The below is a compilation of many blog posts made last year on this subject that I have condensed into one post for further easy reference.

Zach wrote a very long piece called“Vista is for Suckers and Mac Users are Better Than You”and states:

The title of this article seems to be the underlying theme in every “Mac vs. PC” commercial.

Actually Zach, in EVERY commercial? Exaggerate much? I think to be more accurate, it would be “Vista Sucks and the Mac OS is better” humourously expressed through good old American capitalism—advertising. Compensating a bit here fella?

Zach goes on to hyperbolically describe a “I’m a Mac” commercial; ironically getting upset at the fact that Apple capitalizes on Microsoft’s “corporate” strength—in case Zach didn’t notice, corporations tend to be stuffy and boring. I guess that is also Apple’s fault. But here is the real crux that caused me to be interested in this article:

I may be paraphrasing a bit (are you picking up my sarcasm here?) but I’m a little disturbed at the way Apple looks at the consumer.

In what way is that Zach? Like your paraphrase of an Apple commercial which is what you think the idiot consumer hears:

Mac: “Hello I’m a super hip, fun, exciting Mac for young people that want to improve their lives.”

PC: “And I’m a stuffy, suit and tie wearing, dinosaur PC that can only do calculations and spreadsheets. I suck the fun out of your everyday life.”

Mac: “Hey PC, what are you doing over there?”

PC: “I’m just wondering why Vista has so many bugs.”

Mac: “Yeah Vista is pretty bad and nobody likes it. It doesn’t work for a variety of reasons that I won’t list here. Don’t you wish you were a Mac so you wouldn’t have to wear a suit and tie and be so boring?”

PC: “Hey, Vista may not ever work and Macs may be better than PCs and I may dream about being a Mac but … wait a minute! Oh, you outsmarted me again Mac!”

Mac: “That’s why PC users are so dumb, because PCs are dumb. Come to an Apple store … bring money.”

You see, while bitching that Apple is somehow patronizing the consumer, Zach thinks they are so stupid that they will follow Apple like lemmings into thinking Vista sucks just because Apple told them so. Sense some irony here?

Here is what I said to Zach:

Microsoft has by far a ginormous amount of the market share, in fact, Zach in a comment to me, felt the need to say that I was part of an 8% market share. Just for kicks, let’s just say another 8% are Linux users. So Zach is saying that the 84% of the market share (which are Windows users) are so gullible that they believe a commercial over a product that they have had the opportunity to personally experience UNLIKE the way certain wintard zealots bash the Mac all over the ‘Net to the same 84%, most of whom have NEVER had the opportunity to use a Mac for any period of time. See a huge problem here folks?

So who is it that thinks the consumer is stupid here in this equation?

So let’s rewrite Zach’s little parody:

Mac: “Hello I’m a super hip, fun, exciting Mac for young people that want to improve their lives. You can only do calculations and spreadsheets.”

PC: “Really? I seem to remember that I can get on the Internet, have a Media player, built in games, and Movie Maker….”

Mac: “Hey PC, what are you doing over there? Trying to figure out why Vista sucks so badly?”

PC: “No, actually I have had no problems with Vista.”

Mac: “Yeah Vista is pretty bad and nobody likes it. It doesn’t work for a variety of reasons that I won’t list here. Don’t you wish you were a Mac so you wouldn’t have to wear a suit and tie and be so boring?”

PC: “Oh, I guess you’re right, if you say so, it doesn’t matter that I think Vista is okay and nearly everyone else I know has never had any significant problems.”

Mac: “That’s why PC users are so dumb, because PCs are dumb. Come to an Apple store … bring money.”

PC: “Okay you convinced me despite all my experience to the contrary. And crap, I will miss getting all that PC stuff for free since I have never had to bring money any time I bought a machine that ran Windows”

Pluhhhhhheeeeaaassseeeee.

Zach if you are upset at Microsoft’s corporate image, blast Microsoft for it. It is their bread and butter, and they should cultivate it. The consumers are smarter than you think they are; all of your blame-shifting aside. The reason the Apple ads work is because they resonate with what people have already experienced. By your logic, Apple could convince people that eating dog turds is tasty if they just package it right and claim it is cool.

Remember, Apple is just making up all that stuff in their ad campaign and that is why people think Vista sucks because they are that stupid that if its in an ad, well it must be true?

The ad agency doing the Mac vs. PC ads has spotted a weakness: the Vista operating system. It is using gentle humor to ridicule Microsoft. What can Microsoft do? Sue Apple for laughter infringement?

The old advertising slogan, “clever doesn’t sell,” does not apply to these ads.

The Mac spokesman sometimes mentions a few of Mac’s features, but usually it’s the nerdy PC guy who laments his latest problem. He always has problems.

Vista is the biggest problem these days. That is unlikely to change for a long time.

A good ad stresses benefits. These stress liabilities, but in a way that keeps the lawyers away. I recall no comparable series in advertising history.

As a Vista user on one of my machines, I concur with the ads.

Apparently Gary North doesn’t agree with Zach. Gary is an economist.

Going back to the Zachian claims:

Vista has a negative stigma, mostly among consumers that don’t know anything about it.

For those of you that are against Vista, I want you to take a look at the reason why. Is it because of specific problems you’ve had with Vista? Or, is it because Apple and the mainstream media have talked you into a false sense of loathing for Vista because of the problems of a few?

I’m inviting you to pour out your “Steve Jobs Kool-Aid” and take a look at the truth: Vista gets a bad rap for no good reason.

Someone needs a check-up from the neck up. No good reason? And we are expected to take this article seriously?

Let’s see:

Gary North:

A good ad stresses benefits. These stress liabilities, but in a way that keeps the lawyers away. I recall no comparable series in advertising history.

As a Vista user on one of my machines, I concur with the ads.

A few audio comments:

The Get-It Done Guy

Podcaster James White—longtime Windows user

Jaw Jab:

Having been forced to use vista for almost 4 months now I can truly say it is so riddled with problems it may be another five years until it is actually ready for the masses. My journey with Vista began about four months ago when I purchased a new Vista ready HP computer, big mistake. After I decided that I would go back to using XP until Vista bugs were worked out I was told by HP that they would not provide any drivers for XP, so basically I was stuck with Vista unless I wanted to try and track down my drivers from the hardware manufacturers which is a process I have not attempted yet. My biggest complaint so far with vista is that it runs incredibly slow, even with maxed out specs. My computer I purchased meets all the specifications plus some but performance is still not nearly as good as it should be, so I can’t imagine a two or three year old pc running it. The few visual effects of Vista are not really worth the resources it consumes so I disabled them from the very beginning hoping to get a little more speed out of a brand new computer with the following specs: Core 2 Duo 2.13, 2 gigs of Ram, 500 gig hard drive, and a Geforce video card with 512 ram, with specs like these windows XP would fly but not Vista it just coast along slowly. I really wanted Vista to live up to the hype and promises Microsoft pushed on us, but if memory serves right XP did take years to perfect and then it was time to upgrade again.

1) Hardware doesn’t run well on Vista (even new hardware)

2) The new security of Vista is overkill most of the time, being prompted for every little thing is bad enough but Vista even labels existing applications as suspicious.

3) Lack of drivers for older and newer hardware.

4) Power options do not change automatically for laptops depending on whether you are plugged or unplugged from a power source.

5) The Start Menu has been redone with a completely different look, unfortunately it is hard to navigate and find what you are looking for.

6) Rebooting a Vista machine is supposed to be faster, but it actually takes longer to reboot than XP.

7) The much talked about Aero UI is great to look at, but with all the resources it takes just to run it all you will be able to do is look at it and not actually work on your pc.

8 ) The many different versions of Vista will be confusing to some basic computer users who are not sure of what exactly they need so in the end they will probably figure more expensive means better and pay for a version they don’t need in the first place.

9) Horrible graphics performance that was not an issue with XP.

10) Although the look is “improved” basic functions like add/remove programs are hard to find.

11) VPN doesn’t work correctly, even though there are a few work arounds for this it is still not an easy process.

12) Software that is supposed to be windows compatible shuts down randomly.

13) Firefox runs ten times better than IE7 in vista.

14) The sidebar is another resource hog.

15) Readyboost seems like a good idea if you can get it to work.

16) DVD playback through windows media player or media center lacks quality.

17) Minor changes to hardware may prevent the system to boot up.

18) No “open with” when right clicking on a file.

19) My brand new Netgear Eva8000 streaming media device will not work wirelessly with vista due to some tcp stack problem in vista (it did work perfect with xp).

20) Windows Improved search is a total mess and not very accurate.

Heck, I found a whole blog on it from an ex-Vista fanboi.

Reality check Zach, YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE REASONS, BUT IT IS A BOLD-FACED FALSEHOOD TO SAY THAT VISTA GETS A BAD RAP FOR NO GOOD REASON. So later when you go on to try and accuse Apple of shifty practices in their ads, your credibility has already gone down the crapper and off to sea. In my non-rabid-Mac-fangrl persona I admit there are some legitimate complaints about Apple. I would be lying like a rug to say that there are NEVER ANY GOOD REASONS to complain about Leopard. Stop whoring yourself for Vista. She’s ugly and ain’t worth it.

Continuing…

Remember our old friend who blames Apple for Vista’s bad reputation?

Vista has a negative stigma, mostly among consumers that don’t know anything about it.

For those of you that are against Vista, I want you to take a look at the reason why. Is it because of specific problems you’ve had with Vista? Or, is it because Apple and the mainstream media have talked you into a false sense of loathing for Vista because of the problems of a few?

I’m inviting you to pour out your “Steve Jobs Kool-Aid” and take a look at the truth: Vista gets a bad rap for no good reason.

First—I want to point out that Zach soiled his diapers claiming that I was a big bad blind fanatic because I said that he said something retarded and my “personal attacks” were ruining my credibility. Ha! Hey Zach, do you think your “kool-aid” comment WASN’T a personal attack? Dude, please look in the mirror. Your article is full of attacks. Come over here a second. There is someone I want you to meet. Zach, here is Mr. Kettle. He just noticed that you are as black as he is and wanted to tell you about it.

Now back to this howler that Vista gets a bad rap for “no good reason.”

PC Magazine, that bastion of Mac fanatics, writes about Quick Fixes for Five Nasty Vista Problems. Holy Crap batman… Steve Jobs got to them too with his nasty wasty little commercials.

Here is a list of known problems on Vista. This doesn’t appear to be some blind fanatical site as you, of course, non-personally non-attacked me with Zach.

Or how about this Zach? Vista: 150 problems, 0 solutions

Well if you don’t trust them, what about the New York Times? They Criticized Vista. And They Should Know.

ONE year after the birth of Windows Vista, why do so many Windows XP users still decline to “upgrade”?

Microsoft says high prices have been the deterrent. Last month, the company trimmed prices on retail packages of Vista, trying to entice consumers to overcome their reluctance. In the United States, an XP user can now buy Vista Home Premium for $129.95, instead of $159.95.

An alternative theory, however, is that Vista’s reputation precedes it. XP users have heard too many chilling stories from relatives and friends about Vista upgrades that have gone badly. The graphics chip that couldn’t handle Vista’s whizzy special effects. The long delays as it loaded. The applications that ran at slower speeds. The printers, scanners and other hardware peripherals, which work dandily with XP, that lacked the necessary software, the drivers, to work well with Vista.

Can someone tell me again, why is switching XP for Vista an “upgrade”?

Here’s one story of a Vista upgrade early last year that did not go well. Jon, let’s call him, (bear with me — I’ll reveal his full identity later) upgrades two XP machines to Vista. Then he discovers that his printer, regular scanner and film scanner lack Vista drivers. He has to stick with XP on one machine just so he can continue to use the peripherals.

Did Jon simply have bad luck? Apparently not. When another person, Steven, hears about Jon’s woes, he says drivers are missing in every category — “this is the same across the whole ecosystem.”

Then there’s Mike, who buys a laptop that has a reassuring “Windows Vista Capable” logo affixed. He thinks that he will be able to run Vista in all of its glory, as well as favorite Microsoft programs like Movie Maker. His report: “I personally got burned.” His new laptop — logo or no logo — lacks the necessary graphics chip and can run neither his favorite video-editing software nor anything but a hobbled version of Vista. “I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine,” he says.

It turns out that Mike is clearly not a naïf. He’s Mike Nash, a Microsoft vice president who oversees Windows product management. And Jon, who is dismayed to learn that the drivers he needs don’t exist? That’s Jon A. Shirley, a Microsoft board member and former president and chief operating officer. And Steven, who reports that missing drivers are anything but exceptional, is in a good position to know: he’s Steven Sinofsky, the company’s senior vice president responsible for Windows.

Their remarks come from a stream of internal communications at Microsoft in February 2007, after Vista had been released as a supposedly finished product and customers were paying full retail price. Between the nonexistent drivers and PCs mislabeled as being ready for Vista when they really were not, Vista instantly acquired a reputation at birth: Does Not Play Well With Others.

We usually do not have the opportunity to overhear Microsoft’s most senior executives vent their personal frustrations with Windows. But a lawsuit filed against Microsoft in March 2007 in United States District Court in Seattle has pried loose a packet of internal company documents. The plaintiffs, Dianne Kelley and Kenneth Hansen, bought PCs in late 2006, before Vista’s release, and contend that Microsoft’s “Windows Vista Capable” stickers were misleading when affixed to machines that turned out to be incapable of running the versions of Vista that offered the features Microsoft was marketing as distinctive Vista benefits.

Go to the link to read the full story.

Okay Zach, I was going to dig up the rest of the “Results 1 – 10 of about 1,580,000 for problems with vista” and “Results 1 – 10 of about 562,000 for vista sucks” but I grew bored, and I have sufficiently shamed your credibility on that portion of your article, and you actually claim that *I* am the blind fanatic with no credibility. [chortle]

Listen closely. There ARE legitimate complaints with Leopard. Some people have complaints for good reason.

Let’s compare that to your statement, “Vista gets a bad rap for no good reason.” and see, really, who’s the blind fanatic?

At least I don’t blame any bad rap of Leopard on big bad Microsoft writing bad things about Apple on bathroom walls and the poor stupid public just blindly believing them.

Vista is Bad … Because I Said So … That’s Why

The Mac commercials that trash Vista focus on just that, trashing Vista, but they don’t tell you anything about why you should buy a Mac.

They tell you that Vista isn’t compatible with any peripherals, that Vista has so much security you can’t do any work without a popup, that Vista has over 14,000 virus types constantly attacking it and Mac is never attacked, and that Vista is so complicated that choosing the version that’s right for you is nearly impossible.

All of this Vista rhetoric does two things: It makes Vista look bad and overtly shames you for owning a PC.

If you watch the “Mac vs. PC” commercials you will hear a lot of blanket statements and exaggeration with nothing to back it up. Why does Vista have so much security? Why does Vista have compatibility issues? Why is Vista attacked by so many viruses?

Too many people, like Apple, use this verbiage to their advantage, but they don’t take the time to explain their claims.

Don’t believe me? Check out the latest Get a Mac ads.

Yes Zach, I don’t believe you. And we will indeed check out the latest Mac ads.

Since Zach goes through many ads later in his piece, I will not comment too much on this part except to give an analogy.

Hey Zach, why are you marrying Mary instead of Jane?

What do you mean?

Mary is ugly and fat and infertile—geesh man, she has a wart with hairs growing out of it on the tip of her nose.

Okay in that short conversation I was pro-Jane and anti-Mary. I mentioned no good features of Jane. Or didn’t I? Of course I did by claiming that Mary was ugly, fat, infertile, and the bearer of a vomit-inducing wart, I would be claiming that Jane was at least prettier, skinnier, fertile (or at least not known to be infertile), and had no such wart on her nose.

Geesh Zach, there’s this thing called logic, have you heard of it?

The truth is that Vista is an excellent operating system.

The truth is you’re delusional if you really believe that.

It’s not meant to be a life changing experience or a one way ticket to fun and excitement. It’s meant to be the interface that allows you to use your computer without contending with a plethora of code. It’s an operating system, just like Leopard (Mac’s newest operating system) is an operating system.

Filler. The sky is blue.

So why do a lot of people think that Vista will ruin their computing experience?

Well we have two options.

1. Because it has done so already, and I have already posted examples which Zach has promptly ignored or stuck his fingers in his ear and went LALALALALALALALALALALA I DON’T HEAR YOU!!!

2. Everyone BUT Zach is stupid.

Guess which option is the least likely.

The answer can be found in mass media hyperbole and sweeping generalizations made by competitors.

Translation: Zach thinks people are stupid enough to think advertising is Gospel truth. And is implicitly saying that all those stories of Vista nightmares are lies. Come to think of it, IS the sky blue in your world Zach?

Apple and Linux are trying to sell a product in a market place that Microsoft has dominated for years.

Filler. I doubt that is news to anyone. And in case Zach hasn’t heard of this, Linux is free.

It makes sense to take shots at the market leader in order to make yourself a contender, but the way in which you do reflects on how your company is viewed.

You mean like Coke and Pepsi and a gazillion other companies? Dude, I think I smell sour apples on your breath. Judging by the polls (whooops, those facts again), consumers are much happier with and respect Apple more than Microsoft.

I don’t know about you but when I see those “Mac vs. PC” commercials I feel like Apple is looking down its nose at me and all PC users letting us know that Mac users are better than us just because they use a Mac.

You need to get out more and watch less TV or compensate in some other way. What the commercials are saying is that the Mac is the superior machine/OS, and once you know that, it is silly to use an inferior machine/OS. It is the machine/OS that is better, not the user. Do you personalize everything? When you see those stickers that have Alvin pissing on a Ford logo do you feel like you are being personally maligned if you drive a Chevy?

I don’t have the problems with Vista that these commercials claim everyone has and I definitely don’t feel stupid for using Vista like these commercials claim I should.

That is a short leap over a long chasm. If you think Vista is the superior of the two, by all means use it. A great many people disagree with you, and your constant mentioning of 8% market share tells me that you know it and are a bit insecure. Why you would be so insecure over a computer is beyond me.

Please don’t watch Vonage commercials if you still use a traditional phone service. Your self-esteem will go down the crapper.

Oh Zach, don’t look further if you don’t want a dose of reality:

Brian Carpenter tells us about this REALLY GREAT VISTA FEATURE:

Vista has this really cool feature. When I log in to work via VPN and then close my laptop’s lid to put it to sleep, when I open the lid later, I get the CTRL+ALT+DEL login screen as normal, except that my mouse cursor is now invisible! If I can somehow manage to position the invisible mouse cursor over a button, let’s say the one to shut the computer down, and I click it, Vista says something about not having enough memory to perform that operation, and crashes or hangs!

Oh wait, that’s not a feature. That’s a big hairy stinking bug. My mistake.

Let’s take a look at the minimum requirements to run Vista Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate editions:

* CPU – Modern Processor (800 MHz or greater)
* Memory – 512MB
* Hard Drive – 15GB free space
* Graphics – DirectX 9 capable graphics processor
* DVD Drive – Yes

NONE of that will run the Aero interface. Thus this class action lawsuit.

Not in the real world buddy. I had a 3.0ghz, 2gigs of RAM, HP laptop that the “Vista compatibility checker” couldn’t even run on—I had a 2.3ghz (IRC), 2gigs of RAM HP laptop that ran the BAREST of Vista functionality and was slow as crap.

Existing systems DO need a boost to run Vista. At work my machine has less than a gig of RAM. We run XP Professional. Do you think we will be upgrading to Vista anytime soon?

I think I found a picture of Zach when he was writing his post:

Zach also whined about this video:

Zach, open mount, insert foot.

The first thing I want to talk about is the idea that PCs have more security problems than Macs. The fact is that PCs do have
more security problems than Macs because there are just so many more PCs out there. According to Greg Keizer, a leading writer for Computer World, Mac topped out in December of 2007, with an 8% market share

Is that true?

Well let’s see:

Eh, despite all the Microsoft hoopla, it’s unlikely that we’ll ever see quite the same exploit threat. Yes, we’ll probably see more people taking advantage of intermittent security holes here and there (like buffer overruns, etc), it’s unlikely we’d ever see the security holes in Windows.

That’s because Windows’ problem is not the occasional exploit (such as a buffer overflow) but a fundamentally broken security design.

I often use Apache vs. IIS to show this. Apache is an open source web serving platform, and at one point ran 80-90% of all web servers. Now if Microsoft’s rhetoric was true, because it was the most prominent web server, and because it was open source so “attackers can see the code”, you’d think the overwhelming majority of attacks would be against Apache, right?

Wrong. The overwhelming majority of attacks were against IIS, which is closed source and had less than 25% of the market.

To Microsoft’s credit, they have in recent years been redesigning IIS and making the design more like Apache’s and more secure, but this just shows that it really doesn’t matter what kinds of temporary vulnerabilities there are, but what the overall design is.

Sorry Zach, that shallow canard doesn’t work anymore.

Next Zach foolishly tries to defend UAC:

To me, it is not a big deal to click my mouse one more time to make sure that my computer is as secure as possible. The example that he gives is that inexperienced users see the UAC popup and don’t know if it’s from Vista or if it’s from some sort of malware, such as if the user is trying to execute something from the command line.

One more time? Take a look at this Zach:

Deleting a shortcut from the Windows Vista desktop is “just a few clicks
away”:

That is a small version from here. But click here for the full size version in all its glory.

Care to rethink that Zach? Oh and as far it is being more “secure,” you might want to read this (you kinda have to read the whole thread —not too long;mdash;but it is about this very same vacuous claim), but I could dumb it down in part with this sentence: An authorized user is on your machine—all they have to do is click “yes”—and THAT’s security? but here’s more:

Whether or not that user is allowed to invoke privileged operations can then be fully contained in the user account definition, not out in headspace depending on whether that user knows the credentials for another account altogether.

Ok, I’m pretty sure you don’t understand how sudo works then. sudo uses your current password to allow you to run commands as a different user. There are no extra credentials to remember.

Why don’t Unix admins run as root all the time? Answer I usually hear is to keep them from accidentally doing Bad Things without being fully aware of it. ’sudo’ effectively becomes a “yes, I really mean it” operation just like UAC, even though it is implemented as a secondary user logon.

Well, and it provides a way to control access to root privileges in a far more centralized and easy to control way than just giving people the root password.

But beyond that, I think the UAC in Vista is a very poor imitator of sudo. I really wouldn’t ever call them “just alike” because whereas (imho) UAC adds only the perception of security, sudo enforces actual security.

You have to be in the Administrators group to use it without a password. Both you and your user account are already authorized to escalate programs on demand. Sounds guarded to me.

Ok, thanks for that clarification. But you’re thinking in the Microsoft-centric way which is bad for security, it’s not just about the user, but applications as well.

Here’s the thing, an effective security model sandboxes things from each other so that a compromise in one area won’t compromise everything. If Sally and Henry each use a computer, and Henry downloads spyware, (or viruses, or some other badware) you don’t want it affecting Sally if you can help it.

Microsoft has always been terrible about making Windows so flexible out of the box that it effectively has no sandboxes. In XP, Sally and Henry are almost certainly both admins, and Sally is affected by Henry’s spyware.

In OS X (or any Unix, really), Sally and Henry might be sudo’ers. The spyware will affect Henry, but when it tries to affect Sally, it needs to sudo and have Henry enter his password. There’s no way for the application to affect the system without user intervention. (and if Henry provides that intervention, there’s no technical security in the world that will help you. But it’s the OS’es job to make every effort up to that point)

But what if you have just an ok box? What stops badware from just providing the confirmation?

Well, Vista tries to by basically grinding the whole os to a stop and forcing you to make a yes or no decision right there. Does it work? Maybe/maybe not. It certainly provides a huge surface vector from which to attack, not to mention the pure annoyance of that method. You can say you prefer Vista’s method, but it’s definitely less guarded.

But if you really absolutely must do it without a password, I believe you can configure /etc/sudoers to not require a password. I’ll be honest to say that I haven’t tried it, and I don’t know if the OS X gui would follow along, and that I would advise against it in the strongest possible terms, but you can give it a whirl if you must.

The real user in a user-account switching scenario already has the rights to do whatever sudo is stopping. It’s just the system isn’t aware of this mapping.

See, this is why you need to do a little more research. sudo doesn’t stop anything. sudo provides a door for you to open to get wherever you’re going. (after proving to the guard you should be allowed to)

Windows is counting on UAC to slam the door shut on you if it thinks you shouldn’t do something.

What’s the security difference? Well imagine if both of them fail. If sudo fails, that’s inconvenient for you, but your system is perfectly secure.

If UAC fails, all the doors stay open and everything runs amok.

Part of the criticism for Microsoft’s hacks (and that’s what UAC is), is that they don’t really work through all the consequences. If sudo fails, you really don’t have to worry about it, and fixing it is on your own time table. If UAC fails, that could be a big security issue.

I don’t see how sudo protects against a user deciding to run an untrustworthy application. ’sudo ./malware’ will work just fine.

see above.

I do a lot of work with security professionally, but have not done much with Unix until recently. I find the differences in operating systems interesting and never as simplistic as ‘one is good and the other is bad’.

I agree. I see one as working consistently, well, and securely.

I see the other as totally worthless and useless marketing hype.

Here, I think UAC is given an unfairly bad rap from the very people who should be applauding Microsoft for making a much more serious effort at security than they have in the past.

Actually, I would deride Microsoft even harder for hoisting this petard on us and pretending it’s good security. It really doesn’t do much in the way of helping us get away from Windows users running as admins.

IOW, we wanted to see real security progress and Microsoft gave us a load of bull. Of course people are going to deride Microsoft for that, and of course Microsoft is going to deserve every bit of it.

Have fun with your illusion of security Zach.

Goy Gevalt posts:

(I am excerpting – go to the link to read the full post)

I want to begin by saying that I am a Microsoft Certified VB programmer and use Microsoft products on a daily basis in my work….I can say with utter certainty that I will never again buy another Windows based PC.

Several events have lead me to this inexorable conclusion. The first is that I purchased a MacBook a few months ago when they became available with the Intel chip. I did this because it would be possible for me to run Windows XP on the MacBook thereby allowing me to use the one system to utilize the fantastic design applications available for Macs without losing the ability to use Access, SQL server management consoles, and other tools in the Microsoft environment. Admittedly, I was skeptical at first, but I must admit that I very quickly fell in love with OS X Leopard, the Operating System with which my Macbook shipped. I found myself using Windows XP less and less. I became intoxicated by the freedom to surf with near impunity, without regard for viruses, browser hijackers, or other types of mal-ware. I was amazed that when I did run into problems with the XP version I was running on my Mac, they were simply erased by going to a previous “snapshot” using the Parallels utility that allowed me to run Windows from within OS X. I have tried to use Microsoft’s “System Restore” to correct problems on more than one occasion only to find that the virus had managed to penetrate the backup and come back unaffected by the “restore”. If Microsoft could employ a similar utility as that offered by Parallels snapshots, they would improve their reliability tenfold.

… I have listened for years to Mac-heads, Linux-lovers and other geeks, nerds, dweebies, and dorks telling me how Windows was a bloated, unsecure, wildly expensive, and high maintenance operating system. I defended Microsoft tooth and nail. I fought back with such excuses as “there isnt much software available for those OS’s”, “Windows is targeted by hackers because of its popularity”, and of course “Macs are way too expensive!”….It is with sincere humility that I admit that I was wrong. I had drunk of the Kool-Aid as they say. I hope all you nerds have mercy on me. You were right. OK? There… Now leave me alone.

Welcome brother. But don’t tell Zach. He lives in his own self-induced reality distortion field.

Zach is a Windows man. OSX just isn’t better, and as for Linux—specifically Unbuntu— it is just too complicated. It would freak people out. The average home user would find Windows easier than Ubuntu.

Here’s the way Zach puts it:

My “favorite” Bob Rankin article is Ubuntu Hardy Heron where he actually suggests using a Linux operating system as an alternative to Vista.

Are we in the Twilight Zone? I consider myself an above average user and I wouldn’t feel comfortable using a Linux OS. How would the average user or better yet the inexperienced user feel about using a Linux OS?

Let everyone at your office know that your Vista systems will now be running the Ubuntu 8.04 (the newest Linux operating system) OS, and let me know what you hear from your employees.

A friend of mine provided this commentary:

Well firstly, your employees would be unhappy because they are stupid, and the rest of the office is using Windows. Duh. But secondly—oh my my. So an “above average” user is not going to be comfortable using Ubuntu? How many above average users have you asked, Zach? What, specifically, is difficult about Ubuntu? What is it that the home user would find difficult?
Hmmmm, the fully automated software updates, which are fully customizable via a user friendly GUI? No, that can’t be it…. Well maybe it’s the applications, then? Openoffice for office documents (fully compatible with MSOffice docs, the Gimp for basic image editing and creation, audacity for sound recording and editing, Pidgin for instant messaging, that nasty Google Earth, or the oh-so tricky media players—have I mentioned the really hard ones yet? Hmmm, no, actually many Windows users also use this software because a) it’s free, and b) it’s exactly as easy as the Windows or Mac equivalent.

So what is it then? What’s hard about using Ubuntu? I decided to ask Zach what he was talking about:

And as for your comments about Ubuntu, I have only one question: Ever used it? I have. In fact, I switched to it to avoid getting Vista. Actually try it. It is easy. And by Easy, I mean easier than Windows.

So I sat and waited. And what did Zach say? This:

I have used Linux, I am not “ignorant” when it comes to Linux, and the newest version of Linux is perfectly fine. That being said, I don’t know any “average” user that would ever feel comfortable using Linux. Are you kidding me?When I do that test I think of my parents. They are average users that use a Windows based computer on a daily basis for a variety of tasks. They wouldn’t have any idea what to do if I replaced their Windows system with a Linux based system, and neither would most average to novice users.

Anyone that says that average users are switching from Vista to Linux is, to borrow a word from Beretta, crazy!

OK… so count the difficulties Zach listed. If you counted one, you counted one too many. That’s because those who say “OMG Linux is so hard, it’s only for geeks!” are merely appealing to outdated stereotypes. Sure, in earlier versions of linux distros, that might have been the case. A bit like when MS DOS first came out.

By the way, notice the silent retreat. Earlier Zach claimed that he wouldn’t be comfortable using the new version of Linux. But now he calls it “perfectly fine.” I agree, it is perfectly fine. And his parents could use it just the same as they use Windows, only a) it would possibly be easier, and b) it would work all the time. Want to write an email? Click the icon and open your email client and write one. Gee, how difficult. Want to write an office document? Open your word processor or spreadsheet, and write one. Yeah, I can hear the geekaphobes running for the hills now. That you won’t be afflicted by viruses and spyware, and you’re safe from the registry getting screwed up, and that you have an all round more stable and sometimes more intuitive operating system – are those the things that Zach thinks would make Ubuntu more difficult than Windows?

So what is it that freaks you out about Ubuntu, Zach? Here’s what Ubuntu is: It’s a Unix based operating system (like OSX) that looks and feels like OSX (partly because they share so much in common), it’s free, it has all the software you need that is also free and is at least as easy as anything you need to use in a Windows environment, it’s more stable, in most cases easier to keep up to date, it has a much more enthusiastic and helpful user community—should I go on?

Zach is pretty typical of the average Windows fan who wants to scare people away from the “too complicated” Linux boogeyman. He tells everyone that it’s hard, but he never gets around to saying why. I also find it somewhat hilarious that because they need stability and reliability, Microsoft hosts its sites on (dum dum duuuum) Linux servers!

The fact is, many Windows users (like me) have moved to Ubuntu Linux to avoid the Vista drama. Thanks Bill, you’ve improved my life.

Remember, Zach is an “above average” computer user, and even he is “uncomfortable” using Linux, he says.

Apparently a bunch of elementary school aged kids in New Zealand don’t quite see Linux as all that difficult. Warrington School has ditched Microsoft products in favour of free the Linux Operating System Ubuntu. Reports of confused children and technically challenged teachers are strangely absent.

Get this, Zach, one of the reasons this change was so welcome at the school is that if anything goes wrong, they are able to handle it more easily than if something goes wrong in Windows, because they aren’t tech savvy enoug to navigate the nightmare of “When Windows Attacks.” Not only that, but it’s good for the Government’s education budget.

The ministry paid Microsoft licensing fees for products used in New Zealand state and integrated schools.

Warrington School would ask the ministry to reimburse “a portion” of the licensing fee paid to Microsoft, which would be used to employ local people in technical support roles, he said. “The cost of licensing school software is covered by the ministry, so it’s coming out of the education budget. We’re saying, ‘Give us the money back if you’re not paying for us to use [the software]‘,” Mr Parker said.

“It’s not just the financial savings. It’s the philosophy behind ‘freeware’, and reducing ‘e-waste’. If a laptop crashed now, it would have to be sent to the North Island for software to be reinstalled. But we can repair systems at the school with a disk, and we aren’t especially savvy.”

Ouch, Zach. If you read on int he article you’ll see that the Government of a small country like New Zealand paid Microsoft nearly $33 million. Oh, what a wise use of education funds.

But by all means, insist that schools and businesses bear the financial and maintenance time (and financial – again) burden of paying Microsoft. Hey, at least they’re not using easier, more stable, more secure operating systems like Ubu- Oh wait. Scratch that.

Don’t get me wrong. This is an Apple blog. Fo’ Sho’. But c’mon Windows fanbois, if you’re gonna make desparate attacks like “Ubuntu is harder… no normal person could use it…” be prepared to address reality when it smacks you in the face. Windows is not easier than its competitors, and in the long run it ends up costing“the average user” more because the average user is not an IT guru who knows how to fix hopeless bugs.

In short, 9 year olds aren’t having the difficulty that you appear to be having.

Okay that is the end of the commentary provided by my friend.

A bit about the author of VistaSucks:

VistaSucks.WordPress.Com is run out of Vancouver, BC Canada by Jay. A windows user of 15 years and former Mac hater/Vista fanboy. Jay is in the process of switching to Mac but is currently still using Windows XP both at home and at work.

Yep Jay, I don’t use Windows at home with one exception—Paltalk because their development of a Mac web-based service thus far is a joke. I keep it on my two Macs for the RARE occasion I might need it, which is .0001 percent of the time.

He continues:

Before the “hatred phase” was the “loathing phase” which has lasted since Windows 95 and grown steadily with every passing day. Jay has owned (/been owned by) the following versions of Windows: 3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP Home, XP Pro, XP Media Center Ed., Vista Ultimate 64bit Ed.

Jay’s love for his iPod, and iTunes definately had a motivating factor in his desire to switch to Mac but ultimately it was Microsoft’s lack of product quality & stability, and their insultingly high prices that pushed him over to the other side. Apple’s recent “I’m a Mac/I’m a PC” ad campaign was also influential on his decision.

Shhhh…don’t tell Zach. He thinks people are only influenced by those commercials because they are a pile of putrid lies fabricated by Apple.

Zach comments on this video:

I had to say something about this ad because the way it’s presented is so ridiculous. The ad implies that choosing one of the Vista operating systems is difficult because you may end up with one that doesn’t have what you want on it or you may pay too much for one that has features you don’t need on it.

Zach needs to learn what the word implies means. It doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.

It wasn’t implied. It was outright stated in the script.

The character playing “PC” is so flummoxed by the decision that he couldn’t possibly make it on his own. Since when was buying an operating system so serious that the only way to figure out which one you want is to spin a wheel?

Ummm, it’s called a joke? Dude, are you really that out of touch with humour?

If you order a salad in a restaurant and you are given six different salad dressings to choose from, are you going to “short circuit” and say, “No thanks; I just can’t choose the one that’s right for me.”

Actually some people do. But that is besides the point—the salad dressings all likely all the same price and don’t have vastly different features that might make you sick if you choose the wrong one.

Is it just me or does Apple have a pretty low opinion of 91.8% of the market?

Its just you since you are the one claiming that people are mindless zombies that Apple is deceiving with their wicked little commercials.

Also, According to the commercial, Mac comes with one operating system that has everything you need. How does Apple know exactly what I need (wow I’m suddenly channeling Andy Rooney)?

Sigh. You really aren’t that much of a mystery Zach. It is called a generalization. Apple OSX comes with more than enough for the typical computer user. But it doesn’t come with a sense of humour. Which you do need. Badly.

But seriously, I would rather have the choice to purchase what best suits my home or business needs rather than just get what’s given to me.

Really then? For one low price (lower than the cheapest Windows IIRC) you wouldn’t want the whole package? It is only a waste if you are paying more for it.

ROFL

Elitist Marketing vs. Vista … Yeah I Went There …

Because of elitist marketing and erroneous exposure, Vista has become the “problem OS”.

Is that why even Microsoft has admitted it is a “work in progress.” Are you calling all those people out there who have personally experienced its suckage liars? Or just Apple drones? Really Zach, you should get out more.

The reason this article has focused so much on the ads generated by Apple is because of the high profile commercials that describe vague problems with Vista and sometimes contain disreputable content.

Vague? I think they have been pretty specific—as my whole series on your rant has shown.

One “Mac vs. PC” commercial claims that Mac is “the finest desktop PC on the market, at any price”, as stated by the Wall Street Journal. You can see this ad as a part of a collection of “Mac vs. PC” commercials below — it’s the very first ad:

Let’s look at this dastardly evil ad that has Zach’s thong in a wad.

The fact is the article in the Wall Street Journal that they are referring to was written in 2005, by a respected technology expert and self proclaimed Mac lover Walter Mossberg, and nearly the entire context that quote appeared in was left out.

Dude, really. First, 2005? So? When did the ad come out? Are you claiming the quote was out-dated? If not, why even mention it? You wouldn’t be… no, no, say it isn’t true… poisoning the well by insinuation Zach? You know, like you claim that Apple dishonestly does?

And yes now, let’s do look at the whole quote:

For mainstream consumers doing typical tasks—Web surfing, email, office productivity, photos, music, home videos, etc. —it’s the finest desktop PC on the market, at any price. Hard-core game players, stock-market day traders, serious video producers and some other niche users should look for other computers.

This snippet basically says that the writer likes the iMac G5 but if you’re a gamer, use your computer for work, or edit movies you need a different type of computer.

Translation. The ad was completely correct. And Zach did a pretty bold-faced misrepresentation there. Since when does “serious video producer” equal “edit movies.” That is pretty blatant there Zach. Do you think editing a home movie for grandma is serious video production? Do you think there are many average users that are serious video producers? Also Zach, I hate to say the “lie” word, but well, your “use your computer for work” is, let’s just say—factually challenged. Mossberg said it is perfect for office productivity. How did you miss that?

Plus, Walt Mossberg is a well respected technology expert as the commercial suggests, but it doesn’t tell you that he’s not an impartial judge.

Ha! And Zach is? Are you calling Mossberg dishonest Zach?

The biggest thing that’s missing from this ad is why the Mac could be called the finest desktop PC on the market.

Really, I have to ask. Are you smoking crack? I mean that seriously. It referred to the Mossberg review. Mossberg said why. What dot is hard for you to connect there Zach?

This is a common theme when these commercials attack Vista. They have no problem throwing out one-liners but don’t have the information to back it up, and thus the consumer is led to believe Vista is a bad OS but they’re not quite sure how that got down that path.

There you go again patronizing the user who are mindless zombies. And you call Apple ads elitist? And they have a review to back it up —what precisely is your malfunction Zach?

Even though this particular ad didn’t target Vista, it’s these types of ads that Apple has been using to mislead the consumer about PCs and Vista.

Pot. Kettle. Blacker than sin.

No More Snap Judgments … Give Vista a Chance

Vista is a good operating system that has garnered a bad reputation that has trickled down from Microsoft competitors, through the media, and into the mainstream psyche.

Maybe the biggest reason that Vista has received so much criticism is because Microsoft is such a big target.

It’s pretty easy to hit the side of a barn with a baseball, just like it’s pretty easy to go after the industry leader. Microsoft has obviously reached the top of the software world, and they know as well as anybody that once you reach the top you become an easier target.

If you still have doubts about Vista, give it a try or “test drive” it for free.

It’s fine if you don’t like it, but at least you’ll have the facts to backup your opinion because you tried it out.

Also, if you are an Apple fan and a Mac lover can you do something for me?

The next time someone asks you, “How come you have a Mac?” don’t answer with, “Because I hate PCs.”

Don’t be like the “Mac vs. PC” commercials, give me an actual reason why you like Macs more than PCs or Mac OS X and Leopard more than Vista … and maybe I can understand better why Vista has garnered so much criticism.

Zach, your wish is my command, let me have the IT Nerd tell you:

lets take a look at reality. First of all, it’s been the Microsoft way or the highway forever, so they’re hardly in a position to take Apple to task on that. Second this is what I have experienced since I switched to my Mac as my full time computer:

* I no longer get the Blue Screen Of Death, nor do I miss it
* Windows via Parallels on my Mac is actually MORE STABLE than on a real Windows Box
* I don’t get the weird hardware/software issues that plague Windows users
* OS X isn’t the pig that Vista is
* There’s no User Account Controls prompting me to “cancel or allow” something
* Everything “just works”

Net result, I have a positive user experience. I couldn’t say that when I was a Windows user.

Vista was the straw that made me switch to Mac as my main machine. Judging from the fact that every time I go to the Apple store it’s packed with Windows users, I’m guessing that others feel the same way.

Zach, I have one word for you.

PWNED!

Here’s another silly windoze fanboi article to play around with. Not as good as Zach’s—but no one’s is as good as Zach’s. Zach’s rant had pictures.

The Tribble Ad Agency nailed it:

The apple commercials are not great because they changed public opinion, they are great because they followed public opinion.