Replies

When will there be enough people who have switched, 99.9% of whom go bare naked without any anti-malware software on their Macs, before we start getting those hackers writing the malware for the 110 million vulnerable Macs out there in the wild?

I was on the net when there where only 8 million between the US and Canada. I was a charter member of many computer forums and have focused on race-horse rigs while observing Apple use its boat anchor hardware and proprietary software to con customers up to about the #4 computer maker in 1996. Since then it became a boutique computer business whose best claim was that their crap didn't crash.

Now they want to go low end attempting to get their special sauce software on as many unsuspecting numbnut's computers as possible. Capitalism baby! I'm all for it.

To be trendy and polite, Apple has always run a closed ecosystem. They have been financially successful. The big question will be whether big corporations will let the vampire into its network.

I am not in this forum to answer an overtly stupid shill-for-Mac question. There are roughly 1.5 billion users of Windows worldwide. There is as much justification to hack a Mac as there is to answer your question: Mac is so zero as to reach singularity.

Now they want to go low end attempting to get their special sauce software on as many unsuspecting numbnut's computers as possible.

And you just demonstrated your total ignorance of the Mac platform. Apple has zero interest in the low end.

The OS X is a fully POSIX compliant UNIX™ Operating System with a shell on top of it. My primary business Mac ran NINE simultaneously running operating systems, Lagemeister, including three different versions of Windows, and two of Linux. I am not the only Mac user on FR to do that! Macs are hardly "boat anchors."

IBM, #31 on the Fortune 500 largest companies in the world is going to almost all Mac within three years, yet you denigrate the platform as a vampire, after that company tells the world that using them is saving them $270 a year per computer in IT costs! IBM adds that 73% of their employees who are seeing the productivity INCREASES their Mac using coworkers are experiencing after switching are asking for an upgrade to a Mac at their next opportunity for a new computer. Yet you imply IBM is an unsuspecting numbnut? I propose that the ignorant numbnut in this equation given the set of facts at hand is not IBM --who is now saving somewhere between $24 million and $48 million on the TCO of the current Macs they have, and will save a lot more when they give those 73% what they want--but rather that numbnut is you!