middle of the pack along with Toshiba and a bit better than Gateway or HP.
But that's overstating. A functioning battery, screen, keyboard, pointing device, and networking capabilities I considered to be a general laptop.
What I stated was true in principal. It does not matter what features you care about. What matters is price for equivalent hardware. No comparison can be perfect, so there is some margin of error and ignoring the quality of components and relying only on specs for size and speed is not equivalency. Reliability and quality cost money and can be objectively evaluated.
The laptop line is their most competitive offering in the desktop computing space (because any decent laptop vendor is still fairly expensive), and yet it simply will cost more.
Apple's laptop offerings? Actually the Mac mini is widely regarded as being the best value in the small footprint computing space, by a fairly wide margin. Apple is price competitive in the all-in-one space and in the consumer laptop space. They used to be very competitive in the 2U server space, and RAID space as well, but have fallen behind the curve in the last year. They've always been a bit on the expensive side for pro desktops and pro laptops, but all-in-all they are not out of line with the rest of the industry, unless you try (unfairly) comparing their very reliable, higher end offerings to someone else's less reliable midrange systems.
The desktop systems are hopeless (need to go over a thousand dollars before decent graphics accelerators exist, and can't get discrete components short of the uber-expensive mac pro).
Gee thanks for proving my point. You just compared Apple's high end offering to someone else's midrange system, based upon the fact that Apple does not sell a headless midrange system. You have to compare equivalent systems, not the closest available when that is not close at all. Apple offers fewer machines than the rest of the OEMs combined, go figure. That is a disadvantage, but it is a different disadvantage than Apple machines being overpriced for what they are.
We have been living with multiple formats for as long as there have been computers and we seem to be getting on just fine.
We are? Having to shell out hundreds of dollars for a program to properly read and write a document I'm required to read by the government is "just fine?" Having archived files that cannot be opened with any available program is "just fine?" Not being able to choose cheaper, alternative products when making purchasing decisions, solely because we are locked into one, proprietary format (probably draining billions from US businesses) is "just fine."
I hear the arguements but they make no real sense unless your sole objective is to push ODF, for whatever reason.
Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean they don't make sense.
I object to being forced to choose software for my personal computer by my government, I just can't agree to that. I would be very surprised if I was alone in this sentiment.
Oh, you're not alone. The thing is, when the government provides files as a format that only Microsoft can implement completely, they are forcing you (or at least strongly encouraging you) to choose only the software offered by MS. When the government provides files in a format that anyone can implement, you are free to choose software from any vendor that bothers to implement the standard, including MS. If a given company, however, chooses to not implement the standard, then that is not the government's fault, now is it?
The push for ODF comes from a bunch of technical individuals, their motives are probably very pure, but when you reach the common man in the street this type of policy, or any value in it, will be totally lost on them.
Of course they don't and a lot of the politicians don't either. The thing is, many governments are convinced of the benefits of open standards, and just need sound technical advice as to which formats actually provide those benefits to the people. I don't expect the average person to understand those benefits, but neither do I expect the average person to understand the benefits and drawbacks of software patents. That doesn't mean the government should go with the answer that is easiest to oversimplify into something most people will understand.
If officials in the US were not so corrupt, we would have done the same thing long ago.
All they will see is a mandate from government that forces them to go off and install software that they're not familiar with.
But they aren't forcing them to install software. Who doesn't have a PDF reading application? Who doesn't have an HTML browser? And who doesn't run a word processor that doesn't support ODF, support ODF with a plug-in, or will support ODF within the next two years? Besides, there aren't many people in Norway who haven't heard about MS being convicted of antitrust actions both in the EU and in Norway, nor who missed the recent attempted bribery scandal. I think the government can simplify things to "Microsoft keeps breaking the law, so we're going to start making sure other companies (especially local companies like Linpro) have a fair shot at government contracts."
As I say, it makes no practical sense.
It makes a lot of practical sense, both for lowering prices, insuring data availability in the future, maintaining an open market, and making MS improve their product, rather than force upgrades through unfair means. If any people really want to argue the point, they can cite MS's illegal activities and ask if the government should be giving them money or they can simply tally up how mach money Norway spends on MS software every year and watch them do the math and back down.
I'm not a free market maniac but, really, should governments mandate particular specifications like this? Seems intrusive.
Umm, first, how is that a free market issue? Second, the company producing the de facto standard is a convicted monopolist who has repeatedly undermined the free market using file formats,so even if this is a free market issue, the government should be legitimately stepping in and regulating it. Third, you did read the summary and know they mandated it for use within the government, not for other companies in their country, right?
It's[sic] says a lot that you have to make the specifications that narrow just to get the prices to match up. I would say it's true that in general, PCs are cheaper than the Mac.
Sure. It's also true that in general automobiles are cheaper than Peterbilt brand automobiles. Does than mean people shouldn't buy Peterbilt or this information is useful to anyone for anything? Of course if you're comparing comparable machines with the same type of hardware, then Macs cost about the same as other, comparable machines; just as Peterbilt automobiles cost about the same as Mack and Volvo class 8 trucks. In general Volvo autos are cheaper than Peterbilt, but then Volvo sells to the lower end, consumer car market as well as the class 8 truck market. In general Dells are cheaper than Macs, but then Dell sells to the low-end, low-reliability, bargain PC market.
Do you see how, while true, your statement is not useful? If you're looking for a family car, you're probably not going to consider a Peterbilt semi-truck. If you're shopping for a semi-truck, you probably don't care that Volvo also offers family cars cheaper than Peterbilt's semi-trucks because they're unlikely to be suitable for hauling cargo trailers around.
I left it out, but it's there for $25 dollars more, so add $25 to the T61p price.
You're right, they just fail to list the new firmware that adds support for N, on the tech specs listing.
I've never had cause to use it instead of a stateless recovery image that is a bit more general purpose.
Your personal uses are not in question. We're talking about whether or not a given hardware feature works. Personally, I use it about once every time I buy a new Mac, but it saves me so much time and effort it actually influences my purchasing choices. It doesn't matter though, since we have to assume some people use any given feature, while every feature is useless to others. Blind people don't care if the monitor works, can we discount screen resolutions?
Given the Thinkpad warranty situation, it is in their best interest to invest up front. This is the sort of thing that is only resolved through ongoing market data
It's in every manufacturer's best interest to have as few returns as possible, provided it does not cost them more in materials costs. The point is, as a user, our interests are not the same as the OEM. A machine dying for us is a huge inconvenience and may cost us valuable work or opportunity costs.
Huh? My whole point was that in my experience (in an environment of about 8 Thinkpads), reliability has been good and no service calls have needed to be placed.
Great, but your sample size of 8 machines is pretty small compared to a real study, like the ones Consumer Reports publishes every year and which indicate Lenovo laptops have about twice the failure rate. Which should the average person use to make decisions, your anecdote or a professional organization with no bias putting their reputation on the line?
Your next paragraph is simply a restatement of your original point ignoring the point that alternative 'professional' league systems are still cheaper.
...because you failed to provide any data showing a comparison of a laptop with similar reliability ratings and showing as a lower price. Of course since Sony was the closest, and have very similar prices you'll have a hard time supporting your assertion.
However, if you don't have explicit interest in those features, as a general laptop, it isn't worth it.
If you're not interested in the features of a given laptop and look for a laptop without them you can find it cheaper? Really? I never would have guessed. You know if you're looking for a laptop and you're not interested in a functioning screen, you can get a lot of laptops cheaper than anything from Lenovo, mostly used Dells.
I first saw the South Park movie in a huge lecture hall on a university campus. When they shot Gates, there was mass hysteria... cheering, yelling, throwing things, howling, and clapping. It was a spontaneous expression of joy at this virtual revenge for every Windows problem ever. Seeing it again at a regular theater was sort of a letdown, a few chuckles and that was it.
I think this is an incorrect characterization. You compare Sony, but both Sony and Apple aim to be boutique electronic brands. Compare to brands like Lenovo (even when it was IBM) where they don't pretend to be stylish brands that are 'cool' enough to justify a wider margin.
I compared Sony and Apple because for laptops they were the closest according to consumer reports this year. Lenovo, was only middle of the road for laptop hardware reliability overall.
Price out a T61p model and compare to any equivalent macbook pro.
I looked at your comparison and you forgot a few items. Bluetooth is another $30 bucks. There is no option from Lenovo for 802.11n, which is also standard on the MacBook. Does the T61p have a built in camera and microphone? It has a Firewire port, but does it support Firewire disk mode? How do the batteries compare? They might have the same size and speed of hard drives, but which one is more reliable and from a better manufacturer? What about the reliability of all the other parts?
However you try to create equivalent machines, there will always be features on one or the other that you can't find an equivalent bit of hardware for. And if you pay a couple grand less for a Lenovo with some of the same specs, or even a grand less for something with all the same specs if you could do it, you still have a laptop that is almost twice as likely to need to be returned due to hardware failure.
Simple fact of the matter is that Apple is a more expensive brand that enjoys wider margins and they love it that way.
They're more expensive than whom? They're certainly more expensive than the average laptop, but they also have more features and better reliability than the average laptop. Their margins for most of their machines seem to be about in line with the rest of the industry, and lower than average in some (like small footprint machines). Three years ago, many analysts would have agreed with you. Five years ago, there was no question. Ties have changed. Apple probably has some good margins on some of their pro lines, but so do a lot of other manufacturers with well regarded brands. Hell Alienware machines had twice the margin Apple systems did, for several years. The best numbers I've seen show Apple right about average for the industry as a whole. This "Apple's are more expensive" line is a misstatement of Apple's real disadvantage. If you buy a machine from Apple, in general it will cost about the same as an equivalent machine from some other manufacturer, however, it won't be as cheap as the cheapest offering from all the other vendors. Also, since Apple sells a limited number of models, you'll rarely be able to find a machine that meets, but does not exceed your needs as exactly, so you end up paying for things you don't want. In practice, this means people who are buying Apples first, and a machine second, probably pay more than average. All this nonsense about margins, however, has been obsolete for many years.
Being certified a Unix doesn't mean but one thing, your organization was willing to throw a pile of money at another organization, nothing more and nothing less.
True, but that doesn't mean it does not affect purchasing by the military. I've worked on getting software certified in various ways for government use. It is absurd and illogical. The conversation went like this;
Them: "Sure we'll buy your device so long as it is built on this really outdated version of Linux or on Windows XP SP1, since those are the only ones certified for security."
Me: "Umm, both of those have more security problems than the recent version of Linux we're using."
Them: "Yeah but those are certified, and we can't buy unless it is certified."
Me: "How did WinXP SP1 get certified? It is missing half the criteria in your request for purchase."
Them: "Oh, it isn't certified for this project, just certified."
Me: "What is it certified to do."
Them: "It's just certified to meet the criteria for whatever they certified it for, but since it was certified for something we can use it."
Me: "So you can just certify something saying it will boot most of the time and then you can buy it even if it won't do what you need, but you can't use something that does what you need, unless we pay thousands of dollars and spend months getting it 'certified' for something, and then we can't update it ever again without doing it all over again?"
Them: "Yes, that's it exactly. It's stupid, but those are the rules."
There's simply not as much information worth stealing there as there is with Windows (financial, corporate, and so on).
Okay, there seems to be a disconnect here. There are two concerning types of security problems with machines used in government work. The first is a large scale automated attack to shut them down or take them over to use as bots. The second is a targeted attack by a dedicated hacker going for particular data on a given system. These are very different problems. OS X is not now and is not likely in the near future to be much affected by the former type of attack. Due to difficulty spreading, malware community knowledge base, the default security setup of OS X, Apple's responsiveness to exploits (not vulnerabilities) and several other factors. There is plenty of motivation to attack these, simply because no one is competing against you for control of them as bots and because while there are not as many of them, they are a lot more likely to have useful financial information and credit card data on them. You weed out not only all the third world country pirated Windows machines, but also the poorer segments of the wealthier nations.
For the second type of attack, attack by a dedicated expert, no OS will stand up in its default configuration. If someone is going after your data and they're an expert, well they will probably find a way. Unless you go to extremes to lock down your system... you can be hacked by an expert. The skill needed is less for most Windows machines, but it mostly depends upon the expertise of the pros you have working for you.
Honestly, I don't know why people aren't trying to crack into Macs more often
People are trying, but it isn't easy. Most people rely upon automated worms, and the malware community has less experience with Macs. Most of them use toolkits created by others and don't have the skill to code something from scratch. OS X has no exposed services by default, and does not make many of the same silly Web browsing decisions as plague some versions of Windows. Also, there are so many security people using Macs now, that anything in the wild is detected really quickly by someone and usually stopped before it spreads.
Most Mac users I know don't run AV software, for example -- it's not personally relevant to them (though I try to convince them that they can pass along the ick to others -- I'm generally not too successful there, though). All I meant by my previous post is that I expect that soon Macs will be much more vulnerable because of this.
I'm a Mac user, among other OS's, and I don't run antivirus on my machine. I have ClamAV installed, but it does not run automatically, ever. Realistically, this is more secure for my OS X install. So far there have been zero spreading worms that attack OS X and have signatures in such AV systems. There have been two major releases of AV software for OS X that malfunctioned and caused users to lose data. Until there are some OS X malware signatures, it is more of a risk to run AV than to not run it. In the future this may change.
But it still enjoys more security simply because it's not as common as Windows.
I agree, but I don't think that is the only security advantage it has.
And while I think all of this nefarious behavior is shitty and wrong, maybe it's time that average Joe Mac users had a little shot across the bow about security.
I'd love for their to be some major security issues on OS X to get Apple to push the pedal to the metal with regard to their new security frameworks. That said, it would probably not be a good thing in the long run for overall security. The fact is, the simple message "get a Mac to avoid malware problems" is an oversimplification, but it is one a normal Joe user can understand... and if it gets them to switch to OS X... good! It will make them more secure for now and motivate MS to fix their security problems.
Actually, given that it is military and should have very fine grained security, nobody should have the rights to install a program, not even on their own space, except administrators.
One of the biggest security problems is when security reduces usability to the point where users bypass the security for convenience, or simply because it is easier. I've even seen situations where no one had rights to install any software because of security policies, and the admins were then ordered to look the other way for security violations in general because a company still needed to get work done and make money. Good security does not reduce usability. If users don't have the ability to run the software they want to, you've greatly reduced usability and should not be surprised when users start rebooting from a flash drive or working on their home PCs with basically no security.
How many times do I have to keep telling people that security is more about the skill of the IT staff than it is about the operating system it runs on?
I'd argue the skill of the IT staff includes choosing appropriately secure and securable OS's for your purpose. For example, in a university setting, choosing to supply all students with an laptop running OS X or Ubuntu, may well solve 90% of your security problems, whereas choosing laptops loaded with Windows to distribute, may well make securing your network with the resources available impossible.
But waving around an OS like it was some magic bullet that's going to somehow fix your security problems is, well, insanity.
In some cases, choosing the OS does solve most security problems, and that is just the way the malware ecosystem is today. You could say I am IT for several family members. In such a situation, just choosing OS X or Linux for the OS I install on a system for say, my mother, is the only security decision I need to make. Choose OS X and forget about it has worked for years, while trying to keep my father's Windows laptop clean and relatively secure is a painful, labor intensive process.
While Apple systems have always been slightly higher priced (when compared to equal pc systems not home made random part systems) I figured this was mostly do to higher manufacturing costs.
Actually if you compare just hardware, from other vendors with similar reliability ratings, Macs are about the same price as other PC hardware. The last study I saw put them at about 20% above average in price, which is about the same as Sony (who also sells mostly mid and high end machines with top end reliability ratings). Apple systems are about the same cost as any other PC, assuming you're looking at all the hardware criteria, not just bullet points. And by all the criteria i.e. a system with a 120 Gb, Fujitsu drive is not the same as a system with a 120 Gb, Western Digital drive. They cost different amounts and one is clearly more reliable.
could be totally wrong, and probably am, but I'm hoping that with the Army switching out all their systems to Apple machines that the manufacturing costs over all will go down and maybe we'll start to see some cheaper Apple systems coming out.
You can expect Apple to enter new market segments, but don't ever expect them to compete on the very low end. Dell makes money selling junk machines on the low end, with terrible reliability ratings, and huge failure rates. They sell them cheaper than any Apple machine, but that is because Apple does not want to tarnish their trademark by selling to that market segment. Volume pricing only does so much. Apple is already getting good bulk pricing deals. They make up 8% of the US market, which represents about as many sales in a particular target market as anyone else out there. (f you're looking for a midrange notebook, for example, Apple probably is selling about 15% of those out there, while Dell might be selling 20%. Dell has much higher overall sales, but a lot of that is because they are selling to more markets segments including the very low end.
...Apple's market share was at 3.5% in 2003. That's nearly 5 years ago.
That was, of course, US market share, which lists at 8.1% today. 8.1 divided by three is about 2.7%. I think the numbers for 2002 were actually 2.2%, by sales. That's about triple, huh?
(You cited a LOT of wild figures you know... going up 20 times over 5 years? Are you saying it went up 20 x 3.5%? Isn't that 70% market share?
I said 20 times "market value" not market share. Please reread my post. In fact, Apple's stock evaluates today at 27 times the value it had 5 years ago today.
I'm predicting a great deal more than that. I'm looking for numbers that will actually humble Microsoft to the point of actually having to listen to Apple's demands rather than the other way around as it is presently.
Umm, okay, but you still don't list any reason why your prediction should be considered credible. I asked before. Why would Apple's market share raise more in 2008 than it did in 2007? They seem to be continuing a steady trend of chipping away, bit by bit. We might expect 10% of US sales in 2008, but the point at which MS's ability to hinder that growth with their monopoly is not until something like 20-30% of the market has shifted, so I don't see why we'd expect anything unusual.
Admittedly, I'm unable to quickly find any useful information indicating present market share, but in a conversation I had with an Apple store employee recently, I recall a statement of around 6 or 7% market share which doesn't quite reach your assertions even with a conservative interpretation of your numbers.
Do a Google search for "Apple market share" and the second result is this article quoting a report from Gartner on computer OEM market share as of Q3-2007, listing Apple at 8.1% of the US market up 37.2% from last year, right in line with the numbers I mentioned earlier. Does that seem fairly credible to you?
And to say "fairly steady" and "20-40%" is an oxymoron!
No it isn't. It is slightly off. Looking more closely it is more like 10% for two of those years.
Care to cite your references?
I'm not going to go link crazy here. There are plenty of number on Apple's market share available from Google. and I already gave you one of them.
I'd like to think that the EU has a better system for dealing with monopolies although at the same time I can't help but wonder if the fact that Microsoft isn't based there had a lot to do with it.
This might apply for a case within a given EU member state, since politicians can play on anti-americanism, but not so much for EU posts. The EU commission has enforced antitrust regulation against numerous european countries over the past decade. If anything they seem to have gone out of their way to give MS huge amounts of leniency and extra time.
This wasn't an apple fan site. They were profiting from corporate espionage.
Actually, it was an Apple fan site and it was profiting from corporate espionage.
The point is Apple has a right to not have its company secrets told to everyone. It will never be your right to know that information. It's just plain arrogance (and stupidity) to think that it is.
Well, sort of. The law supports Apple in that anyone releasing these secrets, enticing others to release them, or knowingly publishing them for profit is breaking the law. As to a fundamental right of Apple, well they are a corporate entity and don't have "rights" just granted privileges. It is debatable whether corporations should have this particular privilege.
This is pretty touchy ground with a lot of complications. In general the first amendment trumps an individual's right to keep facts secret. It has, however, been altered to go the other way for businesses... with exceptions granted by whistleblower statutes for government corruption, public health, and other overriding public interests. It may well be that the laws will change and these corporate privileges will be revoked. It is interesting and reflective of the culture in the US that while most of the world recognizes an inherent, individual right to privacy, the US does not... but the US does grant that privilege to corporations.
ThinkSecret made this choice, not Apple. Nick C. was suspected of paying Apple contractors and employees for information about upcoming products - trade secrets - and rather than give Apple the names, he decided to shut down his web site.
Do you have some information the rest of us don't? He may have decided to shut down his site, or maybe it was a condition of his settlement with Apple. Since it is confidential, how will we ever know? Note, shutting down his site does not, by itself, end the lawsuit or get him off the hook, unless it is a trade with Apple.
I think Apple had every right to sue ThinkSecret for the names of people who broke an explicit contract with Apple NOT to divulge privileged information.
Sure they do, but they don't seem to have gotten those names, probably because Apple was worried about PR backlash and did not want to force the issue any more.
A big part of what keeps Apple level in its market is the fact that their user base has little growth and little attrition. So for the most part, the same group of people using Apple 5 years ago are the same people using Apple today.
Umm, what planet do you live on? Apple has not been level for growth or market share. Over the last 5 years Apple's market value has gone up to almost 20 times what it was 5 years ago. Not only did they add new markets and users, but their share of the home computer market has tripled. That's not even close to "the same users" as 5 years ago.
On the other hand, if they manage to deliver in 2008, 2009 will see a tremendous amount of market share for Apple.
I don't see it. Apple has had fairly steady 20-40% year over year growth in the computer market for years. Why would 2008 be a pivotal year that will decide the next decade? What is your logic behind this belief?
Slashdot Mirror
This is an interesting question, but it lacks some details that may make a large difference. First, was it a single Linux distribution or a mixture of the ones currently available. Second, are we talking Windows Vista, or are we talking about the current mix of Windows versions deployed today?
Potential reasons why it is easier to target Windows:
On the other hand, Windows has a few advantages as well:
The question is pretty academic though. Market share is not going to shift drastically overnight, nor distribute evenly. Market share has an enormous affect on the products themselves. Right now Linux and OS X have appropriate levels of security so that it is not a big issue for their users. If security threats increased for either platform, security improvements would also increase because the developers are motivated to not lose money.MS is currently a monopoly so the fact that Windows does not have sufficient security to deal with the malware ecosystem does not cost them much money at all, so they are nt motivated to fix it. If Windows had 30% of the market, they would no longer have a monopoly and they would fix their security problems or go out of business.
Having a diverse computing market makes things hard for botnet operators, because it lessens the effect of any vulnerability and because it motivates better security through competition between the players in that market. The theoretical you propose would change things in many, many ways. In some ways, Linux and OS X would become bigger targets and have to adapt their security to deal with it, but we'll never know what would hold up as the "best" six months or two years afterwards.
Lenovo ranks very middle of the road for reliability for 2007. Apple is the top ranked vendor according to Consumer Reports. Behind them is Sony, by a small margin, and (in the laptop category only) Dell. Then there is a significant drop to the middle range of reliability where you have Lenovo and Toshiba, then another drop and HP and Gateway. I picked Sony because even though when objectively tested they are not quite as reliable as Apple's systems, they are the closest major brand.
I'm relying upon Consumer Reports for the numbers, because they're the best source I know. They have no bias, take no advertising dollars from anyone, don't accept free hardware to test, buying everything from normal retail channels, and their entire business relies upon their reputation. I trust their testing and surveys just a wee bit more than your unsupported assertion.
I wasn't talking about value, I was talking price. A Ford is still cheaper than a Lexus, just as a PC is cheaper than a Mac. But whatever, you can substitute Honda or Toyota for Ford if you want in this lousy analogy.Your analogy is flawed. In such an analogy, you cannot substitute Honda or Ford for PCs. It would have to be every other manufacturer of car except Lexus. Some are cheaper and some are more expensive. In fact, I can go configure hundreds of gaming PCs that are twice to three times the most expensive desktop from Apple. Thus, Apple machines are cheaper than PCs by your argument, after all we're just talking price, not value.
I'm just pointing out the comparison fallacy Mac fanboys love to use. They always start out with a Mac and then try to make the PC like the Mac. Well of course the Mac is going to be the best at being a Mac, so the PC's price gets inflated.Except it isn't a flawed methodology and it isn't the whole methodology. When comparing Apple machines to everything else, you have a fixed variable. Say you wanted to compare the prices of Lenovo machines with others, a good place to start is finding one or more Lenovo systems, then looking for a vender that offers something similar. Choosing a random machine from another vendor an hoping Lenovo happens to offer something similar to compare to it, is not really a useful starting point.
You reconfigure both machines, the Apple and the other systems to be as close as possible, but if there is nothing offered from some vendor that is even close, well it isn't a very good comparison, is it?
To use a car analogy it really is like saying Lexus is no more expensive than Ford because once you take the top of the line Ford, add all the upgrades, then add even more stuff aftermarket to make it the same as the Lexus, you've spent around the same amount of money.Yeah, it is sort of like that, except you can't really add aftermarket reliability, now can you? When you're talking about the cost of Apple versus other vendors, what is the point of making a comparison at all unless you're comparing similar offerings. I have a 18 year old, used, TI calculator worth about $0.10. By comparison, Lenovo systems are tens of thousands of times more expensive. Lenovo systems are overpriced. Gee was that useful to anyone? Nope.
My guess is MS Office will support the current version of ODF via a plug-in you have to download separately, and which will have several intentional flaws in it to make it slightly incompatible with OOXML and .doc and the conversion will slightly mess things up. Further, by 2009, there will probably be a newer version of ODF fixing all the initial problems and adding a pile of features that users request... it will take MS another few years to implement that version. Basically, I see MS stalling as much as possible, while simultaneously trying to add to OOXML features like DRM in the hopes that they can prevent ODF from ever being widely adopted as a worldwide standard. If it comes to it, expect basic OOXML reading and writing to be built into Windows and IE as they try to once again leverage their monopolies to undermine user choice.
First, you use the past tense "happened." Since this policy has not gone into effect yet, are you saying a company has said they will charge a surcharge and convert to ODF, or are you saying a given department already asked for ODF, was given it, and paid an additional fee? I'd be really amused if I got a bid from a vendor and they also requested that I pay a fee for their conversion of the file they're sending me. I wouldn't pay, since who'd want to do business with someone so unaccommodating, but I'd be amused. Likewise when those companies file their taxes, for permits, or for any other government service, I'm sure requesting a fee for conversion will go over really well :)
What's even more interesting about the instance I know about is that since there are serious header/footer issues in ODF, both an ODF and word doc get sent, but the ODF version (being essentially useless) won't be used by either sideUmm, I get ODF files regularly from coworkers and from other businesses and I've never seen any header/footer problems. What problems are you talking about? Google turns up a few minor bugs in specific implementations (some alignment stuff with the Word plugin, for example).
Like most companies dealing with other businesses and governments, we're flexible on formats and only negotiate them when there is no free way for us to convert formats or when we cannot read the format because we don't know what to use. (Examples would be when a reseller asked us to convert to a proprietary help system format we don't use or have a license to, or a .doc file that won't open in any of the versions of Word we have handy.
Actually, I don't see this as much of an issue. For the most part, all documentation comes as PDF format these days, including most of the interactive forms I get. The only things I get in an editable format are powerpoint presentations (about half of them with the rest being PDF or HTML) and the occasional form. We certainly never, ever send out .doc files and no one has ever complained or requested them from us.
However, most companies in Norway do business with their government, so while they may not let users install plug-ins, they will probably install them for the users, probably as a matter of policy before the 2009 deadline. I'd argue any company that refuses to install a free plug-in so they can do business with a customer, will probably be dying soon anyway.
No it isn't crap. BMWs are more expensive and more reliable than Fords. But I suppose they're both just cars so it doesn't matter if one employer will give you a free beamer and the other a Ford? That wouldn't influence your decision despite the tens of thousands of dollars it represents. I picked Sony, because they are the only company that even comes close to Apple for laptop hardware reliability. Do you really consider a machine that is twice or three times as likely to fail as some other machine to be equivalent? A lot of that depends upon what quality of hardware you put in it. Is it whoever is selling the cheapest lots of 120Gb hard drives today (like Dell has done in the past) or is it the same model of higher quality drives, from a vendor that does more extensive testing and, hence, charges more?
To use a car analogy, it's like arguing that a Lexus automobile is not expensive, as Mercedes automobiles cost about the same. If I was to say, "What about a Ford automobile?" you would make up some mumbo-jumbo about how they don't compareYou're damn straight they don't compare. Ford was rated the 19th best automobile for reliability in 2006, while Lexus was ranked first. You wouldn't rather have the most reliable car in the world instead of one of the worst? That truly has no value to you at all?
Besides, if you really want to play that game, start picking out random PCs and then pricing out the comparable Mac. You'll find that the Mac is going to be more expensive in every case, if Apple even makes a comparable computer.Ahh, but you can't because strangely Apple doesn't make a machine that is comparable to every model produced by every other OEM in the world. And guess what, not many OEMs produce machines that are easily comparable to Apple's offerings. That is why you try to find other companies that make machines that are very similar and compare hardware and prices. I suppose you're one of those people that buys government grade meat in a can because it is "the same thing" as a nice, hanger steak from Whole Foods because "they're both beef" right? Reliability is a valuable feature and it can be objectively measured and it has been by several research companies and consumer advocacy companies. Ignoring it makes anything else in your comparison moot.
I can't give you a direct citation because consumer reports is a pay site. They don't accept advertising dollars or even free hardware to review as that would introduce potential bias. They buy all their machines anonymously, through regular retail channels. I can refer you to this article which references the 2007 report, briefly at the bottom. I highly recommend a subscription as being an informed consumer can save you that much money in the long run anyway. The relevant quote is:
The Consumer Reports top-rated Windows laptops in the 15.4-inch workhorse category are:
It only references the overall picks though, not the specific reliability ratings. For reliability in 2007, Apple is the runaway winner, followed by Sony and surprisingly, Dell this year (they were below average in 2006 for laptops and still are for desktops). Lenovo is right about in the middle of the pack along with Toshiba and a bit better than Gateway or HP.
But that's overstating. A functioning battery, screen, keyboard, pointing device, and networking capabilities I considered to be a general laptop.What I stated was true in principal. It does not matter what features you care about. What matters is price for equivalent hardware. No comparison can be perfect, so there is some margin of error and ignoring the quality of components and relying only on specs for size and speed is not equivalency. Reliability and quality cost money and can be objectively evaluated.
The laptop line is their most competitive offering in the desktop computing space (because any decent laptop vendor is still fairly expensive), and yet it simply will cost more.Apple's laptop offerings? Actually the Mac mini is widely regarded as being the best value in the small footprint computing space, by a fairly wide margin. Apple is price competitive in the all-in-one space and in the consumer laptop space. They used to be very competitive in the 2U server space, and RAID space as well, but have fallen behind the curve in the last year. They've always been a bit on the expensive side for pro desktops and pro laptops, but all-in-all they are not out of line with the rest of the industry, unless you try (unfairly) comparing their very reliable, higher end offerings to someone else's less reliable midrange systems.
The desktop systems are hopeless (need to go over a thousand dollars before decent graphics accelerators exist, and can't get discrete components short of the uber-expensive mac pro).Gee thanks for proving my point. You just compared Apple's high end offering to someone else's midrange system, based upon the fact that Apple does not sell a headless midrange system. You have to compare equivalent systems, not the closest available when that is not close at all. Apple offers fewer machines than the rest of the OEMs combined, go figure. That is a disadvantage, but it is a different disadvantage than Apple machines being overpriced for what they are.
We are? Having to shell out hundreds of dollars for a program to properly read and write a document I'm required to read by the government is "just fine?" Having archived files that cannot be opened with any available program is "just fine?" Not being able to choose cheaper, alternative products when making purchasing decisions, solely because we are locked into one, proprietary format (probably draining billions from US businesses) is "just fine."
I hear the arguements but they make no real sense unless your sole objective is to push ODF, for whatever reason.Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean they don't make sense.
I object to being forced to choose software for my personal computer by my government, I just can't agree to that. I would be very surprised if I was alone in this sentiment.Oh, you're not alone. The thing is, when the government provides files as a format that only Microsoft can implement completely, they are forcing you (or at least strongly encouraging you) to choose only the software offered by MS. When the government provides files in a format that anyone can implement, you are free to choose software from any vendor that bothers to implement the standard, including MS. If a given company, however, chooses to not implement the standard, then that is not the government's fault, now is it?
The push for ODF comes from a bunch of technical individuals, their motives are probably very pure, but when you reach the common man in the street this type of policy, or any value in it, will be totally lost on them.Of course they don't and a lot of the politicians don't either. The thing is, many governments are convinced of the benefits of open standards, and just need sound technical advice as to which formats actually provide those benefits to the people. I don't expect the average person to understand those benefits, but neither do I expect the average person to understand the benefits and drawbacks of software patents. That doesn't mean the government should go with the answer that is easiest to oversimplify into something most people will understand.
If officials in the US were not so corrupt, we would have done the same thing long ago.
All they will see is a mandate from government that forces them to go off and install software that they're not familiar with.But they aren't forcing them to install software. Who doesn't have a PDF reading application? Who doesn't have an HTML browser? And who doesn't run a word processor that doesn't support ODF, support ODF with a plug-in, or will support ODF within the next two years? Besides, there aren't many people in Norway who haven't heard about MS being convicted of antitrust actions both in the EU and in Norway, nor who missed the recent attempted bribery scandal. I think the government can simplify things to "Microsoft keeps breaking the law, so we're going to start making sure other companies (especially local companies like Linpro) have a fair shot at government contracts."
As I say, it makes no practical sense.It makes a lot of practical sense, both for lowering prices, insuring data availability in the future, maintaining an open market, and making MS improve their product, rather than force upgrades through unfair means. If any people really want to argue the point, they can cite MS's illegal activities and ask if the government should be giving them money or they can simply tally up how mach money Norway spends on MS software every year and watch them do the math and back down.
Umm, first, how is that a free market issue? Second, the company producing the de facto standard is a convicted monopolist who has repeatedly undermined the free market using file formats ,so even if this is a free market issue, the government should be legitimately stepping in and regulating it. Third, you did read the summary and know they mandated it for use within the government, not for other companies in their country, right?
Sure. It's also true that in general automobiles are cheaper than Peterbilt brand automobiles. Does than mean people shouldn't buy Peterbilt or this information is useful to anyone for anything? Of course if you're comparing comparable machines with the same type of hardware, then Macs cost about the same as other, comparable machines; just as Peterbilt automobiles cost about the same as Mack and Volvo class 8 trucks. In general Volvo autos are cheaper than Peterbilt, but then Volvo sells to the lower end, consumer car market as well as the class 8 truck market. In general Dells are cheaper than Macs, but then Dell sells to the low-end, low-reliability, bargain PC market.
Do you see how, while true, your statement is not useful? If you're looking for a family car, you're probably not going to consider a Peterbilt semi-truck. If you're shopping for a semi-truck, you probably don't care that Volvo also offers family cars cheaper than Peterbilt's semi-trucks because they're unlikely to be suitable for hauling cargo trailers around.
You're right, they just fail to list the new firmware that adds support for N, on the tech specs listing.
I've never had cause to use it instead of a stateless recovery image that is a bit more general purpose.Your personal uses are not in question. We're talking about whether or not a given hardware feature works. Personally, I use it about once every time I buy a new Mac, but it saves me so much time and effort it actually influences my purchasing choices. It doesn't matter though, since we have to assume some people use any given feature, while every feature is useless to others. Blind people don't care if the monitor works, can we discount screen resolutions?
Given the Thinkpad warranty situation, it is in their best interest to invest up front. This is the sort of thing that is only resolved through ongoing market dataIt's in every manufacturer's best interest to have as few returns as possible, provided it does not cost them more in materials costs. The point is, as a user, our interests are not the same as the OEM. A machine dying for us is a huge inconvenience and may cost us valuable work or opportunity costs.
Huh? My whole point was that in my experience (in an environment of about 8 Thinkpads), reliability has been good and no service calls have needed to be placed.Great, but your sample size of 8 machines is pretty small compared to a real study, like the ones Consumer Reports publishes every year and which indicate Lenovo laptops have about twice the failure rate. Which should the average person use to make decisions, your anecdote or a professional organization with no bias putting their reputation on the line?
Your next paragraph is simply a restatement of your original point ignoring the point that alternative 'professional' league systems are still cheaper....because you failed to provide any data showing a comparison of a laptop with similar reliability ratings and showing as a lower price. Of course since Sony was the closest, and have very similar prices you'll have a hard time supporting your assertion.
However, if you don't have explicit interest in those features, as a general laptop, it isn't worth it.If you're not interested in the features of a given laptop and look for a laptop without them you can find it cheaper? Really? I never would have guessed. You know if you're looking for a laptop and you're not interested in a functioning screen, you can get a lot of laptops cheaper than anything from Lenovo, mostly used Dells.
I first saw the South Park movie in a huge lecture hall on a university campus. When they shot Gates, there was mass hysteria... cheering, yelling, throwing things, howling, and clapping. It was a spontaneous expression of joy at this virtual revenge for every Windows problem ever. Seeing it again at a regular theater was sort of a letdown, a few chuckles and that was it.
I compared Sony and Apple because for laptops they were the closest according to consumer reports this year. Lenovo, was only middle of the road for laptop hardware reliability overall.
Price out a T61p model and compare to any equivalent macbook pro.I looked at your comparison and you forgot a few items. Bluetooth is another $30 bucks. There is no option from Lenovo for 802.11n, which is also standard on the MacBook. Does the T61p have a built in camera and microphone? It has a Firewire port, but does it support Firewire disk mode? How do the batteries compare? They might have the same size and speed of hard drives, but which one is more reliable and from a better manufacturer? What about the reliability of all the other parts?
However you try to create equivalent machines, there will always be features on one or the other that you can't find an equivalent bit of hardware for. And if you pay a couple grand less for a Lenovo with some of the same specs, or even a grand less for something with all the same specs if you could do it, you still have a laptop that is almost twice as likely to need to be returned due to hardware failure.
Simple fact of the matter is that Apple is a more expensive brand that enjoys wider margins and they love it that way.They're more expensive than whom? They're certainly more expensive than the average laptop, but they also have more features and better reliability than the average laptop. Their margins for most of their machines seem to be about in line with the rest of the industry, and lower than average in some (like small footprint machines). Three years ago, many analysts would have agreed with you. Five years ago, there was no question. Ties have changed. Apple probably has some good margins on some of their pro lines, but so do a lot of other manufacturers with well regarded brands. Hell Alienware machines had twice the margin Apple systems did, for several years. The best numbers I've seen show Apple right about average for the industry as a whole. This "Apple's are more expensive" line is a misstatement of Apple's real disadvantage. If you buy a machine from Apple, in general it will cost about the same as an equivalent machine from some other manufacturer, however, it won't be as cheap as the cheapest offering from all the other vendors. Also, since Apple sells a limited number of models, you'll rarely be able to find a machine that meets, but does not exceed your needs as exactly, so you end up paying for things you don't want. In practice, this means people who are buying Apples first, and a machine second, probably pay more than average. All this nonsense about margins, however, has been obsolete for many years.
True, but that doesn't mean it does not affect purchasing by the military. I've worked on getting software certified in various ways for government use. It is absurd and illogical. The conversation went like this;
Them: "Sure we'll buy your device so long as it is built on this really outdated version of Linux or on Windows XP SP1, since those are the only ones certified for security."
Me: "Umm, both of those have more security problems than the recent version of Linux we're using."
Them: "Yeah but those are certified, and we can't buy unless it is certified."
Me: "How did WinXP SP1 get certified? It is missing half the criteria in your request for purchase."
Them: "Oh, it isn't certified for this project, just certified."
Me: "What is it certified to do."
Them: "It's just certified to meet the criteria for whatever they certified it for, but since it was certified for something we can use it."
Me: "So you can just certify something saying it will boot most of the time and then you can buy it even if it won't do what you need, but you can't use something that does what you need, unless we pay thousands of dollars and spend months getting it 'certified' for something, and then we can't update it ever again without doing it all over again?"
Them: "Yes, that's it exactly. It's stupid, but those are the rules."
Me: "Okay who do we pay to get it certified?"
Are you implying that MSWord is "snappy and crisp" compared to other offerings? That is certainly not my experience.
Okay, there seems to be a disconnect here. There are two concerning types of security problems with machines used in government work. The first is a large scale automated attack to shut them down or take them over to use as bots. The second is a targeted attack by a dedicated hacker going for particular data on a given system. These are very different problems. OS X is not now and is not likely in the near future to be much affected by the former type of attack. Due to difficulty spreading, malware community knowledge base, the default security setup of OS X, Apple's responsiveness to exploits (not vulnerabilities) and several other factors. There is plenty of motivation to attack these, simply because no one is competing against you for control of them as bots and because while there are not as many of them, they are a lot more likely to have useful financial information and credit card data on them. You weed out not only all the third world country pirated Windows machines, but also the poorer segments of the wealthier nations.
For the second type of attack, attack by a dedicated expert, no OS will stand up in its default configuration. If someone is going after your data and they're an expert, well they will probably find a way. Unless you go to extremes to lock down your system... you can be hacked by an expert. The skill needed is less for most Windows machines, but it mostly depends upon the expertise of the pros you have working for you.
Honestly, I don't know why people aren't trying to crack into Macs more oftenPeople are trying, but it isn't easy. Most people rely upon automated worms, and the malware community has less experience with Macs. Most of them use toolkits created by others and don't have the skill to code something from scratch. OS X has no exposed services by default, and does not make many of the same silly Web browsing decisions as plague some versions of Windows. Also, there are so many security people using Macs now, that anything in the wild is detected really quickly by someone and usually stopped before it spreads.
Most Mac users I know don't run AV software, for example -- it's not personally relevant to them (though I try to convince them that they can pass along the ick to others -- I'm generally not too successful there, though). All I meant by my previous post is that I expect that soon Macs will be much more vulnerable because of this.I'm a Mac user, among other OS's, and I don't run antivirus on my machine. I have ClamAV installed, but it does not run automatically, ever. Realistically, this is more secure for my OS X install. So far there have been zero spreading worms that attack OS X and have signatures in such AV systems. There have been two major releases of AV software for OS X that malfunctioned and caused users to lose data. Until there are some OS X malware signatures, it is more of a risk to run AV than to not run it. In the future this may change.
But it still enjoys more security simply because it's not as common as Windows.I agree, but I don't think that is the only security advantage it has.
And while I think all of this nefarious behavior is shitty and wrong, maybe it's time that average Joe Mac users had a little shot across the bow about security.I'd love for their to be some major security issues on OS X to get Apple to push the pedal to the metal with regard to their new security frameworks. That said, it would probably not be a good thing in the long run for overall security. The fact is, the simple message "get a Mac to avoid malware problems" is an oversimplification, but it is one a normal Joe user can understand... and if it gets them to switch to OS X... good! It will make them more secure for now and motivate MS to fix their security problems.
I'd add, the Bonjour service is also running in the new mandatory access control sandbox by default, adding yet another layer of security.
One of the biggest security problems is when security reduces usability to the point where users bypass the security for convenience, or simply because it is easier. I've even seen situations where no one had rights to install any software because of security policies, and the admins were then ordered to look the other way for security violations in general because a company still needed to get work done and make money. Good security does not reduce usability. If users don't have the ability to run the software they want to, you've greatly reduced usability and should not be surprised when users start rebooting from a flash drive or working on their home PCs with basically no security.
I'd argue the skill of the IT staff includes choosing appropriately secure and securable OS's for your purpose. For example, in a university setting, choosing to supply all students with an laptop running OS X or Ubuntu, may well solve 90% of your security problems, whereas choosing laptops loaded with Windows to distribute, may well make securing your network with the resources available impossible.
But waving around an OS like it was some magic bullet that's going to somehow fix your security problems is, well, insanity.In some cases, choosing the OS does solve most security problems, and that is just the way the malware ecosystem is today. You could say I am IT for several family members. In such a situation, just choosing OS X or Linux for the OS I install on a system for say, my mother, is the only security decision I need to make. Choose OS X and forget about it has worked for years, while trying to keep my father's Windows laptop clean and relatively secure is a painful, labor intensive process.
Actually if you compare just hardware, from other vendors with similar reliability ratings, Macs are about the same price as other PC hardware. The last study I saw put them at about 20% above average in price, which is about the same as Sony (who also sells mostly mid and high end machines with top end reliability ratings). Apple systems are about the same cost as any other PC, assuming you're looking at all the hardware criteria, not just bullet points. And by all the criteria i.e. a system with a 120 Gb, Fujitsu drive is not the same as a system with a 120 Gb, Western Digital drive. They cost different amounts and one is clearly more reliable.
could be totally wrong, and probably am, but I'm hoping that with the Army switching out all their systems to Apple machines that the manufacturing costs over all will go down and maybe we'll start to see some cheaper Apple systems coming out.You can expect Apple to enter new market segments, but don't ever expect them to compete on the very low end. Dell makes money selling junk machines on the low end, with terrible reliability ratings, and huge failure rates. They sell them cheaper than any Apple machine, but that is because Apple does not want to tarnish their trademark by selling to that market segment. Volume pricing only does so much. Apple is already getting good bulk pricing deals. They make up 8% of the US market, which represents about as many sales in a particular target market as anyone else out there. (f you're looking for a midrange notebook, for example, Apple probably is selling about 15% of those out there, while Dell might be selling 20%. Dell has much higher overall sales, but a lot of that is because they are selling to more markets segments including the very low end.
...Apple's market share was at 3.5% in 2003. That's nearly 5 years ago.That was, of course, US market share, which lists at 8.1% today. 8.1 divided by three is about 2.7%. I think the numbers for 2002 were actually 2.2%, by sales. That's about triple, huh?
(You cited a LOT of wild figures you know... going up 20 times over 5 years? Are you saying it went up 20 x 3.5%? Isn't that 70% market share?I said 20 times "market value" not market share. Please reread my post. In fact, Apple's stock evaluates today at 27 times the value it had 5 years ago today.
I'm predicting a great deal more than that. I'm looking for numbers that will actually humble Microsoft to the point of actually having to listen to Apple's demands rather than the other way around as it is presently.Umm, okay, but you still don't list any reason why your prediction should be considered credible. I asked before. Why would Apple's market share raise more in 2008 than it did in 2007? They seem to be continuing a steady trend of chipping away, bit by bit. We might expect 10% of US sales in 2008, but the point at which MS's ability to hinder that growth with their monopoly is not until something like 20-30% of the market has shifted, so I don't see why we'd expect anything unusual.
Admittedly, I'm unable to quickly find any useful information indicating present market share, but in a conversation I had with an Apple store employee recently, I recall a statement of around 6 or 7% market share which doesn't quite reach your assertions even with a conservative interpretation of your numbers.Do a Google search for "Apple market share" and the second result is this article quoting a report from Gartner on computer OEM market share as of Q3-2007, listing Apple at 8.1% of the US market up 37.2% from last year, right in line with the numbers I mentioned earlier. Does that seem fairly credible to you?
And to say "fairly steady" and "20-40%" is an oxymoron!No it isn't. It is slightly off. Looking more closely it is more like 10% for two of those years.
Care to cite your references?I'm not going to go link crazy here. There are plenty of number on Apple's market share available from Google. and I already gave you one of them.
This might apply for a case within a given EU member state, since politicians can play on anti-americanism, but not so much for EU posts. The EU commission has enforced antitrust regulation against numerous european countries over the past decade. If anything they seem to have gone out of their way to give MS huge amounts of leniency and extra time.
Actually, it was an Apple fan site and it was profiting from corporate espionage.
The point is Apple has a right to not have its company secrets told to everyone. It will never be your right to know that information. It's just plain arrogance (and stupidity) to think that it is.Well, sort of. The law supports Apple in that anyone releasing these secrets, enticing others to release them, or knowingly publishing them for profit is breaking the law. As to a fundamental right of Apple, well they are a corporate entity and don't have "rights" just granted privileges. It is debatable whether corporations should have this particular privilege.
This is pretty touchy ground with a lot of complications. In general the first amendment trumps an individual's right to keep facts secret. It has, however, been altered to go the other way for businesses... with exceptions granted by whistleblower statutes for government corruption, public health, and other overriding public interests. It may well be that the laws will change and these corporate privileges will be revoked. It is interesting and reflective of the culture in the US that while most of the world recognizes an inherent, individual right to privacy, the US does not... but the US does grant that privilege to corporations.
Do you have some information the rest of us don't? He may have decided to shut down his site, or maybe it was a condition of his settlement with Apple. Since it is confidential, how will we ever know? Note, shutting down his site does not, by itself, end the lawsuit or get him off the hook, unless it is a trade with Apple.
I think Apple had every right to sue ThinkSecret for the names of people who broke an explicit contract with Apple NOT to divulge privileged information.Sure they do, but they don't seem to have gotten those names, probably because Apple was worried about PR backlash and did not want to force the issue any more.
Umm, what planet do you live on? Apple has not been level for growth or market share. Over the last 5 years Apple's market value has gone up to almost 20 times what it was 5 years ago. Not only did they add new markets and users, but their share of the home computer market has tripled. That's not even close to "the same users" as 5 years ago.
On the other hand, if they manage to deliver in 2008, 2009 will see a tremendous amount of market share for Apple.I don't see it. Apple has had fairly steady 20-40% year over year growth in the computer market for years. Why would 2008 be a pivotal year that will decide the next decade? What is your logic behind this belief?