[pixelninja]

Article about the Rosetta software. Seems that if you have software that you currently need to be running in Classic mode, it won't work. Even with Rosetta. I really don't know how much this matters to current Mac users, as I haven't used a Mac in years.

How many Mac users here are using software that requires being run in Classic mode? Also, how many Mac users here are still running OS 9 or earlier?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/sv/20050609/tc_siliconvalley/_www11842151;_ylt=AvJ1XFjjgZUZyIaTSqg9ylMjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[binary visions]

um, no.
<snip>
in short: there are architectural differences between *nix and Windows that make the former more secure, and this isn't even taking to account Outlook and its myriad holes...

No, this isn't taking Outlook into account, as we're not talking about insecure applications.

You can preach all day about how the Mac's architecture is superior and that's why you don't get viruses, but the fact is that the virus creators are generally very ingenious, and I absolutely guarantee that if Macs had a larger market share, they'd have a significant amount of virus problems.

If you disagree with that, that's fine, but you're just turning a blind eye to a pretty obvious situation. Why write viruses for a platform that only makes up ten, or two, or whatever precent of the market, when you can write one that will affect a significant majority of the population?

That, of course, also ignores the fact that people who write this stuff are going to write for an environment they're familliar with or have access to. If 80+ percent of the market is made up of PCs, where do you think the majority of the troublemakers are going to reside?

 

[syadasti]

The current sales marketing share is 1.9% but that does not tell us anything about the number of total Mac users...

The current worldwide installed OS userbase can be estimate relatively unbiasely using Google, one of the most used websites in the world (August 2004 was the last month they made these stats available):

Google's "other" statistic clarifies OS install-Base

Desktop install-base for the following OSes is as follows:

Windows XP: 51%
Windows 2000: 18%
Windows 98: 16%
Windows ME: 3%
Windows NT: 2%
Windows 95: 1%
Windows Total: 91%

Macintosh: 6%

Linux: 2%

Everything Else: 1%

 

[sanjuro]

No, this isn't taking Outlook into account, as we're not talking about insecure applications.

You can preach all day about how the Mac's architecture is superior and that's why you don't get viruses, but the fact is that the virus creators are generally very ingenious, and I absolutely guarantee that if Macs had a larger market share, they'd have a significant amount of virus problems.

If you disagree with that, that's fine, but you're just turning a blind eye to a pretty obvious situation. Why write viruses for a platform that only makes up ten, or two, or whatever precent of the market, when you can write one that will affect a significant majority of the population?

That, of course, also ignores the fact that people who write this stuff are going to write for an environment they're familliar with or have access to. If 80+ percent of the market is made up of PCs, where do you think the majority of the troublemakers are going to reside?

Does it matter what the reason is? Maybe all virus writers are Steve Jobs' relatives?

But there is a problem with PC's beyond the fact that Microsoft is a huge target: the close, incestous relationship between o/s and applications. Like Outlook and Word Macros.

I will give you sh*t like annakournikova.jpg.exe is obviously designed for the PC idiots. But I blame Microsoft's buggy apps for many of their own problems.

 

[Austin Bike]

Well AMD also doesn't have great mobile products either, but they do have more than one fab, they have three -

Fab 25 - Austin, TX, USA
Fab 30 and 36 - Dresden, Germany

They only have one PROCESSOR fab, the others are for flash memory and other chips. The new Dresden doesn't come online until next year, so until then they have one proc fab. They outsource to IBM who makes some of their procs, but why would IBM help AMD make chips for Apple after they lost the apple account?

 

[-dustin]

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/78138/merrill-lynch-downgrades-apples-stock-rating.html

 

[Transcend]

I gotta say that this thread has degreaded to the point of being genuinely retarded.

PC has a larger market share - therefore it has a larger share of the problems. Is it actually more insecure? Yes, for the reasons toshi mentioned. This doesn't mean that the power user cannot secure it, it simply means that to the average joe, there lies the possibility of many more problems.

I run both mac and pc as a designer, recently i picked up a new powerbook g4 - guess what? So far i have managed to lock it up and or freeze it a few times using flakey software. On the other hand - i don't have to run anti virus, anti spryware etc religiously as I don't really have to worry about it.

Architecturally it is more secure, and less succesptible to problems caused by the average soccer mom. It is also much easier for said soccer mom to setup and operate, install aps under etc. (Of course it took me 3 hours to figure out I had to hold the one trackpad button in order to quit an app from the dock..go figure).

If this is what 6% of the userbase allows me to do, long live being 6% of the userbase!

That said, if anyone has a way of telling OS X tiger to write to a friggin NTFS drive..lemme know.