Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The front page article makes a misleading statement:



Which makes it sound like Safari's market share was higher at some point before August 2007. Maybe it was, but since August 2007 was the first month for which they provide statistics, it shouldn't be called "a low."

Or maybe I'm just being too picky.

I thought the same thing when I read it.
When was Safari for Windows first introduced?
 
I just never surf the web with Windows. It is messing up the stats.

These "worldwide" figures are essentially US only unfortunately.

The figures clashes with other stats which are more reliable as they source more websites, such as OneStat which give the figure as currently around 3.4%.
 
Yup. Safari is nowhere near as good as FireFox 3 on a PC.

Right. It crashes when visiting some pretty standard web sites (yahoo mail), and it consumes huge quantities of memory. While that may make it much closer to what PC users expect, it has regressed in terms of usability.

If you said firefox 2, on the other hand, you'd have had a leg to stand on...
 
I thought the same thing when I read it.
When was Safari for Windows first introduced?

About a year ago, I believe -- but that doesn't matter much to the point. When Safari was introduced in January 2003 its market share was zero. Anyway, the point was taken -- the wording in front page article was changed.
 
itll get to a point where its a big enough market share, and then enter Virus protection.

Then, we will be just like windows in that regards.

Enjoy it while it lasts, it wont be forever! :(
 
It really surprises me how many people still run Windows. I don't think the Windows Fanboy base is 90%. It would have to be under 5%. I big percentage of that 90% are the lemmings Joe Dell users.

I think you see so many Windows computers is because
  1. They cost less. I can buy a decent $400 Windows desktop or $600 notebook many of these people would prefer a Mac but simply can't afford one
  2. People don't buy new computers very often, maybe only every three to five years. They might even be planning to buy a Mac "next time", in a couple years. few people can justify replacing a working and current model computer
 
itll get to a point where its a big enough market share, and then enter Virus protection.

Then, we will be just like windows in that regards.

Enjoy it while it lasts, it wont be forever! :(

Th reason termite don't eat parking structures is becose there are more wood frame houses to eat. Just wait, as soon as everyone starts building with concrete the termite will eat concrete too. Enjoy it while it lasts, it wont be forever!

The non-techi answer as to why there are no Mac viruses is just that "Macs are made of stuff the Viruses don't like to eat."

The historic answer as to why there are no Mac viruses is that Mac OS X is Unix. Unix was designed from the ground up way back in 1969 with the ide that the computer would have multiple users logged in and using it all at the same time. (computers were very expensive in the 60's and no one would think of letting one person have his own computer. They had to be shared.) So the OS was designed with strong protections so that it was imposable for one user to effect the work of other simultaneously logged in users. In fact that was one stated purpose of the OS - to isolate users from each other. Windows designers, on the other hand assumed there would always be only one user per computer and totally ignored the entire idea of protecting users from each other. And then the Microsoft business model was been "lock-in" and backwards compatibility and any security retrofits had to play well with the business model.
 
The big news: Windows almost under 90

The best part of these numbers is that Windows' steady fall has taken it down to 90.89% of the market. That's still somewhat of a monopoly... but under 90% is not. If they get under 90% (which looks like it could happen in the next few months), then they have lost their grip. No websie will be able to get away with being "Windows-only."

Imagine any business owner refusing to do business with one of every ten potential customers.
 
itll get to a point where its a big enough market share, and then enter Virus protection.
The era of the classic style computer virus is over. These days it's all hidden code inserted into websites that open backdoors onto your machine. The numbers of SQL injection attacks on web servers is going through the roof. That's mostly probing to see where the vulnerabilities are, so that redirection strings can be inserted into legitimate sites that take the unknowing users to trojan download locations. All done in the background and quietly.

Don't rely on anti-virus. The vendors simply can't keep up.
 
Don't rely on anti-virus. The vendors simply can't keep up.
Absolutely. Virus-protection is the spawn of a default-permit programming mentality, where it is OK to program crappy code 'cause someone else will come along and protect it for you. Windows has always been default-insecure, making it too easy for viruses to become downright commonplace.

I have had several Windows users comment to me that my Mac sure seems to make me type in my password a lot, especially if I am trying to install something. I ask them if this is not a good thing, perhaps? ;)
 
If Apple really wants to increase marketshare, it has to do better in 3 major markets: enterprise, gamer, and low-income people. W/ Enterprise, they need a better infrastructure to deal w/ it. For gamers, their graphics cards are awful compared to what PCs have. But w/ Macs using EFI & PCs using BIOS, that's understandable for now. For low-income people, Macs are way too expensive. The only computer they have under $1000 is the Mac Mini, which is like the bastard child and is very underpowered.
 
^^

a) For enterprise the biggest issue is support not the price of a Mac.

b) Hard core gaming (Casual gaming can be done on the Mac) isn't a major market on computers any more.

c) Low-cost PC's may be a big market in terms of numbers but they aren't big in terms of profits.
 
Right. It crashes when visiting some pretty standard web sites (yahoo mail), and it consumes huge quantities of memory. While that may make it much closer to what PC users expect, it has regressed in terms of usability.

If you said firefox 2, on the other hand, you'd have had a leg to stand on...

1) It's faster
2) The awesome bar is, in fact, awesome.
3) As are the extensions.
4) Yahoo Mail? *checks*... nope. Fine here.
5) You really don't have a clue what you're on about do you?
 
In addition, Net Applications reveals that 73% of visitors use Internet Explorer, 19% use Firefox and only 6.3% use Safari. Safari's marketshare, however, has also been on the rise from the lowest recorded figure of 4.71% in August 2007.

Makes sense. Apple has started to really work on the stability and compatibility issues that have prevented Safari from becoming the elite browser it has the potential to be. It still has a few quirks, but gone are the days where you had to keep Firefox on hand because Safari would just not work on some websites.

I think you see so many Windows computers is because
  1. They cost less. I can buy a decent $400 Windows desktop or $600 notebook many of these people would prefer a Mac but simply can't afford one
  2. People don't buy new computers very often, maybe only every three to five years. They might even be planning to buy a Mac "next time", in a couple years. few people can justify replacing a working and current model computer

3. Available in a variety of configurations to suit the exact needs of the user, not just what Apple thinks you need
 
Nice but I wonder how much distortion is due to the announcement of the iPhone 3G and WWDC taking place, events that probably garner significantly more interest from Mac users than PC users?


160 million page views.... I don't think you understood the article. WWDC isn't that big of an event. In fact it is very small. Ask 100 people on the street if they know what it is. chances are 1 might know and 99 won't
 
The historic answer as to why there are no Mac viruses is that Mac OS X is Unix. Unix was designed from the ground up way back in 1969 with the ide that the computer would have multiple users logged in and using it all at the same time. (computers were very expensive in the 60's and no one would think of letting one person have his own computer. They had to be shared.) So the OS was designed with strong protections so that it was imposable for one user to effect the work of other simultaneously logged in users. In fact that was one stated purpose of the OS - to isolate users from each other. Windows designers, on the other hand assumed there would always be only one user per computer and totally ignored the entire idea of protecting users from each other. And then the Microsoft business model was been "lock-in" and backwards compatibility and any security retrofits had to play well with the business model.

While that is true to a point, this is a different world than 1969. OS manufacturers have to be proactive at closing any vulnerabilities prior to someone exploiting them.

So far Apple has been doing a decent job but we should not get complacent about this. We need to complain and complain hard if Apple isn't properly correcting vulnerabilities with updates. We don't want to have the same kind of issues as Windows XP or Widows 98.

Right now Vista is more difficult to hack than OS X. In a hacking contest a few months ago, a vulnerability was found in Safari. To date that vulnerability has not been fixed by Apple. Thats pretty lame if you ask me and it is this attitude of "We are immune to all viruses" by users that will eventually be our downfall. This problem worsens as marketshare increases because it can spread faster through more machines which might happen to come into contact with an infected site.
 
While that is true to a point, this is a different world than 1969. OS manufacturers have to be proactive at closing any vulnerabilities prior to someone exploiting them.

So far Apple has been doing a decent job but we should not get complacent about this. We need to complain and complain hard if Apple isn't properly correcting vulnerabilities with updates. We don't want to have the same kind of issues as Windows XP or Widows 98.

Right now Vista is more difficult to hack than OS X. In a hacking contest a few months ago, a vulnerability was found in Safari. To date that vulnerability has not been fixed by Apple. Thats pretty lame if you ask me and it is this attitude of "We are immune to all viruses" by users that will eventually be our downfall. This problem worsens as marketshare increases because it can spread faster through more machines which might happen to come into contact with an infected site.

Vista is fairly secure, but when talking about absolutes, at least for now, OS X wins. I completely agree with the complaining, though. One thing apple has on their side, to a certain extent, is the open source community. By comparison, windows is entirely proprietary.

On another note, I noticed in October, the "other" operating systems category reached a high of 0.33%, then dropped to a low of .09%, and after grew at +0.01% a month. I wonder why that is; did a "major" alternative-to-the-alternative OS (the other, other white meat :D) stop development, or does that happen every year?
 
But how can Apple be doing so well, when Apple is so e-v-i-l [enter Dr. Evil accent] with its iPhone 3G pricing structure, non-existent tablet computer, and its failure to embrace DRM-free music across the board.
:p
 
But how can Apple be doing so well, when Apple is so e-v-i-l [enter Dr. Evil accent] with its iPhone 3G pricing structure, non-existent tablet computer, and its failure to embrace DRM-free music across the board.
:p

But Apple "wants" DRM-free music, they're just not good at getting record companies to comply.
 
The historic answer as to why there are no Mac viruses is that Mac OS X is Unix. Unix was designed from the ground up way back in 1969 with the ide that the computer would have multiple users logged in and using it all at the same time. (computers were very expensive in the 60's and no one would think of letting one person have his own computer. They had to be shared.) So the OS was designed with strong protections so that it was imposable for one user to effect the work of other simultaneously logged in users. In fact that was one stated purpose of the OS - to isolate users from each other. Windows designers, on the other hand assumed there would always be only one user per computer and totally ignored the entire idea of protecting users from each other. And then the Microsoft business model was been "lock-in" and backwards compatibility and any security retrofits had to play well with the business model.

This is true, but much of it is not applicable for the same reasons you cite. For example, permissions were designed to keep users from destroying the system and other people's data by their stupidity. However, for the individual computer owner his/her own data is all that matters.

A non-privileged user on an osx machine can wreak havoc on a network if it's compromised. Mass mail, botnet, run daemons, launch a ddos, just about every and any "evil" thing we think of viruses/trojans doing. Further, the number one vector is simply getting the user to install your malware. There's nothing about OSX or UNIX that prevents this.

Just last week it was found that ARD has a setuid binary that can be used to run shell scripts via applescript calls as root. Those who play it down claim it's mainly a local exploit, but this is a 1/2 truth. As long as a user is logged in it's fully remote exploitable.

OSX is a bit more immune to vulnerabilities then windows, but it has little to do with its UNIX core and much more to do with one simple policy: all services off by default.

Apple QuickTime contains multiple vulnerabilities as described in the Apple Knowledgebase article HT1991. Exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial-of-service condition.
A vulnerability in the way implementations of SNMPv3 handle specially crafted packets may allow authentication bypass.
The MIT Kerberos implementation contains several vulnerabilities. Exploitation of these vulnerabilities could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary code, compromise the key database or cause a denial of service on a vulnerable system.

That's just from the first 4 or 5 on CERT. It's really an endless list. If attackers turn their eyes toward OSX (a very good day in my book, it means it has become more then a blip on the radar), it will be the same old song we've seen with windows for ages: unpatched systems, ignorant users, apple blunders will all lead to vectors for attack. Only time will tell if it holds up better overall.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.