The Mac Sucks!

Glyn Moody posted “The Huge Hidden Cost of Microsoft Software” on June 30, 2009, on Computeworld UK’s web site, and a similar article on Slashdot. In the post, Moody discusses how various UK government organizations had to spend a great deal of money cleaning up the Conficker worm. Moody explains how this is a “hidden cost” of running Microsoft software in your environment, much as Microsoft and others have tried to claim there are “hidden costs” in running free open source software and Macs.

There are certain of Moody’s points I agree with. More malware exists for Windows than for Mac OS X and Linux combined. That’s just a fact. If the PCs in your organization become infected with malware like the Conficker worm, it can be extremely time-consuming and costly to clean up the mess. Again, it’s a fact. If you ran Linux or Mac OS X throughout your organization instead of Windows, a Windows worm like Conficker would be stopped dead because it can’t infect those operating systems. Fact. But the conclusion that this is a “hidden cost of using Windows” may be true to some degree, it’s not quite on target. Allow me to explain.

I work in a company with approximately 2,000 Windows PCs, maybe 50 Macs, a small number of Sun Solaris workstations, and a data center including Linux, Windows, Solaris, and mainframe operating systems. In an environment like this, with so many Windows desktops, you might be thinking I’ve had to clean up some massive infections.

Ironically, in my 20+ year career, the biggest malware mess I ever had to clean up didn’t affect Windows at all, and it wasn’t at the shop where I work now. The culprit was a little Classic Mac OS virus code-named “WDEF“. Infection via WDEF was very Mac-like. It “just worked”. If an infected disk was inserted into a Mac, it instantly infected the Mac’s hard drive. You didn’t have to run any programs or do anything. If you inserted a clean disk into an infected Mac, that disk became infected. The WDEF virus managed to find its way onto every Mac in our company and on to most of the floppy disks. I was able to trace it back to a disk a single employee (yeah, it was me) brought into the office from home. I can’t tell you how many hours I spent cleaning up that mess (we had only a dozen Macs but literally hundreds of floppies to scan). I only found it because I was showing a co-worker how Macs didn’t really need antivirus software by running a scan with a free tool called Disinfectant. It was very humbling to see it detect WDEF, in addition to being painfully ironic.

It was also a valuable lesson. Over the 10+ years I was a Mac user, I had downloaded lots of free Mac software. When I ripped the shrinkwrap off my first antivirus package (bought after the WDEF incident), I was shocked to see how many viruses had already infected my supposedly “superior” system. During my time as a Classic Mac OS user, I saw more viruses than I’ve seen since… even though I’ve primarily been a Windows user, and still download lots of free programs. Mine may not be the typical experience, but it’s a true story.

Moody’s stories and mine share a common theme – and it’s obviously not Microsoft software. Take proper security precautions, no matter what computer you’re using, or you will pay a price eventually. I’m willing to bet if you investigate any of those very expensive cleanup deals mentioned in Moody’s article you’ll find that certain basic security precautions were ignored that would have cost FAR less than the cleanup effort for Conficker eventually did. Maybe they merely needed a cheap hardware firewall to keep the worm from getting in, or a cheap antivirus package to detect and clean it, or just to deny administrator access to their employees. As far as I’m concerned, Microsoft may share some of the blame but the bulk of it lies with the organizations themselves. I can say that with confidence because our 2,000-machine Windows environment didn’t see a single Conficker infection. Not one. (And no, I wouldn’t be so bold or stupid as to say that we “never will”… only that we’ve made all reasonable precautions to prevent such an occurrence. That’s about as much as you can ever really say about your security.)

While Mac users have been relatively free of malware, viruses have existed for OS X, Mac malware has made it into the wild, and it has resulted in the creation of a Mac-only botnet. I’ll bet if you could find the owners of the Macs whose systems are part of that botnet, they’d tell you they don’t need antivirus software because they’ve got a Mac, and Macs are immune to that stuff…

Linux has been relatively immune as well, but it too has seen Trojans, viruses, and other malware. The threat to Linux is nothing compared to the situation on Windows, but that doesn’t mean there is “no” threat.

If you go through life with the assumption that your platform of choice is totally secure, completely immune to malware, and impervious to hackers, the odds are good that you’re going to find yourself very sadly mistaken one day… just like I did when I ran that disinfecting program on my Mac those many years ago. Good security is a “hidden cost” of owning a computer, no matter whose logo is on the box or whose is displayed when you start it up.

PC World’s Brennon Slattery published “Three Reasons Why Android-Powered Netbooks Could Kill Microsoft Windows” a few weeks back. Slattery suggests that Google’s Android OS could kill Windows in the netbook space based on three factors: Money, Exposure, and Simplicity.

Slattery notes that Microsoft charges “hefty licensing fees” on the use of Windows, while Android is absolutely free to use. Thus, the use of Android rather than Windows could save manufacturers and consumers a lot of money – at a time when saving money is particularly important.

In terms of “Exposure”, Slattery says that it “might take a while” for Windows users to adjust to Android, but that Google has a trusted and highly recognizable name. As a result, people who are tired of paying for Microsoft products might be willing to take a chance on the Google name and use Android. This would allow Android to evolve into a “richer, more popular experience”.

Finally, the article explains that netbooks are primarily aimed at a “casual computing” crowd which may not be looking for a full desktop or laptop experience. Given this, Slattery asks, “What better OS than one originally designed for a device that fits in the palm of your hand?” Android could simplify the user interface and experience, making for a practical, easy to use device.

While I would like to see these speculations materialize into reality because it would continue to push Microsoft and Apple to innovate in the OS space, I’m not convinced Android will ever displace Windows from the netbook space. Here’s why. Initially, virtually all the netbooks shipped with Linux or some Linux variant. Many early netbook owners, being less technically savvy, assumed the devices ran Windows and were disappointed to find they could not run their favorite Windows programs on the Linux-based devices. Some returned the netbooks to the store, while others installed Windows on them. Microsoft, sensing a Linux threat, stepped in to make Windows XP licenses available at a lower-than-usual cost for the devices. Linux began dropping from its dominant position in the netbook space in favor of Windows. Other netbook users, being of a more Apple-centric nature, loaded modified Mac OS X distributions on the devices to give them an inexpensive, portable Macintosh computer. Relatively few stuck with the original Linux load.

Android may have a better chance at success than a “general” Linux build, only because Google took the time to polish the platform and give it the kind of eye candy seen in commercial products like the iPod. (I’m not suggesting they’re equals in this area, but rather that Android’s “eye candy” is arguably superior to that in, say, Windows Mobile or Windows XP.) An Android device that fits in somewhere between the current netbook design and that of a tablet-sized iPhone/iPod might have enough “wow factor” to it to capture the public’s attention and convince a few people to switch to it. This could generate a momentum that would make Android-based netbooks more of a standard than Windows.

However, this still doesn’t take into account the reason Linux lost the netbook crown. If appropriate applications aren’t released for Android to allow for seemless integration into VPN networks, Windows-centric corporate LANs, Microsoft-standardized intranets (based on technologies like Office Server, Sharepoint, and the like), etc., Android netbooks are likely to remain more a consumer niche item than a broadly accepted computing platform. Looking at the iPhone gives some indication of what Android netbooks are up against. In corporate environments (admittedly not a netbook stronghold), the iPhone still hasn’t quite done as well as the RIM Blackberry devices because those devices do a better job of fitting into corporate environments. Corporations can run their own Blackberry servers and be in control of their devices, while they can’t run “iPhone Servers” and control a fleet of iPhones. Blackberry devices integrate well with Microsoft Exchange Server systems (I know, Apple is doing well with this one now). In general, RIM has listened to its business customers and delivered the kinds of features they wanted and needed. I’m not saying that Android devices need to replicate the Blackberry at all, but rather provide a comparable level of integration because even though consumers may be buying the devices, many will need and want to connect to corporate networks at least occasionally. Windows-based netbooks do this with ease.

PC Magazine published a very thought-provoking article by Neil J. Rubenking entitled “OpenDNS: ‘Conficker’ Barely Scratched U.S.” in which we learn that the much-publicized Conficker worm didn’t hit very many personal computers in the United States. The free OpenDNS service which handles domain name service (DNS) lookups for its customers was in a unique position to monitor and track the number of machines infected by the worm based on their DNS activity.

As Rubenking reports, “Around five percent of all OpenDNS customers evidenced infection by the Conficker worm. Despite the fact that roughly half of OpenDNS’s users are in the United States, the vast majority of infections came from elsewhere. Under 5 percent of infected systems came from the U.S.; it’s not even in the top five of countries affected by the worm, which are: Vietnam (13 percent), Brazil (12 percent), Philippines (11 percent), Indonesia (10 percent), and Algeria (7 percent).”

Elsewhere, it’s been speculated that the areas hardest hit by the Conficker worm are nations where Microsoft Windows is widely pirated. Since pirated copies of Windows have a much harder time getting security patches and updates from Microsoft, they are much more vulnerable to malware like the Conficker worm. In countries like the United States, where Windows isn’t pirated as widely, infection rates are much lower.

Within the Mac fanbase, a widely held perception is that Windows PCs “constantly” get viruses, worms, and other malware. Apple likes to perpetuate this myth in its advertising (remember the commercial where “poor PC” is sneezing and falling over because of a virus infection?). The reality for most Windows users, especially those here in the United States, is that we’re fairly well protected against malware. Am I suggesting PC users in the U.S. never see a virus infection? Of course not. What I am suggesting is that the prevailing image in the Mac community of Windows users suffering from “constant” malware infection is exaggerated, at least in the U.S. and other areas where pirated software is less widely used. (Pirated software, even for the Mac, is often used to sneak malware onto the systems of unsuspecting users.)

Anthony Parkinson of AppleTell posted an article today entitled “Safari for Windows, not so good” about his experiences with Apple’s web browser on the Windows XP platform. Parkinson reports that Safari on Windows has a habit of crashing, locking up, and being slower than Internet Explorer. His article concludes with the following recommendation:

“Bottom line here is if you are forced to use Windows like I am, then I cannot recommend Safari at this time. It is just too buggy to be a good alternative to Internet Exploder. I understand some of it has to do with the image on the machine I am using and various other factors, but in my experience, Safari just plain sucks for Windows currently.”

Sounds like good advice to me.

CNET’s Matt Asay found that Microsoft is searching for a new “director of open source strategy, with a focus on the desktop” to “lead Microsoft’s global desktop competitive strategy as it relates to open source competitors”. Asay suggests that since Red Hat is relatively inactive in the desktop space that Microsoft must be focusing mostly on Novell and Ubuntu. Further, he says that “frankly, only Ubuntu is really changing the game around desktop enough for Microsoft to need to staff a position to counter the threat”.

A lot of the feedback I get from Mac fans who visit this site implies that they think Linux is a third-rate operating system, held together with duct tape and bailing wire compared to Mac OS X and Windows. Certainly, with Linux’s roots as a “garage project” by a largely unpaid development force, such a viewpoint is understandable. However, my experience with Ubuntu is that it’s easy to use, stable, secure, and in nearly all cases “just works”. (The only case I’ve found where it didn’t “just work” recently was my Asus Eee PC laptop, and by following a simple online tutorial I was able to fix the things that didn’t work in a matter of about 5 minutes.)

Microsoft definitely has something to fear with respect to Ubuntu and Linux in general. I would equate the security, reliability, ease of use, and overall appearance of a stock Ubuntu install with Microsoft Windows 2000. With some tweaks and additional software, it can look and feel a lot like XP or Vista. (For that matter, it can also be made to look and feel a lot like Mac OS X.) My experience with Ubuntu on most hardware is that it “just works” without any tweaking or tinkering needed. Linux has come a long way from its early days.

When you combine Linux with the WINE software, which provides binary compatibility with the Windows API (a fancy way of saying it lets you run Windows software without having to use a virtual machine or a copy of Windows), then Microsoft has a bit more to fear. While I’m not suggesting that Windows users should all dump their Microsoft licenses and start using Ubuntu and WINE, I would contend that there are many people for whom this would be a very viable and (perhaps most importantly) free option.

And when looking at the wealth of free software available for automatic download and install through Ubuntu, there are many very usable alternatives to Microsoft’s other desktop products. Firefox is certainly a worthy competitor to Internet Explorer (if not a superior one). OpenOffice.org could easily replace Microsoft Works or Microsoft Office for the majority of users I know. VLC is superior to Windows Media Player in many ways. And I could go on. The point is that Linux is a serious competitor to Windows.

In fact, apart from the hardware, Linux is a serious competitor to the Mac OS. Open source projects have done much to duplicate the look and feel of OS X in Linux. There are some packages on Linux that even provide eye candy that is superior to what can be found in Windows or Leopard (e.g., compiz). Like Mac OS X, Linux has a long reputation for being relatively virus-free and secure. Like OS X, Linux is a UNIX-like operating system (yes, I know OS X is an official “UNIX” operating system, which is what makes it “UNIX-like”). And I would venture to guess that the library of free and commercial software for Linux is of a size comparable to the library of software available for OS X. Again, I’m not suggesting that Mac users should all run out and dump their Macs for Linux boxes. But I am saying that if they were willing to invest the time, I think many Mac users could find that their computing needs are very easily satisfied by Linux. (Some obvious exceptions might be people who are heavy into digital video work, DVD authoring, and other high-end media activities.)

Bottom line, I think it’s smart of Microsoft to be looking for someone to help them understand and respond to the threat posted to Windows/Office/IE/etc. by open source software.

It wasn’t that long ago that people talked about “The Microsoft Tax” on PC purchases.  In order to get the best price possible from Microsoft for Windows licenses to sell with their computers, manufacturers like Dell and HP would make exclusive agreements with Microsoft to sell all their PCs with Windows.  At the time, Linux was drawing converts in large numbers, and those people lamented the fact that they couldn’t buy a PC without an OS license attached.  They referred to this as “The Microsoft Tax” because they reasoned that they were paying more for their PCs because they included a Windows license that they were never going to use.  I understand where the Linux folks were coming from. No one wants to pay for something they don’t want, need, or use.

It’s ironic, then, that the company accused of placing a “tax” on the PCs sold by major manufacturers is itself accusing another company of placing a tax on its users.  As reported by CNet’s Ina Fried, Microsoft is suggesting that Macintosh purchasers pay an “Apple Tax” when they switch from Windows to the Mac.

Most Mac users probably react much the way Ina Fried did, suggesting that this is an old argument from Microsoft and that it doesn’t make a lot of sense.  But if you dig a little deeper, there is some merit to what Microsoft is saying.  It boils down to the following points:

• Macintosh list prices tend to be at least a little higher than the prices of Windows PCs with comparable hardware specifications.  That’s not always the case, but it’s common enough.  (I’m not talking about bundled software, fit and finish, or anything more than raw hardware specs and features.)
• Windows users who switch to the Mac will have a learning curve to switch to the “Mac way” of doing things.  For example, retraining their fingers to press Command-C for copy instead of Ctrl-C has a time and frustration cost to it.  I’m not saying this is a huge factor, just that it’s a factor.
• Windows users who switch to the Mac will either have to give up some familiar applications or spend money on a Windows license for their Macs (possibly along with a product like Parallels).  This is not a cost they’d incur staying with Windows or going to a new Windows PC.
• There will be compatibility problems.  While both the Mac and Windows have come a long way since the 1990s in terms of file format compatibility, there can be problems moving files back and forth between Windows and Macintosh (and/or Linux).  These are issues not seen in an all-Mac or all-Windows environment, but since we’re talking about “switchers” here, it’s implied that there will probably be some swapping of files across platforms.  That means there will be some incompatibility as well.  Maybe not a lot, and maybe it won’t take up a lot of time to sort out.  But it’s yet-another cost of switching to a Mac.
• There are fewer peripheral options.  OS X does support a large number of peripherals and devices out of the box.  But new devices are being introduced all the time, and it’s not uncommon for manufacturers to release Windows drivers for those peripherals first.  Linux drivers will likely come later (though not always).  Mac drivers will probably come even later, if at all.  Some technologies, like SLI video, have yet to make it to the Macintosh product line (and perhaps never will).

As with many things, how much of an “Apple Tax” you see after a switch from Windows to Mac OS X will depend a great deal on your preferences, your uses for a computer, your skill level, and other factors. 

If you make only very basic use of a computer (e.g., web browsing, email, and office productivity), you may find that you have no need of a Windows compatibility solution like Parallels.  Thus, that’s not a “tax” for you.  You might have had only older peripherals that you planned to replace anyway and so buying new Mac-specific ones wasn’t an added cost.  And so on.  So not every switcher will see a big “Apple Tax” coming from Windows.  Others, however, will really feel the pain.

So while I don’t completely take Microsoft’s side, I also don’t think they’re “full of it” either.  There are plenty of people for whom a switch to the Mac could be an easy and positive move.  There are also plenty for whom it will be a frustrating, expensive exercise.  And lots of them in the middle somewhere.

If you’re thinking about switching from the Mac to Windows, researching the following factors may help you judge what your personal “pain level” or “Apple Tax” might be:

• How comfortable are you paying Apple’s hardware prices?  If your idea of an expensive PC is $499, you’re going to find that Macs give you a bit of a sticker shock.  While Mac users tend to hold on to their hardware a little longer than PC users, that’s offset a little by a higher up-front price.
• What software do you use most, and is there a Mac equivalent?  In the short term, you can probably run most of the software you want using Boot Camp or parallels.  In the long term, you’re probably going to want to switch to native OS X applications if for no other reason than to simplify your life.  So do some research now and see if you can find all the applications you need for OS X.  If possible, test drive them on a Mac and see if you like them.
• Are you the kind of person who likes to play with the latest-and-greatest technology?  While Apple is sometimes ahead of the curve, perhaps announcing Macs with the latest Intel processor weeks ahead of other companies, there are a number of technologies that Apple holds back on.  For example, they’ve never done SLI video, have yet to release a Mac with Apple-installed Blu-ray drives, built-in media readers, thumbprint scanners, and other technologies.  If that kind of thing will bother you, you might not be the ideal Mac owner.
• Are you a heavy gamer?  Most new games come out first for Windows and later for the Mac (if at all).  If gaming is important to you, you may find the Mac frustrating because you can’t play the latest games on OS X, and many games don’t work well using the Parallels solution.  Your best option in that situation may be Boot Camp, but if you’re going to be booting into Windows very often it may not make sense to have a Mac.
• Do you share files with a lot of other computer users?  What do most of those other people use?  If it’s a Mac, you’ll probably find the document-sharing much less frustrating if you have a Mac as well.  If most of them use PCs, expect to start hearing (and perhaps doing) a lot of grumbling when files that swap back and forth between platforms start to exhibit odd problems.  Maybe you’ll be lucky and it will all “just work” but don’t count on it.  If possible, test it by moving an extra copy of an important document back and forth between platforms.

There are plenty of sites out there to tell you what other reasons or benefits you might get from switching.  Seek out and refer to those as well.  The message here is to do your research and make an informed decision.

Gregg Keizer of Computerworld posted market share figures based on web browsing stats that claims the Windows market share has slipped below 90% and that OS X is currently at about 8.9%. (So much for my prediction earlier in the year that OS X market share wouldn’t rise above 8%…) Keizer points out, though, that these numbers are probably somewhat skewed.

As mentioned in the article, “Vince Vizzaccarro, Net Applications’ executive vice president of marketing, attributed Windows’ slip to some of the same factors he credited with pushing down the market share of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser. ‘The more home users who are online, using Macs and Firefox and Safari, the more those shares go up,’ he said. November was notable for a higher-than-average number of weekend days, as well as the Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S., he said. Windows’ share typically falls on weekends and after work hours, as users surf from home computers, a larger percentage of which run Mac OS X than do work machines.”

This also indicates to me what I have suspected all along. While the Mac market share may be increasing, Apple is simply not a good fit for the majority of corporations. Corporations want things that simply aren’t a part of the Apple plan. For example, they want to be able to purchase hardware from a variety of vendors in order to negotiate better costs. You can’t really do that with a Mac, since Apple is the only manufacturer. Corporations like predictability and technology roadmaps, to better plan for changes in machine specifications and to help them time purchases to get the best deal for their money. Apple likes to keep its product plans close to the vest, sharing them with no one outside the company (and very few inside). Plus, with a large investment in Windows applications, it doesn’t make sense to switch to Mac OS X. While Parallels and similar tools allow Windows apps to run on the Mac, they effectively raise the cost of a Mac by hundreds of dollars at a time when companies are trying to conserve money to retain jobs. Thus, it makes perfect sense that Windows market share is higher during work hours. Since home users aren’t required to have multiple hardware vendors, don’t care if Apple doesn’t share product roadmaps, and don’t need to worry much about things like connectivity and legacy application compatibility, it makes sense that Apple does better in the home market than the corporate one, and that market share would tend to increase on weekends and holidays when people are home with their Macs.

If Apple wants to get their market share far into double digits, they will need to change some things about how they operate. I only see that happening if Steve Jobs leaves the company and his successor licenses OS X to other hardware makers as a wedge to get them into more businesses.

Note that in all this I’m not saying that businesses can’t run on a Mac. They can. I’m just saying that larger, mainstream corporations who are already Windows users don’t have compelling reasons to switch to the Mac, at least not with things the way they are. If Apple wants to win over the corporate world, I see no way for them to make headway without resolving the product roadmap, Windows compatibility, and multiple vendor issues… unless a fundamental change occurs in the way corporations work. That is just slightly more likely than Steve Jobs changing his mind on cloning.

Note also that the article’s figures are based solely on statistics collected by a variety of web servers. When a web browser connects to a server, it announces what kind of client it is. That information can be faked or changed with relative ease. For example, using something like IEs4Linux allows you to run Internet Explorer under WINE on Linux. It’s very likely the text string the web server sees in this case isn’t “IE running on Linux” but “IE on Windows”, which means the Linux figures could be understated. Similarly, a lot of web “scraping” tools allow you to change the browser string to fool the web server into thinking it’s not an automated process doing the browsing but a real user on a real browser and OS. These kinds of tools typically visit lots of web sites fairly quickly. Depending on how they’re configured, they could drastically skew the numbers as well. What’s the answer? How do you get truly accurate stats on web client OSes? I have no idea. It may well not be possible to get completely accurate stats.

CNet claims that Microsoft’s Live OneCare anti-malware solution changed the Windows antivirus landscape, generally for the better, by putting the antivirus vendors on their toes and making them develop more comprehensive products at better prices.  Maybe they’re right, I don’t know.

More interesting than this is the news that Microsoft is planning to release a free antivirus, anti-malware product for Windows in 2009.  As CNet claims, this is likely to change the antivirus landscape yet again, since Microsoft’s technology is being compared to the industry’s best. 

I think this is the right move for Microsoft, though it probably screws over those who actually paid for OneCare in the past to some degree.  To be as effective as possible, anti-malware protection really should be coming from the operating system vendor.  The operating system vendor would seem to be in the best position to identify potential weak points and protect them, and to ensure that the operating system integrates well with the anti-malware code.

It will probably also have a further downward effect on pricing for commercial antivirus solutions, which is good for the consumer (though not so good for the vendors).  This, in turn, should help more people deploy effective antivirus software and result in a more-secure “Windows world” overall.

I’m an optimist, I know, but I agree with CNet that this should be a good thing in the end.

I mentioned earlier in this series of articles that one of the things I do on Windows is write ad-hoc Microsoft Visual Basic applications for different things.  I lamented the fact that there’s no Visual Basic 6 for the Mac.  (Heck, VB6 for Windows is ancient at this point… need to update my skills…)  I looked at REALBasic and while I think it’s an intriguing product, the version I’m most interested in (which would allow cross-platform programming for Mac, Linux, and Windows) is priced way out of my ballpark ($500).

While looking to see what other “Basic” options I might have on OS X, I ran across an interesting bit of open source software, the Mono application framework. This is an open source attempt to bring the .NET platform to the Mac, Linux, and even on Windows (alongside Microsoft’s own .NET components).  I brought the development environment up earlier this evening and while it’s somewhat familiar to an old VB6 programmer, it’s also quite different.  I guess maybe it’s time I started learning VB.NET…

My friend brought over the iLife ‘08 DVD so that I could install that, after removing it from one of his Macs it was licensed for.  I was surprised at how long it takes to install that software.  I think I was remembering some of the earlier versions that installed in a couple of minutes, so the fact that this one took more than 10 minutes seemed lengthy.  I guess it’s fair to say Apple has added some things since I last looked at it.

I’ve had several Mac users talk about how cool iMovie and iDVD, so I am curious to have a look at them.  I’ve worked with several digital video packages on Windows, from the very basic stuff that shipped with video digitizer boards to some of the more expensive solutions out there.  It should be interesting to see how this compares.  Along the way, I’ve gotten used to a particular way of working with digital video software, so it will be interesting to see if that style adapts to the “i” applications.

I have no musical talent to speak of, so I’m probably not going to bother with GarageBand for the moment. I will give it a spin, however, just out of curiosity. 

Being something of a web geek, I’ll have to take iWeb out for a drive as well, though I will admit that I’m beginning with a pre-conceived notion that it’s probably not going to be advanced and flexible enough to suit me.

I’m starting to think one of the RAM chips installed in this test system is bad.  I know OS X is far from crash-proof, but I’ve seen a few behaviors that make me think I’m looking at faulty RAM.

Wednesday evening, Safari crashed while I had 2-3 tabs open.  I wasn’t able to reproduce the crash, so it probably wasn’t a bug in Safari.

Thursday, while attempting to install the Mono framework, I got an error indicating that the installer was corrupt. I ran it a second time and it worked fine.  The iLife installer also complained of that problem the first time I tried to use it.  Again, fine the second time. Memory errors tend to be hit-or-miss like that, I’ve found.

One of the screensavers locked up on me Tuesday night, now that I think about it.  I’ve never seen that happen on any of the earlier OS X releases, so again I’m thinking it’s probably the RAM.

I’ll have to see if I have some compatible RAM lying around that I can swap out.  I know OS X’s not crash-proof but this is a lot more crashing than I’d expect in only a few days.

Wonder if this was my friend’s secret motivation in loaning me the machine (to troubleshoot his crashing problems)?  Just kidding, Dave…

The Register reviewed Sony’s new 2.6cm thick Vaio TT laptop. Below are some of their comments about the device:

• …the TT is impressively thin and light


• Sony said it will come with a 3-year warranty, so the company’s obviously confident about the 1.3kg TT’s resilience


• The screen – which sports an LED backlight, Intel GMA 4500MHD graphics and the unusual resolution of 1366×768… [it] will adjust the brightness according to ambient lighting conditions


• The TT comes with Bluetooth and 802.11n Wi-Fi


• …has Gigabit Ethernet


• …two USB 2.0 ports, a four-pin FireWire connector… an ExpressCard 34 slot and 3.5mm audio sockets

Check out the review for more information and pictures. Doesn’t sound like a bad device, but I’d have to agree with The Register when they say “What we don’t like is the price.

Microsoft corporate vice president of Windows Consumer Product Marketing Brad Brooks is quoted in a CNet news article as saying that there’s a “tax” associated with switching to the Mac that people often don’t think about.

While much of what Brooks has to say is marketing hype (as would be expected for a VP of marketing), he does make a few valid points that switchers would do well to consider.

For example, he points out that technologies like Blu-ray aren’t shipping from Apple yet, while you can get Blu-ray drives in systems from Dell, HP, Sony, etc.  When you go with the Macintosh, you limit some of your hardware options to the subset that Apple chooses to support with OS X.  If cutting-edge hardware excites you, you’re likely to find that Apple is usually a step or two behind Windows and/or Linux.

Brooks talks about how Apple hypes to students that if you buy a Mac you can also run Office, Windows, and Windows applications.  This is, of course, quite true.  What Apple doesn’t make as clear is that you’ll be buying a Windows license at around $200, possibly a Parallels license at $80 or so, and maybe an Office license.  If you’d bought a Windows box to start with, the OS license would be included, Parallels wouldn’t be necessary, and you might even get an Office license in the deal.  Apple also doesn’t talk too much about the complexity of setting up a system to dual-boot with Windows and/or Linux using Boot Camp.  These are costs of switching to Apple hardware.

The mantra of the typical “unapologetic Mac user” is that they are willing to pay a little more for a Mac because they get something that “works out of the box, has few problems, and is super easy to use”.  The last Windows laptop I purchased (an HP DV8000T) met that definition nicely.  It’s still working today, happily running Windows XP and Ubuntu, without a crash, a virus, or a single malware attack.  It even allowed me to install a second internal hard drive so I could back up the system in a manner of minutes by cloning the main hard disk to the secondary one periodically.

But as we say around this site, if you’re getting what you need out of the Mac and you’re not finding that it’s limiting what you want to do with your computer, then you’ve made the right choice and we wish you the best.  If you’re not getting what you need out of your computer, whether it be a Mac, Windows box, or Linux system, you owe it to yourself to look at the other options and really think about what you gain and lose with each.  That’s especially true if you’re willing to pay Brooks’ hypothetical “Apple tax”.  A few more bucks spent up front on a Windows PC can provide a different out-of-the-box experience than a lowest-available-price no-name system provides.  Time invested in learning to properly maintain a Windows or Linux PC can prevent the need to ever pay the Apple tax.  But that’s probably a subject for another day…

I’ve not had a chance to look at the Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 Beta, but it appears that Infoworld has benchmarked IE8 and found that it’s considerably more resource-intensive than Windows XP itself. That’s an alarming trend, but as is often remarked when Apple’s beta products are resource-intensive, you have to keep in mind that most beta code contains debugging code to help the vendor identify and fix problems. That means beta products, in general, tend to be more resource-intensive than their final-release counterparts.

Regardless, the Infoworld article says that IE8 has a 350-400MB memory footprint, runs 150-200 concurrent execution threads, 6 discrete iexplore.exe instances, and is over 2x more demanding on a system than FireFox. That’s quite a resource load for mere web browsing.

These resource demands are coming at a bad time for IE8. Google is planning to release a new web browser named “Chrome” today. Based on the rather lengthy comic book they’ve published about it, Chrome is designed for the web as it exists today, which gives it an advantage over the other browsers out there (e.g., Opera, Safari, IE, FireFox), all of which were designed for the web as it existed years ago. The Google browser will be open source, based on some of the same code as Safari (WebKit). It’s designed to provide extremely fast Javascript support, better security than competing browsers, and overall better performance. If Google delivers on its web comic promises, Chrome should be a very worthy competitor for the browsing throne.

Proving that it has indeed learned from Apple’s example, Microsoft today unveiled a new technology called “Unwrap Mosaic” which allows a user to do some pretty wild things with digital video. In the demo, Microsoft added a mustache and rosy cheeks to a person in a video. As CNet reports:

“While there are plenty of techniques out there for changing colors in a video and other special effects, adding a full mustache, though, is tricky because although it exists in one place — the face — different parts of the face are visible at different times. In the movies, it’s done by using a model of the face. But Fitzgibbon’s team was looking to create a single tool that would work on multiple types of 3D objects. It’s still just a research project. Microsoft has released some of the technology into the public domain. Fitzgibbon also hopes to put a user interface on top of the technology and make it available somehow to the public, though he declined to offer a timetable on that.”

It seems to me that Microsoft is taking little steps forward lately to show that it can, indeed, innovate in interesting ways. The (admittedly overpriced and kind of silly) Microsoft Surface technology making its way around the country is one example. Its interface reminds me more of an Apple product than anything I’ve seen from any company. The Unwrap Mosaic technology is another example of the sort of thing I used to expect from Apple.

It’s not uncommon for Mac users and others to bash Microsoft for
Windows crashes.  But that’s not entirely fair.  As
Computerworld points out today in Eric Lai’s article “Vista’s driver ills aren’t just Microsoft’s
fault,” third parties who provide drivers for Windows are just
as guilty of making Windows unstable.  As Computerworld tells
us:

 
It’s this
“corner cutting” as much as anything else that can make a
Window system unstable when paired with hardware that pre-dates the
release of the operating system.  

Of course, you
can’t blame the hardware makers in many cases, either.  HP, as
a hypothetical example, has no incentive to create new drivers for
Windows Vista for a printer it hasn’t sold in 5 years.
 They’d rather see you replace that printer with a newer model.
 Creating drivers for that older printer to run with Windows would
be an expense without any corresponding revenue.

This is an
area where Linux outshines both OS X and Windows.  Linux drivers
for hardware products are often part of the overall open source code of
the OS.  Because the code is available, there is less difficulty
for developers to keep older devices working with newer releases of the
hardware, and at least some incentive for a developer to make an older
device work with a newer version of Linux (e.g., the developer still
uses that older printer and doesn’t see a need to replace it yet, so
updating the drivers is less expensive than buying the new device).

As
reported by AppleTell, Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard includes an icon to represent a networked
Windows PC. This icon is “an old faded-out beige CRT
display” and shows a Windows “blue screen of death”. The
folks at AppleTell found this rather smug and insulting. The AppleTell
article provides instructions for backing up the article and replacing
it with another, less-insulting icon.

When was the last
time you saw anything in Windows that mocked Apple or OS X? Apple’s
arrogance is amazing.

I hear from Mac users all the time
how Windows systems are constantly crashing, rebooting, and
blue-screening. I’ve personally seen one blue screen this year, the
result of a driver problem. My Mac Pro running OS X 10.4.10 has
completely locked up and had to be powered off 3 times in the past 2
months. Remind me again which systems crash more?

As a
matter of curiosity and fact-finding, I took a random sample of 90 of
the 1700 machines on the Windows domain where I work. I queried each
system for its uptime figure. The shortest uptime was 1 hour and 17
minutes. The longest was 9 days and 16 hours, which happens to
correspond with the last time these particular machines were patched
(which requires a reboot even on OS X). The average uptime for the group
was 5.62 days, with the median at 5.54 days. The average for a random
sample of 7 of the 30 Macs I administer was 2.46 days, with the median
around 13 hours. Again, which systems would appear to need more
rebooting?

I’m not saying my experience is necessarily
typical of the Mac community at large, or the Windows community at
large. What I am saying is that making a blanket statement like
“Macs don’t need to reboot” (as Apple says in its
commercials) or “Windows systems crash all the time” (as Apple
implies in a commercial) is clearly not the reality everyone sees. I
know of about 1600 people for whom Apple’s view of a
constantly-crashing Windows system is clearly wrong (see above). I also
know of 30 Mac users for whom the idea of a “never needs
rebooting” Mac is also not true. Again, that’s why this site is
here… to help dispel some of the myths that Apple and its zealots
attempt to perpetuate.

In spite of the data above, I am
NOT saying Macs crash more than Windows. I will also definitely NOT say
the opposite, that Windows crashes more than OS X. Generally speaking, I
find both Windows XP Pro and Mac OS X 10.4 to be approximately equally
stable. And so far, in my limited experience, Linux is more stable than
both of them.

In its usual sarcastic and semi-informed style,
MacDailyNews tore apart what was essentially a pro-Mac article by
Randall Stross of the New York Times.  Stross’ argument is that
Apple is blowing an opportunity to gain significant market share over
Microsoft Windows by not exploiting a general reluctance to upgrade to
Windows Vista.  MacDailyNews makes the assertion that Macs are the
best choice “for the vast majority of personal computer
users”.  

The mistake most Mac
fans (like MacDailyNews) make is to assume that “the vast
majority” of Windows users can and will get what they need from the
Macintosh.  That isn’t the case for the largest class of users,
which I’ll collectively refer to as “corporate America”
though I’m actually speaking on a much more global basis than the
USA.  Without fundamental changes that would destroy the Macintosh
experience as most of you know it, Apple can’t win the business
marketplace — and that’s not necessarily a bad thing for Mac
fans.  (I hear the flamethrowers lighting up, but
bear with me a little while before you pull the trigger, as I am sure
some of you will.)

Here’s what corporate
America gets from Windows that Apple cannot offer in its current
incarnation:

• Multiple sources for
  hardware
• Hardware product roadmaps
• Easy-to-use
  development tools
• A platform which is at least “good
  enough”
• A solution without virtualization

These things matter, and matter a lot, to
businesses… with good reason.  

PC hardware
makers succeed in the corporate marketplace for several reasons that
Apple in its current state cannot.  First, there’s Apple’s
hardware monopoly. (Yes, it’s a
monopoly.)  While corporate IT managers like
standardization, they also fear being locked into a single vendor’s
products.  It gives that vendor too much power over their
operations, leaves no room to negotiate better pricing, and leaves them
with no alternatives should their primary supplier go under. 
Today, the corporate IT manager can choose from a variety of PC
configurations ranging from barebones systems to high-end workstations,
from any of dozens of PC manufacturers.

For Apple to
overcome this obstacle, it would need to offer Mac OS X for use on
non-Apple hardware.  That would mean supporting a variety of
processor types, motherboard chipsets, disk controllers, video cards,
network interfaces, sound hardware, etc., that OS X doesn’t support
today.  If Apple took on the development of the necessary drivers
itself, this would be a massive effort.  If it made “Mac
makers” responsible for this development, it would lose control of
the quality of those drivers and OS X’s much-vaunted stability would
suffer.  The “Mac experience” would decline as a whole.

PC hardware
makers partner with their corporate customers, sharing with them product
roadmaps which detail precisely when they can expect a given model to be
upgraded or retired.  This helps a business time its purchases to
get the most “bang for the buck” by allowing them to
standardize on a given model for easier support or delay a purchase to
get more power.  Apple isn’t keen on sharing hardware plans,
and if Mac users knew a “much better” model was coming two
months down the road, they’d probably leave the current Macs on the
shelves and wait for the new ones.  That unsold inventory would
have to be discounted, which would have a strong impact on Apple’s
bottom line.  And, of course, publication of those product roadmaps
would eliminate the “excitement” of Steve Jobs’ “one
more thing” announcements.  Some of the “fun” of
being a Mac user (i.e., surprise product improvements) would go away.

Windows, as
a platform, succeeds in corporate environments because there are some
very powerful and easy-to-use development tools available for it. 
While Apple has come a long way with the OS X development environment,
it simply isn’t as quick and easy to develop an ad-hoc Mac
application as it is to create an ad-hoc Windows application with Visual
Basic or a similar tool.  Porting those applications over to Mac OS
X isn’t a trivial effort, and businesses will
have a hard time seeing a reason to undertake that effort and expense
for a platform with limited hardware choices and uncertain
roadmaps.  (I know, “what about Parallels and
the like?”  I’ll address the virtualization of Windows in
a moment.)

Whether Mac fans like to realize it or not, the Windows environment
today is a lot more stable than it was in the days of Mac OS
9.  There are Windows boxes where I work that have been up and
running strong without a reboot for 140 days or more.  It’s
rare that a Windows 2003 Server needs a reboot outside its normal
maintenance window.  Apple’s “Mac vs. PC” commercials
aside, Windows is more stable in corporate environments than many Mac
users are aware, because they’ve not used it since Windows 9x
days.  From the corporate perspective, they’ve invested time,
money, and training in Windows administration.  They’ve got a
platform which is meeting their needs, offers lots of choices, and is
relatively stable.  No matter how much more stable
(arguably, I would say) that OS X may be than
Windows, they generally find Windows “good enough”. 
They’re unlikely to find the “OS X Experience” better
enough to make a difference. 

Yes, virtualization of
Windows on Apple hardware eliminates some of the issues stated
above.  Certainly, you could continue using Visual Basic and custom
in-house software.  Certainly, you could continue using the same
tools you use today to manage the Windows environment, and leverage the
skill sets you already have.  But virtualizing Windows also offsets
many of the potential “benefits” of OS X.  If you’re
switching over Windows constantly to run your
company’s core applications, why run OS X at all?  OS X
isn’t going to make Windows any more stable(if you argue
that Windows is less stable, which I don’t).  OS X
isn’t going to make Windows any more secure (if you argue
that Windows is less secure, which I don’t). 
Virtualization of Windows on Apple hardware won’t in any way improve
the “Windows Experience” aside from putting it on prettier
hardware. 

Simultaneously, virtualizing Windows on
Apple hardware dramatically complicates matters from an in-house tech
support standpoint.  Now, you’re supporting both OS X and
Windows, as well as Parallels (or Boot Camp or whatever), where before
you supported Windows only.  You’re supporting Mac
applications, drivers, and “how to” questions, as well as
Windows applications, drivers, and “how to” questions. 
You’re fielding questions about moving data and files between the
platforms.  From the IT support standpoint, virtualizing Windows on
a Mac only makes things more complicated and troublesome.  If there
is anything to gain from running OS X, it’s probably negated by the
added complexity of virtualization of Windows on Apple hardware.

In the end, as much as Mac users may hate Microsoft, Windows, and
PC hardware makers, they really shouldn’t be wishing for OS X to
“beat them” and become the dominant platform.  Think
about some of the best things about being a Mac user:

• Apple’s “Cool” Hardware:
   If OS X succeeds in business, the majority of Macs used in
  business will probably be made by someone else, someone who doesn’t
  care for Apple’s custom aesthetics and uses basic black or beige
  cases.  Apple could decide to follow Microsoft’s lead and drop
  out of the hardware business altogether, meaning the end of MacBooks and
  the like.

• Security:
   While its debatable that OS X is more secure than
  Windows, if OS X becomes the dominant business platform, hackers are
  going to start paying a lot of attention to it.  And as we’ve
  seen, OS X isn’t without security holes that can be exploited. 

• Stability:
   With all the third-party hardware Apple would be
  supporting, driver quality will very likely suffer.  As most
  technicians will tell you, crappy drivers will make a system more
  unstable than anything else.  That’s as true in OS X as in any
  other OS.

• Multimedia Apps:
   The majority of computer users are business users.
   The majority of business users don’t have a lot of need for
  video editing, podcasting, music creation, and the kinds of applications
  Apple and the Mac are known for.  What they do have time for is
  email, word processing, spreadsheets, charts and graphs, accounting
  systems, and all that stuff Apple pokes fun at in the “Mac vs.
  PC” commercials.  If the Mac “wins”, it’s going
  to have to do all that stuff.  Accountants won’t suddenly
  become podcasters and web designers just because Macs are the primary
  platform.

• Surprising New
  Products:  If Apple has to publish its product
  roadmaps to corporate customers well in advance of release, that
  information is going to leak to the press and competitors.
   Anything new Apple is working on will begin being duplicated by
  “everyone else” in the same field.  Apple’s products
  will, essentially, be pretty much like everyone else’s by the time
  they’re released because everyone will have had the chance to
  duplicate them.

This isn’t to say that there
aren’t things Apple would gain by taking over the business world.
 But for them to take over the business world, they would have to
change and become more like Microsoft and Windows… and less like the
Apple we know today.

A user on the Skype forums reports: “I have just
bought a MacBook and installed Skype on it. I also bought a USB-headset
hoping to optimize the sound quality. Thing is, on my new MacBook, the
sound is really poor. [snip] It kind of sucks that I have to use my 3
year old PC laptop just so that I can use Skype properly.”

So far, the one response the user’s gotten to the question is rather
telling about the state of Mac OS X software and Mac OS X in general.
User “nicolasfortin” responds “Well like I said here [the] Mac version
is in eternal beta version it seems… Keep you[r] old PC! I would.”

Translation? “OS X sucks for Skype.” or perhaps more
accurately “If you want to use Skype, don’t bother with OS X.”