Gartner warns on iPhone 3G's place in companies [Archive]

JtheLemur

Jun 13, 2008, 02:12 PM

plokoonpma

Jun 13, 2008, 02:27 PM

Why PC people wants everything their way? They are so small minded that are afraid of everything.

This analyst:

"John Pescatore , another Gartner analyst, acknowledged Apple's focus on enhancing the security features and the policy management and enforcement capabilities in the new iPhone. Apple has narrowed much of the security gap that existed previously between its handheld and rival products, Pescatore said. But he added that the iPhone still doesn't offer quite the same level of security as either BlackBerry or Windows Mobile devices do."

He continue;

"One major issue that remains for the iPhone is the relative lack of third-party security software, such as antivirus and encryption tools, Pescatore said. By comparison, such products tools are readily available for BlackBerry and Windows Mobile devices"

Hello!!!!!! Maybe cause the lack of viruses? and encryption? I'm sure some company will develop a third party mini app for the iphone, and also Apple will create mini versions of iWork to the iPhone with encryption options.

LoL, they are so lost

Yvan256

Jun 13, 2008, 02:31 PM

"And I'm sorry, but it sounds like they're assuming the ****ing PC weenie that works in these corporation's IT departments are the ones that are going to be vetting the security of the iPhone?

Actually it's worst than that. I've discussed this topic many times with a few friends who work in IT departments. Their job security depends on the computers having problems, that's why they're afraid of (and hence don't recommend) Apple products.

cloudnine

Jun 13, 2008, 02:37 PM

Actually it's worst than that. I've discussed this topic many times with a few friends who work in IT departments. Their job security depends on the computers having problems, that's why they're afraid of (and hence don't recommend) Apple products.

I've heard the same exact thing from the IT guys at my last job. So F'd up.

vandy1997

Jun 13, 2008, 04:16 PM

Do the consultants that the writers of these articles use even know what they are talking about? McAfee has been providing an anti-virus app for jailbroken iPhone for a few months (see here: http://www.tuaw.com/2008/05/02/mcafee-iphone-antivirus-app-is-disavowed-by-mcafee/ ), and it will likely be provided through the App Store so long as Apple permits it. And although the consultants have no clue, the writer of the article should either get a clue or do some basic research (Google is your friend!).

Gelfin

Jun 13, 2008, 04:31 PM

This all becomes really surreal when you realize that product managers for companies providing security software make decisions based on reading these Gartner reports.

That encryption software they say doesn't exist? Well, the people who make the decision whether or not to make and publish that software tend to read things like "Gartner encourages slow iPhone enterprise adoption" and decide that writing iPhone software does not need to be a high priority.

It has an almost beautiful perversity.

It's almost as if our only hope is that engineers take it upon themselves to port their products to the iPhone in their spare time and push for those products from within their often clueless organizations.

Or something.

TXCraig

Jun 13, 2008, 04:52 PM

I've heard the same exact thing from the IT guys at my last job. So F'd up.

Give me a break! Gartner is looked at as the place for direction in the IT market and lowering the cost of ownership is something they want to do. Not save jobs! The article spells it out- just like you pay Gartner to do. The iPhone has not been around that long and has not been tested. The vaporware that Apple is selling with the 3G phone has not been around long enought to go through the type of testing that is required. They are just warning their customers not to plan 7/13/08 as the day to roll out the phones.

The fact is- breaking the blackberry stronghold that they have is not going to be easy. Blackberry is a solution that they say is very secure and has been in use for a long time.

Apple has some real challanges if it wants to get into this market. Using iTunes to sync the phone will NOT work in a corportate environment. Pigs would fly before companies packaged iTunes on their locked down PCs and laptops. Its seen as a music player/store and has no business being installed on corporate machines.

Little is known about how the iPhone is going to access exchange email sitting behind big corprate firewalls. How secure is the email delivery? Security is a big thing and this really has not been addressed in detail by Apple.

Most companies will say- you have ONE way to get your email on a mobile device... blackberry... they are not going to invest time, engery, and money into addional ways. I'm sure you will find some companies with CIOs that like the iphone and will have access to email installed, but they will be few and far between.

As much as I would love to be able to use my iPhone for corporate email- I don't think it will be happening anytime soon!

cwt1nospam

Jun 13, 2008, 05:10 PM

Give me a break! Gartner is looked at as the place for direction in the IT market and lowering the cost of ownership is something they want to do. Not save jobs!
YOU give us a break! IT claims to want to lower the cost of ownership, but they've been doing all they can to keep costs up and management out of the loop for decades. That's why Windows dominates the enterprise, and why they don't want Apple, but they'll accept Windows Mobile or Blackberry.

Nobody's claiming that the iPhone is perfect, but the fact that Gartner would have the nerve to claim that Windows is more secure than the iPhone is proof that they're not trying to be objective.

vandy1997

Jun 13, 2008, 06:01 PM

If you listened to Steve Jobs' speech, he stated that quite a high percentage of the Fortune 500 companies had tested the enterprise aspects of firmware 2.0. And if they requested changes, I'm sure that Apple will make them, as it will be a coup if Apple is able to penetrate the business market (as RIM is trying to do to penetrate the consumer market). I am positive that changes will be made to iTunes (or any other delivery system to be used by companies) so that it can be tailored to each companies' needs. Steve Jobs is no fool, and he knows that he must do whatever he can to make these companies satisfied with the final product. It may not be 100% perfect (RIM surely is not either), but this is a new phone! And it's the first generation iPhone with respect to the business market. I'm sure that the first RIM phone was less than perfect. While Steve Jobs knows that he doesn't necessarily need to meet consumers' requests for MMS, voice recording, voice dial, video recording, flash, etc. on the phone since many of those consumers will purchase the phone in any event, he know that if he doesn't satisfy the needs of most businesses, he will not be able to penetrate that market. So he will listen, and he will make sure to meet all of the demands that he can meet. The iPhone may not be adopted by many companies in July, but many tech companies will probably adopt it, and when they do and fix any major bugs, other companies will begin to adopt it. Also, Apple doesn't distribute patches to refine its firmware once every two years. It is constantly refining the software and providing additional functionality. That will be something that these companies will not be used to, and they will appreciate the fact that Apple continues to build a better product. And this is only the beginning with respect to bothe software and firmware. Apple just thinks innovatively. It's too bad that it doesn't license its software because other hardware companies would pay quite a bit for it.

boscher

Jun 13, 2008, 07:15 PM

I just think the whole thing is stupid. I work in IT for a large corporate firm and the absolute worst PDAs that we have is ANY device with Windows Mobile on it. It is a clunky buggy operating system on a slow device that constantly stops receiving email and restarts for no reason...and god forbid anyone lose their device because the remote wipe function doesn't work 99% of the time. Unfortunately, our CIO is a M$ homogenous systems fanboy...but knows it is inevitable that the iPhone is coming to our firm because even though management makes all these crazy ineffective decisions that add layers upon layers of red tape, they still do get hit back into reality because ultimately, the people who actually make the decisions are the workers. Everyone asks when it is coming. It is the best phone I have ever purchased and will never go back to any other phone. The only thing anyone ever does with a Windows Mobile device is check email because god knows it cannot do much more than that.

AND I totally welcome having Apple products at work...it will make my job easier and I can actually focus on solving bigger problems than battling little fires all day because Windows systems suck.

pjarvi

Jun 13, 2008, 07:47 PM

We've already kicked our crackberry addiction. Once the decision makers realized it was just a simple matter of configuring the web service in exchange, it was a no brainer. Some of the sales reps don't like it, but tough. Most BlackBerries have been replaced with BlackJacks, the rest with Treo's. Personally, I'm really looking forward to switching to an iPhone. Microsoft's mobile operating system is worse than it's desktop OS.

Hopefully Microsoft will develop a small app for the iPhone that can be used for Active Directory. I'd love to be able to unlock users, reset passwords, and delete computer accounts while desk-side with users. Would save me from having to play phone tag or walk back and forth between buildings.

PCMacUser

Jun 13, 2008, 08:54 PM

Oh yes, because Windows has proven itself time and time again to be a heavenly example of security. Are you ****ing kidding me?

*Sigh*

Yes, in a corporate environment Windows has actually proven itself.

Sure, for home users who don't update their anti-virus definitions or spyware prevention software and like to click on any pop-up window that appears on their computer, Windows is very insecure.

PCMacUser

Jun 13, 2008, 08:58 PM

I've discussed this topic many times with a few friends who work in IT departments. Their job security depends on the computers having problems, that's why they're afraid of (and hence don't recommend) Apple products.

In professional IT departments (I don't know what mickey mouse companies your friends work for) this is totally untrue.

Basically the things that stop Apple products being used in corporate environments are compatibility, specialised technical skills, and integration.

rjwill246

Jun 13, 2008, 10:02 PM

Give me a break! Gartner is looked at as the place for direction in the IT market and lowering the cost of ownership is something they want to do. Not save jobs!
As much as I would love to be able to use my iPhone for corporate email- I don't think it will be happening anytime soon!

--- have succumbed to the idiocy that is and has been, the Gartner mentality??? It is one thing to have rock solid concerns but this, but most of the iPhone bogeymen, have been wisps of fiction. In far too many cases, IT is led by self serving numbnutz whose job is to maintain their jobs. The iPhone is absolutely no more of a threat than a Blackberry or Nokia or GOD FORBID, one running the mobile version of Windows, etc. etc. and to infer or worse, state otherwise is raising ignorance and FUD to an altogether new height. Pitiful! The proof of course is that Fortune 500 companies have embraced the platform and it WILL be in hospitals where there is a real need for concern for security than in say, some "X" company that is worried about "some sort" of privacy. This is getting to be very very old as it is the same bulldust Apple has had to deal with for years about all of its products and the critics have been WRONG --- forever.
Surely one can learn from the past! Maybe not------

cwt1nospam

Jun 14, 2008, 09:47 AM

*Sigh*

Yes, in a corporate environment Windows has actually proven itself.

Sure, for home users who don't update their anti-virus definitions or spyware prevention software and like to click on any pop-up window that appears on their computer, Windows is very insecure.
Bull.

A secure system doesn't require another system to protect it. That's what anti-virus is. You've disproved your own claim by showing that Windows is safe in a corporate environment only because it has IT people who constantly maintain anti-virus definitions.

cwt1nospam

Jun 14, 2008, 09:56 AM

In professional IT departments (I don't know what mickey mouse companies your friends work for) this is totally untrue.

Basically the things that stop Apple products being used in corporate environments are compatibility, specialised technical skills, and integration.
I've seen it to be true at US Surgical, Unilever, ING, Aetna, and many smaller companies.

I also see it to be true in your statements:
1) Specialized technical skills? No one in your IT department knows Unix? Ever hear of bash? Your incompetence is astounding.

2) Integration? You can't be talking about Apple's integration of hardware and software, so I assume you must mean working with MS proprietary software like IE and Exchange. This is the catch-22 that IT has set up. First, they insist on using proprietary software from Microsoft that is designed to lock in Microsoft products. Then they claim that a company like Apple needs to work with those products. This is just more evidence that IT is not interested in keeping costs down or productivity up.

mr.light

Jun 14, 2008, 10:07 AM

Bull.

A secure system doesn't require another system to protect it. That's what anti-virus is. You've disproved your own claim by showing that Windows is safe in a corporate environment only because it has IT people who constantly maintain anti-virus definitions.

...and if your job is to constantly maintain anti-virus definitions, why on earth would you recommend a system that does not require your intervention? I know I would tell my boss that such a system (Apple) would not work. Wouldn't you?

iStefmac

Jun 14, 2008, 11:48 AM

The opening line discredits the whole shpeil.

I'm pretty certain the iPhone is more "locked down" security wise than ANY PC.

iStefmac

Jun 14, 2008, 11:51 AM

...and if your job is to constantly maintain anti-virus definitions, why on earth would you recommend a system that does not require your intervention? I know I would tell my boss that such a system (Apple) would not work. Wouldn't you?

So they should continue to use unstable, insecure Windows environment so that IT guys will have a job???

Give me a break. Windows is a joke. Employees of big companies like Windows because it gives them plenty of excuses to avoid productivity.

jptelthorst

Jun 14, 2008, 12:18 PM

Rodimus Prime

Jun 14, 2008, 12:27 PM

I've seen it to be true at US Surgical, Unilever, ING, Aetna, and many smaller companies.

I also see it to be true in your statements:
1) Specialized technical skills? No one in your IT department knows Unix? Ever hear of bash? Your incompetence is astounding.

2) Integration? You can't be talking about Apple's integration of hardware and software, so I assume you must mean working with MS proprietary software like IE and Exchange. This is the catch-22 that IT has set up. First, they insist on using proprietary software from Microsoft that is designed to lock in Microsoft products. Then they claim that a company like Apple needs to work with those products. This is just more evidence that IT is not interested in keeping costs down or productivity up.

I hit you with this one.

1.) It is safe to assume that 85% of the general employees of the company are not firmilur with OSX so they would have to relearn how to do all of it. This compared with 90% are firmilur with windows so would know how to keep doing the basic stuff instead of spending weeks getting over the learning curve and having to unlearn a lot of stuff.

2.) Software. There is a lot of software companies use that DO NOT work on macs. NO if and or buts about it. The software or lack of software of macs are killing them.
3.) windows is much better set up from a central IT point of view in how things are controlled and run.. Macs are great from an individual user point of view but when you are trying to manage a lot of them macs just suck at it. They do not have the same advantages as windows nor have the things built in. The under the hood stuff so to speak in windows is better than macs.

4.) Unix is not as widely used as it onces was. Now it mostly Windows Server 03 ect.
avegrae
But now exacting a non IT person to understand any of that is just crazy because they cannt/ They just see the IT deparment saying job secuirty. Most of the time IT deparents are not fixing problems. Most of the time they are tied up doing things like setting up new computers or software and managing the server. The request I send into my IT department are not problems but request like I need something special set up for me or some type of software. I know most of the time they are busy doing thing not related to those type of request but just maintain and keeping things updated.

jptelthorst

Jun 14, 2008, 12:36 PM

I hit you with this one.

1.) It is safe to assume that 85% of the general employees of the company are not firmilur with OSX so they would have to relearn how to do all of it. This compared with 90% are firmilur with windows so would know how to keep doing the basic stuff instead of spending weeks getting over the learning curve and having to unlearn a lot of stuff.

2.) Software. There is a lot of software companies use that DO NOT work on macs. NO if and or buts about it. The software or lack of software of macs are killing them.

You fail to mention the countless hours lost to downtime due to viruses, errors, file corruption, etc. A few weeks to learn OS X would be made up for quickly. Additionally, you can run those windows apps that are not natively compatible with OS X in a virtual environment on OS X.

Rodimus Prime

Jun 14, 2008, 02:13 PM

You fail to mention the countless hours lost to downtime due to viruses, errors, file corruption, etc. A few weeks to learn OS X would be made up for quickly. Additionally, you can run those windows apps that are not natively compatible with OS X in a virtual environment on OS X.

an example of propaganda. Really not much down time is loss due to viruses and file corruption. Btw file corruption is more of a hardware issue than a software one....

This is classic propganda. In 6 months at work there has yet to be down time caused by any of those reasons. Now down time cause by our T1 line being cut and main servers dropping to a crawl due to bandwith limitation is another story but both of those are not software issue but hardware issue... Or known downtime coming up because of server upgrades or moving a physic server location...

6 months is the limited time frame because I have only been out of college 6 months and had to deal with a corpated level server. My dad who been working in a large corp for 25+ years in the past 10 dealing with computer says the down time is never really realated to the virus but yet again hardware issues.

So no they would never make up the time. Plus the software loss is not possible to make up.

cwt1nospam

Jun 14, 2008, 03:56 PM

1.) It is safe to assume that 85% of the general employees of the company are not firmilur with OSX so they would have to relearn how to do all of it. This compared with 90% are firmilur with windows so would know how to keep doing the basic stuff instead of spending weeks getting over the learning curve and having to unlearn a lot of stuff.

2.) Software. There is a lot of software companies use that DO NOT work on macs. NO if and or buts about it. The software or lack of software of macs are killing them.
3.) windows is much better set up from a central IT point of view in how things are controlled and run.. Macs are great from an individual user point of view but when you are trying to manage a lot of them macs just suck at it. They do not have the same advantages as windows nor have the things built in. The under the hood stuff so to speak in windows is better than macs.

4.) Unix is not as widely used as it onces was. Now it mostly Windows Server 03 ect.
avegrae
But now exacting a non IT person to understand any of that is just crazy because they cannt/ They just see the IT deparment saying job secuirty. Most of the time IT deparents are not fixing problems. Most of the time they are tied up doing things like setting up new computers or software and managing the server. The request I send into my IT department are not problems but request like I need something special set up for me or some type of software. I know most of the time they are busy doing thing not related to those type of request but just maintain and keeping things updated.

1) Windows is just a poor copy of OS X. Yes, there are differences, but mostly those differences are how OS X makes users more efficient. "Familiarity" is a red herring.

2) It's true that there is a lot of very bad software that does not run on Macs. This software should be replaced, and making the switch is a the perfect opportunity.

3) This is the point that IT has never understood, and unfortunately, very likely will never understand: It is NOT ABOUT IT! It doesn't matter what is most efficient for the IT department because IT is a very tiny part of any company. What matters is what's most efficient for the users.

4) Unix is MORE widely used now than it ever has been. Apple alone sells around 22,000 Unix systems per day, every day, all year long.

You were basically born yesterday, so it's understandable that you think only in terms that your father can explain to you. Know this though: I've been in IT. I spent well over half of your lifetime in it. The contempt for the user that I saw in IT disgusted me. I never saw any intention of improving security, efficiency, productivity or anything else that didn't directly improve IT's position within the company. This was not at one or two companies either. I was a consultant, and I spent a good amount of time at large corporations as well as small to mid sized companies. IT is there to protect IT. If it weren't, Windows might not be gone, but it would NEVER be the only platform allowed in any company.

BongoBanger

Jun 14, 2008, 06:51 PM

The level of idiocy in this topic from the fanboys is mind boggling.

Gartner are bullish about Apple in general but are also realistic when it comes to security. This issue is about tried, tested and trusted solutions. The iPhone may take its place in the corporate market but it's going to have to prove itself first and demonstrate that it has the appropriate levels of security to give the market confidence. Windows, like it or not, has done this.

As for companies using older versions of software, well that's down to cost. Most companies will not pay to upgrade until they have to when the software in question is no longer supported.

cwt1nospam

Jun 14, 2008, 07:27 PM

The level of idiocy in this topic from the fanboys is mind boggling.
Gardner are bullish about Apple in general but are also realistic when it comes to security. This issue is about tried, tested and trusted solutions. The iPhone may take its place in the corporate market but it's going to have to prove itself first and demonstrate that it has the appropriate levels of security to give the market confidence. Windows, like it or not, has done this.

As for companies using older versions of software, well that's down to cost. Most companies will not pay to upgrade until they have to when the software in question is no longer supported.
Talk about idiocy! Windows needs to be completly isolated from the internet to be safe. That's not secure, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar.

As for old sofware, we're in a new era now, and if your software depends on Windows you're not going to be competitive for much longer.

Tosser

Jun 14, 2008, 08:20 PM

Talk about idiocy! Windows needs to be completly isolated from the internet to be safe. That's not secure, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar.

As for old sofware, we're in a new era now, and if your software depends on Windows you're not going to be competitive for much longer.

LOL, and just when I thought it couldn't get any more fanboyish, this comes along.

Anuba

Jun 14, 2008, 08:32 PM

LOL, and just when I thought it couldn't get any more fanboyish, this comes along.

Indeed. Man, if Tom Cruise had only discovered the Church of Apple before Scientology, he could have been an invaluable PR resource for App... uh, OK, maybe not.

sushi

Jun 14, 2008, 09:17 PM

I am positive that changes will be made to iTunes (or any other delivery system to be used by companies) so that it can be tailored to each companies' needs.
iTunes has features such as sharing which corporate IT will not allow.

Until that changes, many corporate IT departments will not allow iTunes to be installed.

Yes, in a corporate environment Windows has actually proven itself.
True.

And Windows in the work environment has some nice features that the Mac OS does not yet have, from an IT perspective.

Basically the things that stop Apple products being used in corporate environments are compatibility, specialised technical skills, and integration.
Very true.

Plus there is an increased workload associated with supporting more platforms such as both Windows and Mac. For example, you must now purchase licensed versions of software for both platforms instead of just for one platform.

Talk about idiocy! Windows needs to be completly isolated from the internet to be safe. That's not secure, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool or a liar.
I think you forgot to put your smiley face after your comment, as in you are kidding.

As for old sofware, we're in a new era now, and if your software depends on Windows you're not going to be competitive for much longer.
May I ask what you are smoking? ;)

Anuba

Jun 14, 2008, 09:59 PM

iTunes has features such as sharing which corporate IT will not allow.
I was under the impression that iPhone 3G syncs up with MS Exchange ActiveSync wirelessly, which would eliminate iTunes from the equation. It's not like Apple haven't given this stuff any thought, they have an entire microsite devoted to enterprise integration, complete with deployment checklists and scenarios covering Exchange, VPN, IMAP, WPA2 etc.

If they want multimedia content and family photos then yeah, they'll need iTunes, but mail, calendar and contacts are all handled via ActiveSync.

sushi

Jun 15, 2008, 04:08 AM

I was under the impression that iPhone 3G syncs up with MS Exchange ActiveSync wirelessly, which would eliminate iTunes from the equation. It's not like Apple haven't given this stuff any thought, they have an entire microsite devoted to enterprise integration, complete with deployment checklists and scenarios covering Exchange, VPN, IMAP, WPA2 etc.

If they want multimedia content and family photos then yeah, they'll need iTunes, but mail, calendar and contacts are all handled via ActiveSync.
I believe you are correct regarding sync'ing.

My comment was directed to having iTunes installed in the corporate/government environment. There are too many security issues with iTunes.

BongoBanger

Jun 15, 2008, 06:29 AM

Tosser

Jun 15, 2008, 06:35 AM

*facepalm*

Oh, haha! Great expression - it says it all! :cool:

PCMacUser

Jun 15, 2008, 08:56 AM

Sorry, I've been away from this thread a couple of days, only to find that I'd missed the replies of this delightful character:

1) Specialized technical skills? No one in your IT department knows Unix? Ever hear of bash? Your incompetence is astounding.

Take a chill pill.

cwt1nospam

Jun 15, 2008, 09:09 AM

And Windows in the work environment has some nice features that the Mac OS does not yet have, from an IT perspective.
And once again for the IT cult: It isn't about you. The company buys computers to run its business, NOT to make things easier for IT.
I think you forgot to put your smiley face after your comment, as in you are kidding.
Really? Try connecting your PC directly to your cable/dsl modem for a week or two. And don't bother running A/V software: remember that Windows is secure! :D

cwt1nospam

Jun 15, 2008, 09:11 AM

Take a chill pill.
Clever retort. :eek:
I bow to your infinite wisdom.

Tosser

Jun 15, 2008, 09:29 AM

Clever retort. :eek:
I bow to your infinite wisdom.

Frankly, there wasn't much to "retort" to. Nonsense is nonsense, and you merely made some riduculous statements.

martychang

Jun 15, 2008, 09:34 AM

What's with all the hating on cwt1nospam? Even as an IT Student/Intern, I see exactly what he's talking about, although I'd probably put it in gentler terms.

Maybe not Mac but it's absurd that some form of UNIX or Linux isn't our dominant platform today for IT. Also, Active Directory isn't the only Directory Services system in the world(hardly, Novell, Sun, APPLE, and such all have their own Directory Services), which is 90% of Microsoft's IT power easily.

As for iPhone, I don't think Gartner's general idea is off: the big caveat here is a little known thing about the iPhone: last I checked it runs EVERYTHING AS ROOT. That's Windows-level security right there, find a way to exploit any app, or just tell any app to write a cool file to a cool location without telling the user(which is cool) and you could have full control of the phone without even having to escalate privileges, suddenly you can access all their mail on the phone, amongst anything else you can imagine.

cwt1nospam

Jun 15, 2008, 09:50 AM

Frankly, there wasn't much to "retort" to. Nonsense is nonsense, and you merely made some riduculous statements.

So then you must be running Windows on your personal machine without A/V and directly connected to the internet. How's that going?

Anuba

Jun 15, 2008, 10:03 AM

Really? Try connecting your PC directly to your cable/dsl modem for a week or two. And don't bother running A/V software: remember that Windows is secure! :D
Objection: hearsay. It's evident from your posts that you're a stereotypical brainwashed fanboy who hasn't been near a Windows PC since the 90's.

I haven't used A/V software on any of my PCs for many years and they're online 24/7. About once a year I install an A/V package just for kicks and perform a thorough scan, but it never finds anything. I think you must be confusing 2008 with 1998 -- you know, when Macs were beige? Back in the Win98 days anyone could get a virus without really trying, but today you have to be a moron who either installs tons of cracked software and games with embedded malware, or surfs Ukranian hardcore porn sites and clicks Yes to every shifty popup that appears. A computer savvy PC user who doesn't meddle with files from society's seedy underbelly and who understands basic English sentences like "Do not open executable attachments" doesn't need A/V software for XP, and only suicidal retard jackasses need it for Vista.

Then there's the issue of hackers trying to sneak past your firewall(s), but that's another story... and refresh my memory again, which platform was it that was hacked in under 30 minutes this January? I seem to recall the phrases "Gaining root access to a Mac is easy pickings" and "this poor little Mac was owned and this page got defaced"...

Tosser

Jun 15, 2008, 10:22 AM

So then you must be running Windows on your personal machine without A/V and directly connected to the internet. How's that going?

Please stop with the strawman argumentation. :rolleyes:

cwt1nospam

Jun 15, 2008, 11:08 AM

Objection: hearsay. It's evident from your posts that you're a stereotypical brainwashed fanboy who hasn't been near a Windows PC since the 90's.

I haven't used A/V software on any of my PCs for many years and they're online 24/7. About once a year I install an A/V package just for kicks and perform a thorough scan, but it never finds anything. I think you must be confusing 2008 with 1998 -- you know, when Macs were beige? Back in the Win98 days anyone could get a virus without really trying, but today you have to be a moron who either installs tons of cracked software and games with embedded malware, or surfs Ukranian hardcore porn sites and clicks Yes to every shifty popup that appears. A computer savvy PC user who doesn't meddle with files from society's seedy underbelly and who understands basic English sentences like "Do not open executable attachments" doesn't need A/V software for XP, and only suicidal retard jackasses need it for Vista.

Then there's the issue of hackers trying to sneak past your firewall(s), but that's another story... and refresh my memory again, which platform was it that was hacked in under 30 minutes this January? I seem to recall the phrases "Gaining root access to a Mac is easy pickings" and "this poor little Mac was owned and this page got defaced"...
So all that spam (90+% of email) must be coming from owned Macs then, right? :rolleyes:

You can't ignore the facts: there are today, millions of infected PCs. If you're right in claiming that only morons get infected, then there must be millions of morons who own PCs and none who own Macs.

cwt1nospam

Jun 15, 2008, 11:41 AM

Please stop with the strawman argumentation. :rolleyes:
What straw man? If Windows is secure, then it doesn't need to hide behind routers, firewalls, and A/V software. If it isn't secure, then it does need them.

Andrew Henry

Jun 15, 2008, 11:56 AM

What straw man? If Windows is secure, then it doesn't need to hide behind routers, firewalls, and A/V software. If it isn't secure, then it does need them.

I normally don't reply on here to stupid posts, but you're on a role.

You do realize that if OS X had the market share that Windows does, then the "hackers" would shift their focus from Windows to OS X, OS X is not anymore secure than Windows, it only appears that way because no one cares enough to exploit OS X on a mass scale because the market share isn't there.

Once OS X reaches "critical mass" you will start seeing more and more security holes exploited by hackers. So stop drinking the kool-aid and realize that OS X is a blip on the screen compared to Windows, (not to say that it's market share isn't growing rapidly) and that once enough people start using it, it will start becoming a target, just like Windows has and it will suffer from many of the same problems. (ie: security holes, viruses, etc. etc.)

avigalante

Jun 15, 2008, 12:05 PM

As for old sofware, we're in a new era now, and if your software depends on Windows you're not going to be competitive for much longer.

Competitive... what?

It seems as though you have a misunderstanding. Regardless of old software/hardware, the primary goal of running a successful business is to cut costs, not to add costs for simply being on the bleeding edge of technology.

Remember, efficiency is key; if I am running Windows XP, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Reuters and IE -- typical software that is running on any given computer in the financial world -- in all an efficient manner, then there's no need to upgrade. Why add costs when I am equally efficient with the technology at hand?

cwt1nospam

Jun 15, 2008, 12:13 PM

Competitive... what?

It seems as though you have a misunderstanding. Regardless of old software/hardware, the primary goal of running a successful business is to cut costs, not to add costs for simply being on the bleeding edge of technology.

Remember, efficiency is key; if I am running Windows XP, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Reuters and IE -- typical software that is running on any given computer in the financial world -- in all an efficient manner, then there's no need to upgrade. Why add costs when I am equally efficient with the technology at hand?
This may come as a surprise to you, but the iPhone is actually a computer that can make phone calls, not just a phone that can play mp3 files. The new era we've entered is truly mobile computing, and Windows can't compete. You stick with your Windows box, but don't be surprised to wake up in a couple of years and find that the world around you has changed.

I normally don't reply on here to stupid posts, but you're on a role.

You do realize that if OS X had the market share that Windows does, then the "hackers" would shift their focus from Windows to OS X, OS X is not anymore secure than Windows, it only appears that way because no one cares enough to exploit OS X on a mass scale because the market share isn't there.
OMG! Not another believer in the market share myth! That's been disproved many, many times. Do a little research.

avigalante

Jun 15, 2008, 12:25 PM

chagla

Jun 15, 2008, 01:11 PM

The only thing anyone ever does with a Windows Mobile device is check email because god knows it cannot do much more than that.

AND I totally welcome having Apple products at work...it will make my job easier and I can actually focus on solving bigger problems than battling little fires all day because Windows systems suck.
well..you can... use the most primitive function copy/paste on windows mobile unlike the most advanced smartest phone on the planet. !

relating your argument with some other folks here, so everything apple would "just work". which implies you would have no jobs! because they don't need maintainance like windows do? because they won't break like windows? rite?

a bad workman blames his tools. ;)

Rodimus Prime

Jun 15, 2008, 02:33 PM

And once again for the IT cult: It isn't about you. The company buys computers to run its business, NOT to make things easier for IT.

Really? Try connecting your PC directly to your cable/dsl modem for a week or two. And don't bother running A/V software: remember that Windows is secure! :D

well lets see the fact that I do run a A/V software and yes I sit behind a router out of the fact I have multiple things hook up to the internet make it a requirement. But I can not remember the last time my AV software pick up something. The last time the AV software pick something up was a file I suspected was a virus when I first saw it and ran a on the file.

Oh and this does include my computer being on a college dorm network with had known problems with viruses on it. I had my computer hook directly to the school network for months with out a firewall and still ZERO things....

OMG you must be one of those people you belive windows is crap... when in reality a upto date Windows XP computer really is not that bad. I love the false lies some people put out.
OMG! Not another believer in the market share myth! That's been disproved many, many times. Do a little research.

It has not been fully disproven. Is OSX security better yes. But at the same time it is below critical mass. OSX market share is still low enough to where the exponinal growth of attacks has not kick off yet. Until that point it will be fewer and father between.

But this is impossible for a fanboys to understand because they are to blinded to anything that makes apple look anything less than perfect.

cwt1nospam

Jun 15, 2008, 03:39 PM

OMG you must be one of those people you belive windows is crap... when in reality a upto date Windows XP computer really is not that bad.
I believe that spam comes from somewhere. It doesn't just appear out of the ether. I also believe that most (if not ALL) of the spam that is filtered at great expense, and that gets through to our inboxes comes from PCs just like yours. Those PCs are infected, yet their owners are completely unaware. Many will say that they run A/V software, just like you. So much for Windows proving that it's secure.
It has not been fully disproven. Is OSX security better yes. But at the same time it is below critical mass. OSX market share is still low enough to where the exponinal growth of attacks has not kick off yet. Until that point it will be fewer and father between.
Yes it has. It's statistically impossible for the market share myth to work. There are zero Mac viruses at a time when there are viruses for platforms with significantly lower market share.

chagla

Jun 15, 2008, 04:09 PM

Yes it has. It's statistically impossible for the market share myth to work. There are zero Mac viruses at a time when there are viruses for platforms with significantly lower market share. on the contrary, its a directly proportional relationship. i'll explain this to you in simplest terms okay. so ipods are dominating mp3 players in the us, and look at how many products, accessories you have for the ipods? tell me it has nothing to do with market share, or its just a "myth"?

i'm saying if creative mp3 players were as dominant as ipods, creative would have just as many accessories, add ons for them. since that's not the case, then tell me why ipods have them and not creative? its a simple argument and i'm sure you are capable of following simple logic. there are some sites for which Firefox browser blocked the popups for me previously, and guess what? firefox doesn't block them anymore! its because they saw more people are using FF, so they programmed it differently. now I'm using Opera for my browsing.

there is nothing about osx that makes it more secure than other systems. you give me physical access to a mac, i'll be running as an administrator in two minutes, i won't need anything else, no usb, no special boot cds. for windows however, it adds few conditions. i might need my special usb drive, or boot cd and even then i'll have to know whethere there's a BIOS password which would prvent me from booting from a disc and so on. it can also be done on linux machine which is also as tedious as windows. but mac is the easiest to get in to.

so its the most secure? you do know about the recent hack contest where they broke into the osx system first eh?

also when you make a claim, back up with facts. i'm saying your claim of 0 virus for mac is a 'myth'.
http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/02/macosxleap.html

http://www.macrumors.com/2006/02/16/the-first-mac-os-x-virus-a-new-os-x-trojan/

Tosser

Jun 15, 2008, 04:24 PM

This may come as a surprise to you, but the iPhone is actually a computer that can make phone calls, not just a phone that can play mp3 files

We know. The term you're looking for is "smart phone", although it's not really the quintessens of the category.
Did you also know that smartphones are in use most every in the business world? The mere thought that the iPhone is somehow "revolutionary" is laughable at best.

The new era we've entered is truly mobile computing, and Windows can't compete.
There is no "new era".
Smartphones, wi-fi equipped pda's and small form-factor computers are being used and have been used for years in the business world as well the creative industries. Also, you might want to take a look at how windows is on many, many business pdas. They're there for a reason.
How's that copy/pasting going for you? Tethering? Not possible on that lowest common-denominator pseudo-smart phone you call iPhone? Thought so.

You stick with your Windows box, but don't be surprised to wake up in a couple of years and find that the world around you has changed.

What's funny, is that windows is only on some static beige PC, and that mobile computing is something new.
First of all, its obviously not just on static beige boxes, and secondly, not every job is done best on some idiotic small form factor-phone: Big spread sheets, writing (as in real writing, such as reports, articles and so forth), editing audio and video, web page layouts, and on and on.
Of course, there's also the fact, that although you call it "mobile computing", besides checking a website, how much are you actually "computing" while on the move? Not much. I bet you're sitting down as you read this, or at least when you're writing your reply.

I believe that spam comes from somewhere. It doesn't just appear out of the ether. I also believe that most (if not ALL) of the spam that is filtered at great expense, and that gets through to our inboxes comes from PCs just like yours. Those PCs are infected, yet their owners are completely unaware. Many will say that they run A/V software, just like you. So much for Windows proving that it's secure.

You suggested earlier that in order to prove that windows is okay and safe, one would have to run it without A/V and to me, most importantly: without Firewall. Now, I ask you, who the ef in their right mind would run _any_ computer, especially in a business environment without firewall?

Rodimus Prime

Jun 15, 2008, 04:28 PM

I believe that spam comes from somewhere. It doesn't just appear out of the ether. I also believe that most (if not ALL) of the spam that is filtered at great expense, and that gets through to our inboxes comes from PCs just like yours. Those PCs are infected, yet their owners are completely unaware. Many will say that they run A/V software, just like you. So much for Windows proving that it's secure.

I happen to know it is not mine. Most of that spam you say that is coming from infect PC is not true. Most of it is coming from Spam farms with massive amounts of servers that is all they do. And a lot of them are off in another country.

As for your other argument the Zero mac virus one. I think the guy below your post explain the false hood in the zero arugment.

When apple hits critical mass it will start happening.

cwt1nospam

Jun 15, 2008, 04:42 PM

also when you make a claim, back up with facts. i'm saying your claim of 0 virus for mac is a 'myth'.
http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/02/macosxleap.html

http://www.macrumors.com/2006/02/16/the-first-mac-os-x-virus-a-new-os-x-trojan/
Take your own advice: Don't try to claim that there are OS X viruses and then show us a couple of pitiful Trojans, that never could manage to spread, even beyond a LAN!
There is no "new era".
LOL! The hardware doesn't make it a new era. The fact that the iPhone is about to become a viable platform does. In the next few months there will be more third party software available for the iPhone than there was for the original PC for the first few years.
Not much. I bet you're sitting down as you read this, or at least when you're writing your reply.Sometimes I am sitting.
You suggested earlier that in order to prove that windows is okay and safe, one would have to run it without A/V and to me, most importantly: without Firewall. Now, I ask you, who the ef in their right mind would run _any_ computer, especially in a business environment without firewall?All a firewall does is block access to that computer. You can make anything safe if you do that, even Windows. That doesn't mean that Windows is secure.

Firewalls create a false sense of security because in order to actually communicate the outside world, you need to poke holes in the firewalls. Then, if you're using a highly vulnerable OS, you're still highly vulnerable.

I happen to know it is not mine.
Sure you do. :rolleyes:

Andrew Henry

Jun 15, 2008, 04:47 PM

This may come as a surprise to you, but the iPhone is actually a computer that can make phone calls, not just a phone that can play mp3 files. The new era we've entered is truly mobile computing, and Windows can't compete. You stick with your Windows box, but don't be surprised to wake up in a couple of years and find that the world around you has changed.

OMG! Not another believer in the market share myth! That's been disproved many, many times. Do a little research.

Disproved huh? Why don't you pull your head out of the sand and look around you, there is a whole world outside of the Apple Fanboy club, so when you would like to back up your statement with cold hard facts, please go ahead.

Also one more thing: I never said "viruses", I said EXPLOITS, there are tons of holes in every operating system, just waiting to be exploited. I could have swore that OS X was the first OS exploited (in only a few minutes none the less), and I don't want to hear any b.s. about how it wasn't fair because they could instruct the user to do things, that's generally how it works, user error, regardless of the OS used.

avigalante

Jun 15, 2008, 04:48 PM

Zero security issues? Um, do you forget that the MacBook Air was hacked in less than 10 minutes?

Article link here (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9905095-37.html)

While I admire Apple products and absolutely love the software (I would not be a forum member on MACrumors.com if I didn't actually like Macs), I tend to critically analyze the issue as opposed to accepting an outrageous claim (e.g. "Macs have zero security issues"). Your claims and assertions are devoid of actual realism; please pull your head out of that .

"New era" - what "new era"? As another forum member said, we've been mobile computing for ages.

BTW - there is a such thing as "critical mass" in finance it's called the law of "large numbers".

Blue Velvet

Jun 15, 2008, 04:49 PM

Mod's note: Could we please just dial the personal comments back a notch, thanks.

Tosser

Jun 15, 2008, 05:00 PM

LOL! The hardware doesn't make it a new era. The fact that the iPhone is about to become a viable platform does.

Ah, yes. A viably platform. It can't even tether, nor copy/paste, receive an SMS or be used as drive (Disk Mode).
Also, and this is a problem with all smartphones and pda's: Its small form factor is problem, even though you deny this about the hardware.
Another problem with that "viable platform" you think it is: It's one (as in "a single") product, from one manufacturer-cum-designer. But that's not all, the company that sells these things will have the final word on what will be able to be run on these things. So even if you hack the heck out of it to be able to run that certain proprietary app your company uses, Apple might screw that app next "security update". Sure sounds like a "viable platform" to me :rolleyes:

In the next few months there will be more third party software available for the iPhone than there was for the original PC for the first few years.
Ah, yes. And how many of those will _not_ be a lowest common denominator-app? Take a look at the Associated Press-app: What a piece of junk. You'd be much better of running any of these:
www.luci.eu.

Sometimes I am sitting.

Sure it's just "sometimes" :rolleyes: You're one of the few people that can edit audio, video, photos, can write a business report, make a keynote, write an article and everything else literally on the go. Don't make me laugh.

All a firewall does is block access to that computer. You can make anything safe if you do that, even Windows. That doesn't mean that Windows is secure.

Firewalls create a false sense of security because in order to actually communicate the outside world, you need to poke holes in the firewalls. Then, if you're using a highly vulnerable OS, you're still highly vulnerable.

My point is, that no matter how fanboyish you are, you'd be an idjit to _not_ run a firewall on OS X.

Eraserhead

Jun 15, 2008, 05:02 PM

My point is, that no matter how fanboyish you are, you'd be an idjit to _not_ run a firewall on OS X.

You only need to run a firewall if you actually run services, otherwise its a waste of time and is just something else that can be hacked.

cwt1nospam

Jun 15, 2008, 05:29 PM

You only need to run a firewall if you actually run services, otherwise its a waste of time and is just something else that can be hacked.

And if you run services, you need to open the ports needed. The firewall is then useless for those ports! Anyway you look at it, a firewall is a waste.

Edit: Posted while standing. Actually, while waiting for the wife to finish shopping at TJ Maxx.

chagla

Jun 15, 2008, 05:42 PM

I will never understand this phenonmenon of apple fanboys trying to defend it so blindly! no matter what, apple can't be at fault. no sire. even remotely suggesting osx or iphone can be or should be improved on security seems to generate a lot of resentment among the "fans". why? what exactly does this article say about iphone? read it! a lot of blogs, sites, posts, articles use condiscending tones when talking about windows but rarely they generate this much anger and hate.

my god, even the worst windows fanboy is far from this behaviour. i have seen both of them, and generally windows crowd seems to be more calm, more acceptable of others, and is very cool with people who use other operatings systems. mac user on the other hand, as soon as you reveal you are not one, my god, they'll look down upon you as if you're from a different planet, that they are somehow elevated from the rest of us using win/lin etc. i use win/lin at home, mac at work and i do see how each can improve, can be changed or how i would prefer. in fact, if managed well and intelligently, windows is pretty stable and secure.

having said that, i'm just tired. i just give up. i'm a pacifist. so lets utter the followings:

macs are the best thing since sliced bread. i hope they take over the world and dump windows and mr gates in Atlantic. and mr jobs is recognized as a prophet. *bows*

peace!

Tosser

Jun 15, 2008, 05:43 PM

And if you run services, you need to open the ports needed. The firewall is then useless for those ports! Anyway you look at it, a firewall is a waste.
Ah, yes, in the same way that some motorcyclists are killed even when wearing a helmet, so by extension a helmet is useless.

Edit: Posted while standing. Actually, while waiting for the wife to finish shopping at TJ Maxx.
Good for you. I take it that these small posts are what you get paid to do, and that its similar to actually working in a business.

As I said, youtube isn't akin to working either, so unless you think that that small post of yours is akin to photoshopping, layouting, audio/video/image editing, writing a thesis or a business report, writing an article, doing reasearch, running quark through VPN to layout your pages in the paper, FTP'ing your files and so on, your little post really doesn't back up your argument even a little bit.

Edit: Chagla, I'm typing this on my MBP, so please do not confuse "Mac users" with fanboys like cwt. Just saying :p

sushi

Jun 16, 2008, 01:38 AM

And once again for the IT cult: It isn't about you. The company buys computers to run its business, NOT to make things easier for IT.
Yes, the end user is why all IT folks exist. That much is certain.

IT is responsible to create an environment that works for and supports the end user. So IT having tools available for the platform helps does it not? This is one area that I wish Apple would improve upon. I am sure they could come up with something nice and effective. Their remote desktop is a great start, but there needs to be more.

Really? Try connecting your PC directly to your cable/dsl modem for a week or two. And don't bother running A/V software: remember that Windows is secure! :D
Running an unprotected Mac or PC is not wise these days. In addition to the virus/Trojan/worm issues, hackers are always a threat. And remember, just because current virus are not a threat to the Mac, they can still pass them along to our PC using friends.

As for connecting to a Cable/ADSL/DSL/FTTH modem, most installations require a computer to communicate with a server, printer, etc. So you are going to have a router of some sort. For a small business or home installation, a cheap $50 router will suffice.

Bottom line, as much as we Mac lovers and users would like to see change, there is a company called Microsoft who has created many of the corporate standards that are out there today. The more Apple complies with those standards the better. Like it or not, Microsoft is still the 900 pound gorilla on the block.

Michael CM1

Jun 16, 2008, 03:55 AM

"If you have two platforms, a PC and a handheld, one of which has years of improvements in security and is very mature, against one that is barely a year old, you are only going to be as secure as the second piece of hardware."

Oh yes, because Windows has proven itself time and time again to be a heavenly example of security. Are you ****ing kidding me?

And I'm sorry, but it sounds like they're assuming the ****ing PC weenie that works in these corporation's IT departments are the ones that are going to be vetting the security of the iPhone? I wouldn't trust people working in corporate IT departments to setup Outlook correctly, let alone trying to find vulnerabilities in a device and its software from end-to-end.

That pretty much sums it up. Our e-mail at work loves to go down a lot, which is really annoying considering how sound you figure the technology should be. I guess we run Exchange server, but I'm not sure. The entire corporate world running e-mail of a Microsoft product kind of explains a lot.

I get their comment about the iPhone being untested, but I laughed a ton at the insinuation that Windows anything is supposedly secure. The mention of the lack of anti-virus apps was quite cute. Sounds like someone stuck in a PC culture that can't wrap his head around not needing 15 different apps to secure an operating system.

This definitely sounds like an uber-nerd warning. For some reason I spent a year of my life learning how to use Cisco routers. As I look back on it, I don't know why I thought I'd learn how to do something that uses command-line entry. There's no reason Cisco at the very least couldn't run a Browser-based interface. For the generation of people now who literally won't remember DOS, I don't get how they're going to learn how to use something so outdated.

martychang

Jun 16, 2008, 06:24 AM

-snip- This definitely sounds like an uber-nerd warning. For some reason I spent a year of my life learning how to use Cisco routers. As I look back on it, I don't know why I thought I'd learn how to do something that uses command-line entry. There's no reason Cisco at the very least couldn't run a Browser-based interface. For the generation of people now who literally won't remember DOS, I don't get how they're going to learn how to use something so outdated.

I can only assume that's because you aren't from the generation that doesn't remember DOS. My first real OS was Windows ME, then XP, then Debian Linux, now Mac. I still find the Command Line preferable for most tasks. Obviously the GUI gives us a wider ability to display web content, and allows us to watch videos and view photos on our computers, but the vast majority of tasks simply don't need it. Even 3D games can just launch their own environment after being called forth form a CLI.

The fact is on a system which needs maximum security, and doesn't need frequent user interaction(i.e. Server, Switch, Router) it's unjustifiable to have the increased attack surface and system complexity inherent in adding a GUI.

I am pretty proficient with Cisco IOS routers, and there wasn't a single thing hard about it, attempting my CCENT soon, then going for the second test for the CCNA probably by the end of the year. Just because we didn't grow up around DOS doesn't mean our brains are eroded.

Also on that topic, certain models of Cisco Routers and Switches do have a GUI available in the form of Cisco SDM(Security Device Manager), and it is accessed through the browser, delivered via Java. They don't give you EVERY option but it lets you click wizard through initial router/switch setup, and most common options.

cwt1nospam

Jun 16, 2008, 10:46 AM

IT is responsible to create an environment that works for and supports the end user. So IT having tools available for the platform helps does it not? This is one area that I wish Apple would improve upon. I am sure they could come up with something nice and effective. Their remote desktop is a great start, but there needs to be more.
On the surface, this would seem reasonable. The problem is that IT settled on Windows long before any tools were available. If IT were to settle on any other platform, including the Mac or Linux, those tools would be available very quickly. This argument is a red herring.
And remember, just because current virus are not a threat to the Mac, they can still pass them along to our PC using friends.Don't believe in the Free Market? What about Darwinism? Let the strong survive. If I pass a PC virus on to a PC user and they don't have the proper protection, that's their fault.
As for connecting to a Cable/ADSL/DSL/FTTH modem, most installations require a computer to communicate with a server, printer, etc. So you are going to have a router of some sort. For a small business or home installation, a cheap $50 router will suffice.

The point was NOT about the router or AV software. The point was that you cannot claim that Windows is secure because you've got it behind a router or because you're using Antivirus software. That's like claiming that your house is secure because you've hired 24 hour security guards. Sure, the added security means that the house is unlikely to be robbed, but the house itself is not secure. The doors & windows for example, are still easy targets.

One more thing: I like my Mac, so I suppose you could say that I'm a fan, but if there were no Macs, I wouldn't use Windows. I'd use Linux or some other variation of Unix. Windows is the least secure, most cumbersome system out there, and the fact that IT is so hell bent on keeping it as the primary operating system is strong evidence that it is not in the users best interest to support it.

Tosser

Jun 16, 2008, 11:13 AM

If I pass a PC virus on to a PC user and they don't have the proper protection, that's their fault.
Is that what you believe, or is that what you pretend we believe?

Windows is the least secure, most cumbersome system out there, and the fact that IT is so hell bent on keeping it as the primary operating system is strong evidence that it is not in the users best interest to support it.

Wow, that's backwards. So, your argument is that because pros in a given niche want to keep something, that somehow means that users should shun it? That it must be bad?

cwt1nospam

Jun 16, 2008, 03:37 PM

Wow, that's backwards. So, your argument is that because pros in a given niche want to keep something, that somehow means that users should shun it? That it must be bad?
I've worked with those pros. I've seen their attitude towards users and other departments. I've seen those pros deliberately leave systems sitting on a bench for weeks, all the while giving users lame excuses why it isn't fixed yet, just to assert their authority. This was not at one or two companies, either. Yes, it must be bad if they want it, especially if they want it to the exclusion of all other choices.

Tosser

Jun 16, 2008, 03:46 PM

I've worked with those pros. I've seen their attitude towards users and other departments. I've seen those pros deliberately leave systems sitting on a bench for weeks, all the while giving users lame excuses why it isn't fixed yet, just to assert their authority. This was not at one or two companies, either. Yes, it must be bad if they want it, especially if they want it to the exclusion of all other choices.

Despite the wordiness of that post, apparently you continue to argue that because pros (as in "people who know their stuff and make a living knowing their stuff") choose A, end-users will be better off choosing B. :rolleyes:

cwt1nospam

Jun 16, 2008, 04:47 PM

Tosser

Jun 16, 2008, 04:57 PM

No. I'm arguing that IT is less professional than other professions, and so less deserving of respect. Because IT is less professional, it puts its needs above both the company and the users, making its choices frequently the opposite of what is needed by the company and the users.

Ah, so because you have been unfortunate enough to stumble upon some "unprofessional" IT-people, then the entire industri must be out of whack, and therefore it's wise to make the exact opposite just of the "unprofessionals". Frankly, that is like saying that because some poor drivers drive very slowly, it's a wise move to do the exact opposite: Drive as a bolt of lightning in any and all circumstances.
What I am saying is, that you merely going in any other direction than those "unproffesionals" doesn't make you a "professional" or smarter than them. You're still basing your "decision making" on their choices, and not on need and/or research/knowledge. Well, you do base it on their knowledge, you just choose to do the exact opposite.

To me, it resembles a kid that dislikes one particular adult. And because of that, he does the exact opposite, for the sole reason of doing the opposite. Now, that adult says it's a really bad choice not putting your seatbelt on, and whatta you know: The kid decides to not wear a seatbelt. That's certainly one helluva smart kid, methinks.

(Yes, yes, it's wordy too, but it somehow seems necessary to spell it out).

cwt1nospam

Jun 16, 2008, 05:02 PM

Twist it any way you need to make yourself feel better. The fact is that IT has a poor reputation just about everywhere, and that reputation gets worse as PC users switch their home machines, only to wonder why they hadn't done it sooner. It's hard to listen to your IT guy after finding out that he's been foisting an inferior product on you for decades.

Edit: Oh, and for any IT types wondering if your influence can slow the onrush of the iPhone, no it can't: http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23874036-5013040,00.html

Anuba

Jun 16, 2008, 07:34 PM

So all that spam (90+% of email) must be coming from owned Macs then, right? :rolleyes:

You can't ignore the facts: there are today, millions of infected PCs. If you're right in claiming that only morons get infected, then there must be millions of morons who own PCs and none who own Macs.
Didn't I tell you to snap out of 1998? You have absolutely no grasp of what Windows security is like today and how it has evolved over Win2K, XP, XP-SP1, XP-SP2, XP-SP3 and Vista -- if you did, you wouldn't be using outdated Windows hater rhetoric from the frickin' 90's.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the iPhone is actually a computer that can make phone calls, not just a phone that can play mp3 files. The new era we've entered is truly mobile computing, and Windows can't compete. You stick with your Windows box, but don't be surprised to wake up in a couple of years and find that the world around you has changed.
Yeah, 'cause it's not like Apple discovered smartphones AFTER everyone else, right? It's not like Windows Mobile, tablet PCs and ultraportables have existed for years, huh?

Twist it any way you need to make yourself feel better. The fact is that IT has a poor reputation just about everywhere, and that reputation gets worse as PC users switch their home machines, only to wonder why they hadn't done it sooner. It's hard to listen to your IT guy after finding out that he's been foisting an inferior product on you for decades.
80% of the world's PC users have never met an "IT guy". You're off your rocker if you think the main path to Windows is that some dude at work forces you to use it. Personally I was introduced to Macs by the IT guy at my first job, after 4 years as a PC home user. At multimedia agencies you tend to use both platforms, and we were all given the option to choose Mac or PC as our principal platform. Out of the 50 of us, about 30 took the PC route and 20 went for Mac. Without anyone pushing us in either direction.

Using Macs on and off over the last decade has never once made me consider switching anything. I have three PCs and three Macs in my home-slash-office, two of each are in use and one of each are collecting dust on a shelf. I use PC when I feel like it, and a Mac when I feel like it. Both platforms have their pros and cons. If you somehow thought that PC users upon their first encounter with a Mac will go "oooooh, this is so blissfully, unbelievably wonderful, I've seen the light, I'm born again!", I hate to break it to you but... no, we don't. It's about as uneventful as moving from a Volvo to a Saab. The ignition is in a different place, some buttons are differently arranged, the Saab is more stylish but the Volvo has a bigger trunk, but in the end they both take you from A to B and that's about all there is to it.

Rodimus Prime

Jun 16, 2008, 07:51 PM

I've worked with those pros. I've seen their attitude towards users and other departments. I've seen those pros deliberately leave systems sitting on a bench for weeks, all the while giving users lame excuses why it isn't fixed yet, just to assert their authority. This was not at one or two companies, either. Yes, it must be bad if they want it, especially if they want it to the exclusion of all other choices.

I am just going say you seem full of it and I am having a hard time believing anything you are saying any more and I know I am not the only one thinking it. Stop while you are head because you been just making you case worse and worse

Your post after post you say crap like this but yet when it comes down to the facts that you post I think even some of the bigger mac fans here have called you it and said in no certain words you where full of it.

Sorry but some one had to say it.........

Tosser

Jun 17, 2008, 12:45 AM

Twist it any way you need to make yourself feel better.

LOL, I'm not twisting anything. On the contrary, I am showing you how you debate, and what sort of pseudo-argumentation you use.

The fact is that IT has a poor reputation just about everywhere, and that reputation gets worse as PC users switch their home machines, only to wonder why they hadn't done it sooner.
Oh, you're getting better and better. No, that's not a fact at all.

In fact, I personally use windows at work, and a mac for work at home. But, again personally, this MBP I'm writing this on will be my last Apple in the foreseeable future because of the lack of quality control and buggy software Apple have shipped to their customers in the last few years.
Besides, personally, I have stumbled upon many competent IT-people.

It's hard to listen to your IT guy after finding out that he's been foisting an inferior product on you for decades.

LOL, ah yes. The first encounter people have with a computer is when they get a job and are told be an IT-departement "You have to own a PC" :rolleyes:

Btw, I once went (for a little while) to the Danish School of Journalism. They had all Macs. Or, rather, they had hundreds and hundreds of Macs and under ten PCs. You might think that was an excellent choice, but the reality is, that the IT-people had plenty to do, and when Apple discontinued the E-Macs, all of sudden they had a much bigger outlay on their hands when they needed to update their computers. Not to mention, that the buggy software Apple spat out wrecked havoc on the (audio/video/image) editing software and many of the computers.

Frankly, there are many reasons for not choosing Macs in a commercial outfit - not buying into a vertical monopoly is one of them.

Edit: Oh, and for any IT types wondering if your influence can slow the onrush of the iPhone, no it can't: http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23874036-5013040,00.html

:rolleyes:

cwt1nospam

Jun 17, 2008, 07:33 AM

I give up. You guys are right. After all, it's not like there are botnets of Windows PCs (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2008-03-16-computer-botnets_N.htm) flooding the internet with spam. No, those are coming from iPhones. And IT always chooses the best system for the job. After all, if a system is best for 90% of tasks, then its probability of being best for all tasks goes up, not down: (.9)^n where n is the number of tasks is greater than .9, isn't it? It really is Apple's fault that viruses have been a plague over the last ten years. If only Apple had set up some sort of user level permissions in their OS, say 8 years ago, and had been willing to break with the mistakes of the past, we wouldn't have had to deal with antivirus software or enormous amounts of spam. And we all know it's much better to buy from an all encompassing monopoly than a vertical monopoly. Yes, it's all Apple's fault.
:rolleyes:

Tosser

Jun 17, 2008, 07:46 AM

I give up. You guys are right.

Splendid. It's a shame though, you're only "giving up" rhetorically …

After all, it's not like there are botnets of Windows PCs (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2008-03-16-computer-botnets_N.htm) flooding the internet with spam. No, those are coming from iPhones. And IT always chooses the best system for the job.
Can you hear it yourself? I mean, how stupid that sounds? Do you really think that a PC and a pseudo-smartphone are comparable? Perhaps you ought to look up smartphones, pda's and handheld computers. Then you'll be more likely to do a proper comparison. I guess, though, by your logic, an iPhone would also do better than a server running windows :rolleyes:

After all, if a system is best for 90% of tasks, then its probability of being best for all tasks goes up, not down: (.9)^n where n is the number of tasks is greater than .9, isn't it? It really is Apple's fault that viruses have been a plague over the last ten years. If only Apple had set up some sort of user level permissions in their OS, say 8 years ago, and had been willing to break with the mistakes of the past, we wouldn't have had to deal with antivirus software or enormous amounts of spam.
You seriously cannot be for real. You logic is out of this world, and it's even worse when you try on a bit of sarcasm.

And we all know it's much better to buy from an all encompassing monopoly than a vertical monopoly.
All encompassing? The problem is, that the hardware on the pc-side of things aren't a monopoly, whereas it is, if you want to run OS X in a business. And as such, if I were to run Microsoft, it wouldn't enclude being tied in to the hardware ON-TOP of the software.

Yes, it's all Apple's fault.

Sarcasm from you is really misplaced.

:rolleyes:

I agree.

cwt1nospam

Jun 17, 2008, 08:17 AM

I guess, though, by your logic, an iPhone would also do better than a server running windows :rolleyes:
My long dead grand parents would do better than a server running Windows.

You certainly are a Tosser. Write in when actually do get a Macintosh.

Tosser

Jun 17, 2008, 08:27 AM

My long dead grand parents would do better than a server running Windows.
I figured you were a fanboy to that extend. I'm really not that surprised.

You certainly are a Tosser.
Frankly, fourth graders shouldn't be allowed to come here. You really ought to pull yourself together and come up with something better than juvenile name-calling.

Write in when actually do get a Macintosh.
I see. So because I'm not a horrendously blind fanboy my 18-19 years on the Macintosh suddenly doesn't exist.

It's no bloody wonder many people think that mac-users are ignorant and part of a cult. Even the fanboys think that one cannot be a macuser without acting as ridiculous as themselves. :o