Apple's Notebook Market Share Doubles!

Just for anyone interested I came across this:

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/07/19.16.shtml

Apparantly, Apple's share in the notebook market has gone from 6% to 12% since January! Great news for Apple and their users!

 

Maybe it's because they abandoned IBM processors and went with Intel. That way, way more people wanted it due to speed.

 

They reported 768,000 notebooks shipped last quarter but they no longer break out the numbers of which model. There's no doubt the 13.3" MacBook is responsible for most of these gains. In a Starbucks in NYC yesterday I counted about 6 in use. Friggin' insane.

 

Go Apple!

It's great news!

Lets just hope Apple keeps to their roots and stay committed to Quality, and keeping that operating system SECURE!

 

Increased marketshare = more viruses.

No?

 

It's been a long time comming.

 

I don't believe you have to be way to concerned about Viruses as much, I'm not saying there isn't ever going to be any, but if there is it sure won't really be because of the operating system, but more just a software exploit, not an OS exploit.

Most people don't see that in OS X, that the Administrator has NO ACCESS whatsoever to change any the main system files, only root can have full unrestrained access, and root is disabled by default, so the most vulnerable files are secured in that respect, granted someone can activate root if they wanted too, but they are warned about the potential security risk they are allowing it. Yes the administrator does have pretty good access to do anything, but yet theres still things it can't do that only root can.

So if theres going to be any viruses attacking, I bet 99% of them are going to be using software exploits of third parties, but even than software exploits are not that common to come across, this is true in Windows OS platform 3rd party software. In Windows, its mostly the OS that's being altered.

So really it boils down to this, OS X is most at risk from software exploits of badly programed applications, as well as anything for windows platform, but such a thing to happen isn't that common. Windows OS platform because of how its security is laid out, the OS is at most risk, unix has been around for a long time as well, granted it can be hacked too, but it's been shown that most hacked unix were because of poor passwords and having root turned on.

 

No. OS X, which is built on UNIX, was designed to be a mulit-user OS from the beginnig. Windows was not truly multi-user until XP, and even in XP it is more of an afterthought. Why does that matter? In OS X you can easily, and should for all those that aren't, run as a limited user. As a limited user you can make NO system changes without a admin's name and password. In XP, running as a limited user is difficult since many Windows programs expect Admin rights and make it difficult to run their software as limited user. That is the biggest reason why OS X is more secure.

Hopefully with Vista, they can make it possible to really run as limited user, and do it by default, but MS's track record suggests they won't.

 

personally i think they gained more news exposure (from the switch) and people started to realize that apple was still around and then they felt more at "home" with "familiar" (being intel) components. then the increasing ability to use windows if absolutely needed. also they are talked about more. and as more people buy them and like them, they tell there friends who tell their friends.

now you have a cascading flow of information and free advertisment/testimonials.

 

Hi,

Two things,

One, I think a lot of the reason for the jump is the massive increase in speed Apple got by switching to Intel exactly when Intel was rolling out core Duo and now Core 2 Duo. Macs have had a bad rep of being sluggish (as several people have told me before when I tried to speak Mac to them) but now they are fast (these same people were shocked when I showed them how OS X flies on Intel).

Two, Windows Vista has a radically changed architecture from XP, part of which is the restructuring of permissions into a form VERY similar to OS X (in other words, full Admin rights disabled by default, password input required for many operations, etc). Just now the beta testers are howling a bit about it because it breaks a fair number of older (read poorly coded) apps, but thus far MS has held firm.

 

Yeah, the security is ALMOST the same, but the security that MS is trying to copy is only at top OS software level, OS X is throughout the entire system including the file system.

 

Um, MS is not "trying to copy" security. This is a fundamental architecture change that penetrates everything. That is why it is breaking application compatibility.

 

Well according to some of the publications I've read, its only at top OS level.

I would call MS copying considering they are adapting the format that OS X is using, such as password for changes and whatnot. Unix had that stuff long before Windows ever did, it took Apple to find the right blend, and thats the blend MS is targeting.

 

MSDN has good info on this, as does winsupersite.

The gist is, the Vista redesign (coupled with IE7 which is a total rewrite) combine to make virus attacks very difficult. The flip side is breaking older apps. So, MS is trying to find ways to trick apps into thinking they are running with full rights. Whether they can do it or not remains to be seen.

 

Of course MSDN says it will be very difficult. Here is the thing to understand, like xbandaidx said, the password protection scheme Vista has is at the top level. What that means is that it can be broken. It is not as full proof as OS X's way of implimenting password protection. Also, since Vista is new code as is IE 7, it is all untested. Untested software means one thing, holes. There will be a lot of bugs to work out.

In the end, I will be VERY suprosed if Vista is any more secure OS X, and I know for a fact IE7 cannot be more secure than IE6. They both use ActiveX, which is the main cause of IE's security issues.

 

I trust MSDN. I have been a member for a while and in fact am a Vista beta tester.

The password protection scheme is NOT at top level. The new security plan actually is multifaceted and goes all the way down to the hardware.

First, there is the need to supply the admin password to perform potentially risky operations. In addition, Vista is coded not to allow the security dialog to be executed programmatically (in other words, it will not accept having characters fed to it by code or buttons clicked by code).

Second, Vista interacts fully with the execute bit disable technology in both Intel and AMD CPUs.

Third, all Services in Vista are being rewritten so that the service can only access things it requires to function (in other words, you cannot piggyback memory access onto, say, the IPSEC service).

Fourth, the base code has been scrubbed to find and eliminate potential buffer overrun scenarios. Now when the bit length of the input is too high the result is an error throw and execution stops.

Fifth. IE7 is indeed way more secure than its predecessor. IE7 itself (and any code initiated from it) run in a "sandbox" with reduced rights, and Active X Controls likewise run in the sandbox, and are cut off from the OS and have limited rights only.

 

maybe college students like me liked and used an ipod over the years and decided apple wasnt such a bad brand after all. in my opinion, without the ipod i dont think apple would be doing so well in any sales.

 

I doubt that Vista will ever be as secure as an Unix/Linux based OS.

Sorry, but Unix/Linux/BSD has a proven track record and OS X only further improves security upon its Darwin Unix base., Microsoft does not have a very good security history.

The fact of the matter is, for me, Microsoft failed, they had all the chance in the world since 1991 with me to fix it, they failed utterly. MS is not even an option with me, nor will it ever be again.

 

In other words, another case of ABM (Anything but Microsoft) FUD.

 

Well for me, I understand that MS cannot abandon legacy software. As long as this is the case they will be insecure. You cannot have both in MS's case. Everything I have read about the password scheme is that it is at a high level and can be gone around. Now that could be inaccurate, I have not studied it that closely.

Bottom line is this, in order for Windows to be more secure they will have to break a ton of software and a ton of websites, and they don't want to do that. Apple can do that, they seem to not care about pissing people off, and it does not seem to hurt them either. However, businesses won't stand for that. If Vista does not support their poorly written in house software, they simply will keep XP or 2000, which they probably will anyway. Vista is a bust. It has been for a year and a half now. It was originally scheduled to be an incremental update between XP and Blackcomb (or whatever the next one is code-named) and instead has become a debacle. Vista is the writing on the wall for MS. They need to split themselves. They should have one company spin off for Office and related apps, another for the OS and another for home entertainment (XBOX Zune). Until they do that they will have problems like this. They are too big and are not agile enough to keep up, Vista is the first major sign. Office 2007 is the second.

 

Hi Cash,

The whole point behind the security change was to make sure it was low level and that it could not be bypassed. As to breaking software and sites, I hope they stick to their guns (like they are now on this). Ultimately what will happen won't be mass decisions not to go to Vista but rather some very old and buggy junk will finally be rewritten.

I have no idea where you got the notion that Vista is a debacle. What happened was a simple change in strategy where what was originally supposed to be the interim is instead becoming the major release. This has resulted in delays, however the end product is better for the delays. Likewise, no one I have spoken to thinks Office 2007 is a debacle; far from it. The UI redesign is drawing raves for the simplicity of use it is bringing to the applications.

 

Well, I am not sure how you can't call Vista a debacle. It was originally supposed to be released in late 2003. That was 3 years ago! It is slated for January 2007, but that is looking a little more grim with MS now saying it will be released when it is ready. They will not give specific dates. Many features, most notably WinFS, have been dropped, and all that really remains is a bunch of new untested code and Aero.

As for Office 2007, I will agree the new "Ribbon System" is nice, but I would never call it simplistic. In fact, it is a shotgun approach. It gives you every option in a category at once, and at first is overwhelming. I will say that once you get used to it, it works great and is an improvement. Unfortunately, Office is being plagued by many of te same issues Vista has, dropped features and delays. The biggest feature drops are .pdf support and the open document format. Both of which are currently in limbo. Also, it has been delayed from it's previous launch date of February 2007.

As for Vista security, as long as IE is as tied to the system as it is, it will be insecure. It is impossible to rid yourself of holes in programs. Every program has them, including Apple programs. The problem is can those be taken advantage of? In OS X the answer so far has been no. With IE so much a part of Windows, the answer has being a resounding yes, and until IE is seperated from the OS it will be a cause of security issues. As for the rest of Vista security, we will have to see how it works in the end. Will you REALLY be able to run as a limited user, I mean really do it, not half ass. Is IE and Outlook Express (now Windows Mail) going to be a source of securrity breaches liek they have been in XP? Only time will answer these. Remember XP was supposed to be the most secure OS Microsoft had ever released. How did that one end?

 

In an attempt to get this thread back on track, I think this may be a sign of things to come. My generation, I'm 25, is now in the position to be buying computers, and we don't have the same fear our parents or even older siblings have had of computers. We are not afraid to learn something new. Not to mention many of us were in school with Apple's all around us. I think the younger generation is not afraid to buy something different and understands the current flaws Windows suffers from.

Now I wouldn't say that Apple will ever approach the domincance that Windows has, mainly because they don't license the software, but I do think they may make a move towards about 20%. And that would make them in the top 2 or 3 computer manufacturers.

 

I read an article recently that had Symantic (the antivirus company) stating that Microsofts Vista in network is absolutely horrible and filled with holes they have found, and Microsoft responded by barring all anti-virus from helping MS anymore on Vista (I'm assuming they mean by anything other than anti-virus means..hopefully) anyways, Symantic offered to help Microsoft on Vista, but they turned them down and did the bar. In my opinion, bad move, Symantic has a massive experience in computer security, more so than microsoft does itself.

I agree with Cashmonee on his last post, I feel that Apple won't ever reach that same level microsoft ever did, I think microsoft will be here to stay for a while longer, maybe in 2009 they will fail?, because Gates is leaving mid-2008.

 

I strongly disagree. Symantec products are simply crappy. They slow systems down to a crawl, it sometimes pay off to let the malware take care of your computer for you (just joking).
The real problem is, anti-virus companies are afraid of being locked out of Vista by Microsoft. In fact, if MS get their bussiness right as it should have been from the start, there is no more place for antivirus cias. OTOH, MS may be slapped for anti-competitive behaviour if they start bundling anti-virus/spyware solutions in Vista.
Note that simply releasing an antivirus or anti-spyware, no matter how well it might work, won't cut it. Windows shouldn't be vulnerable to these stuff to start with. Throw away the ActiveX crap and the nightmare that is the Windows registry, make the system so half of the apps won't break when run in restricted accounts, for God's sake DO NOT run services as administrator, and we'll have a start.

I do agree MS will face increasing competition. But MS is anything but stupid the only reason they got away with an OS like Windows is because it pays off. The moment they face competition, they will be forced to improve their OS - see what happened with 2003 server, it is undeniably an improvement. Maybe MS is just too big to be on the cutting edge, so it will always play catch up. But it's got gazillions of cash to spend, and it is hard to loose when you have unlimited resources. I might note that it may be emblematic that MS choose to demonstrate Vista in a Macbook Pro.

 

I don't think they will compete I think they will use their girth again. Pushing IE7 as a priority update in the fall is definitely a monopolistic move, now that Firefox is continually growing. It is also why IE is much a part of the OS. MS does not compete, they wait for someone to start getting close and then just throw their weight on them and crush them.

 

Agreed. The question is that, with OpenSource software such as Firefox, they can't crush the competition in the same way they would do to a normal bussiness oriented software project. Since Firefox is open-source, it will be around forever - no matter what they manage do to the present coders/managers. Basically FOSS is a PITA for MS, and as such forces them to compete improving their products - IE7 has some nice features like tab-preview that firefox currently lacks (as does Safari - Shiira has a tab-expose feature, but it needs some polishing IMO).