...

When the last big MS virus/worm caused it's major shitstorm, my mom asked me if I ever get infected with viruses. I said no, I run a Mac. They are immune to these viruses.

Complete BS. There are Mac viruses allright, and the reason these worms target the Windows platform is simply because there are much more of them and therefore an Outlook worm is much more likely to succeed than a Mac worm.

<unlurk> I'm sorry, but this is a very common misconception. There hasn't been one single Mac virus in several years, and I believe that one was a Microsoft Word macro virus. Or, maybe Autostart 9805 - but that was discovered in May, 1998. How many Windows viruses have shown up in the past few years? Apache powers far more websites than IIS, yet IIS has suffered a much larger number of exploits. The reason there aren't any Mac viruses most certainly is *not* because "there are not as many of them." One could even go so far as to say that the Mac would be a more likely target because of Apple's security claims. It's a much more high-profile target. Imagine the boasting rights one would have if they could get a Mac virus to spread in these modern days! <lurks once again> -Jonathan

On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:31 PM, Michel Py wrote:

If the Powershot was designed as a Mac-only camera, it's Canon's stupidity. I never used one, but when I plug my Sony cybershot to any PC it comes up right away without any software.

I should withdraw this comment. After I sent the message, I realized that my comment was unfounded. Sorry.

Since Macs are available in stores, how do you explain that they don't get the lion's share of the market if they're so superior to the PeeCee as you claim? ... Guess what: the Wintel platform became standard, over the established leader (Apple). Because IBM and Microsoft managed to produced what the market wanted to buy, instead of what a few gurus in an ivory tower in Cupertino thought what the ultimate PC would be.

Yes, and the guys in the white ivory tower realized that they err'd. I'm glad they have only 3% market share. I doubt they will ever get past 5-10% market share and that's not a bad thing, it's a good thing (tm) because that will mean they will never be plagued with the problems MS has. They (Apple) make a great product, IMO far superior to anything that can be found in PC land. To that end, I'm happy being one of the 3% watching the masses of the 97% struggle.

...

When the last big MS virus/worm caused it's major shitstorm, my mom asked me if I ever get infected with viruses. I said no, I run a Mac. They are immune to these viruses.

Complete BS. There are Mac viruses allright, and the reason these worms target the Windows platform is simply because there are much more of them and therefore an Outlook worm is much more likely to succeed than a Mac worm.

"They are immune to these viruses" actually meant these viruses/works specifically causing the havoc in the last year or so. Sorry for not being more clear.

If Apple is still around with 3% of the market, it's because Bill Gates bailed them out as he wanted to keep a competitor alive when they were in the feds cross-hairs because of that monopoly thing. I'll tell you what: if you know how to make the Mac the dominant platform, go see Steve Jobs and ask for 100 million bucks in cash in exchange for the tip.

Jobs is hardly a competitor for Gates. 3% to what? 90%? I hardly call that competition.

And if you're not happy with Windows, you're free to write a competitive product to replace it. That's what Microsoft did to Apple 20 years ago, BTW. It's called market economy.

I don't need to write anything, I have it already, it runs on my powerbook. Like I said, if things hadn't happened the way they did, we would all be stuck using MS with even less alternatives. I say again, IMO Apple builds a superior product. It's because they only have 3% market share that product exists. I'm happy paying the premium because I get what I pay for.

Michel.