I really liked Paul's comparison of the Mac Mini G4 c/w Velocity Engine as equivalent to a Pentium III. I can run a Pentium III era Windows OS and all applications in EMULATION at about four times the speed of the fastest Pentium III era systems. Also the few paltry applications that try to emulate the iMovie or iDVD are still slower than my Mac Mini using the fastest $5,000 dollar Windows box available to run them. Even though, by Mac standards, this chip is old news it's got grunt that would scare the **** out of the average Virus Platform drone. Windows using friends are blown away by the speed and elegance of my Mini. They always ask why it's completely silent and think it can't have any power when power in the PC world means ear shattering fan noise and space heater power consumption.

As to security there has never been a breach of any Mac OS-X computer by virus, worm, nor any other plague that makes up the daily diet of Windows lands fear based environment. A new plague is released on average every hour for Windows yet decades can pass with nary a single one affecting the Mac. Even though the Linux and Windows environments have a similar number of breaches the Linux user base is tiny compared to the Mac. Yes there is no arguing with the absolute security of the Mac nor with its ease of use nor with the amazing applications available and for free on the Mac.

Even violently anti-Mac anti-Apple zealots like Paul Thurrott, have to admit the obvious advantages of the Mac, but are still tied to the myths and FUD of decades ago in trying to justify the use of the dying platform he worships. He is truly seen as a joke by anyone in the know and the numbers of ignorant in his cult are shrinking very quickly. This is why he has had to reform much of his rhetoric that even the unwashed could see was ridiculous.

Thank you for the article. I found it interesting but believe it misses the point entierly. Yes macs dont have to wory about viruses, yet but that is because no one has bothered writing viruses for the mac or indeed for linux. we will have to wait until someone tries in earnest and the we will actually find out how secure these operating systems really are.

As an IT professional its interesting to get the point of view of the average consumer. I have found that what most people want is to go to their local shop, buy a computer off the shelf, take it home and plug it in and it does everything they want. If it breaks they want to take it back to their local shop and know that it can be fixed. When you can do this with a mac or a linux machine i am sure that they will become more popular but until then Windows is still the best option for 98% of the consumers out there that just want something that work.

Mathew Bell;

The Mac does exactly what you describe the average consumer wanting. No Windows box has ever done what you describe as the average consumer wanting. 98% is pure fantasy land material. Windows is still the best option for 98%... Hello earth to Mathew... Wakey wakey Mr. Bell you've been in a coma.

I see you include a screenshot of Linspire yet say nothing about using that particular brand of Linux -- which from experience I can say is quite good and is engineered to have the look and feel of Windows. So user transition is not very difficult. Add to that the fact that there are loads of free open source applications (including OpenOffice, DVD players, MP3 Players, graphics packages, and much more) and the dollar savings alone far outweighs the learning curve requirement -- a curve that isn't very big to begin with.

As for SUSE, Novell will release Desktop 10 next year which they claim will be appealing to desktop users. SUSE is one of the most secure operating systems available today. In fact the only thing safer than SUSE is probably OpenBSD, FreeBSD, or NetBSD.

Sometimes reading Paul's stories is like watching Fox News -- the notion of it being "fair and balanced" is, ...well... not based in fact.

The article says you take a close look at Mac OS X and Linux. The reality is that you didn't. You took a quick peak at the Mac Mini hardware and didn't look at anything remotely close in so far as Linux goes, but instead gave a cursory overview while lumping every variety of Linux into one giant pile -- as if that were even realisitic given the diversity between Linux varieties. For example, Linspire is far far far different than RedHat, which is different than Slackware, which is different than SUSE, and so on. It might be better to leave the Linux analysis to those who actually know what they're talking about...

As far as why Windows users are targeted more often the Mac users, it's true that some attackers take advantage of the vast user base. On the other hand, you don't seem to understand that there is a certainly high level of animosity towards MS and as such their software is targeted regardless of who uses it. As long as MS continues acting as they do in such predatory fashion their customers will be attacked, and as wrong as that is it's the reality.

Mac & Linux fans miss the point. They are secure because no one is writing viruses (virii?) or exploiting the latest DDOS on them. Not many people use them(2-5%??). I wanted to play the latest <insert 3D game title here> on a Mac/Linux but couldn't because they don't write games for those systems. Clue Giver, get a real clue. Even the business world doesn't use Mac/Linux on the desktop because it doesn't make financial sense or the product doesn't exist.

Hello? Server based Mac solutions? Active Directory? In the real world, where you have thousands of users a Mac network is a pipe dream.

haha Active Directory? Another Wintel drone who pretends to be an "IT guy".

Alright hotshot - you can buy Apple's Open Directory product which is supported into the hundreds of thousands of users, you could use eDirectory, you could use Sun JDS (same goes for Linux on these), OpenLDAP, Red Hat's iPlanet, yada yada yada.

Lets talk directories ... Ill whoop you ...

Silly question, but why is there a link for page 1 or two when the same page is displayed on both?

As far as the comments regarding Paul Thurott's objectivity, some of you are obviously new to the world of PC's and are unaware of Thurott's history as a rather outspoken critic of Micro$oft.

Please note that the article is in Connected *HOME* and is geared towards *HOME* users, the vast majority of which will not understand the real under-the-hood information which Paul could easily provide or the depth of analysis which you or I might prefer. For such things, please go to the hard-core Linux and Mac *JOURNALS*.

I Read article, Please really use the Oses involved most of the ranting has been ReHashed from instruction manuals and other more well informed reviewers. Readers Don't waste your time with uneducated wishy washy crap thissite puts out

Mr. Sowa, if you think this site puts out ****, why are you here reading it? Go pontificate in the places where the "informed" reviewers dwell.

There may not be any viruses written for Mac OSX or Linux, but by default both of these operating systems require authentication and have security enabled. Windows can be configured to make a user a "restricted user" but very few applications will even run if your user account is set to any thing other than Administrator or Power User.

As an Windows network IT admistrator, I have yet to find a program that won`t run under a "restricted user' account, you can't install, this can be over come by having the users having a local universal installer account with installer rights. By doing this the user chooses 'run as' to install the program and the install is done sucessfully 100% of the time. This is as simple as doing it in UNIX or LINUX. People forget the original NT was designed on the UNIX kernel, something that seems to have been lost over the years due to Microsoft`s ability to take a stable solid kernel and open all sorts of processes to the root kernel that don`t need it or are done in such a poor way that they offer security issues. Yes we have 50 Mac in the artistic design section and they network fine with all the 250 Windows computers... the 4 Linux webservers works great as the company Intranet, could have done this with Windows too, thought we`d see what can be done with LINUX. They all work great together, they are all great OS`s, people seem to forget the past and how far we have come.

Stop whining, get a job where you can play with all of them and see all of their strengths and weeknesses.

A few point here need clarified: the G4 processor in the Mac Mini is not exactly last genereation, rather it is the current mobile processor, due to lower heat. Much better comparisons would be with the PentiumM or Celeron processors.

Macs can be networked quite happily, even in large numbers. Go to most of the schools in this country and you will find classrooms full of Mac's, running off Active directory, Sun's LDAP or similar.

Mac OSX is one step ahead of Windows in functionality, as has all of its previous versions. Users who are used to Windows will inevitably only notice the features that windows has already stolen - ask any Mac user to move to a PC and you will get howls of protest at all the missing bits.

Linux and viruses someones got to be on crack here, Can you say permissions? an onslaught of security measures, user specific rights, program specific rights. And finally if you linux pc has a virus or ever does get one please please, by all means stop using the machine and get to reading and studying. learn how to not doe everything in superuser mode (root) or for you hardcore windows fellas Administrator mode. ignorance is the one leading cause of diseas spread, who says it doesn't apply to computers. --Trancey

Guys, calm down, people won't understand if you say it that way. Let me explain why there are very few viruses for Linux.

It is true that most virus writers don't bother with the platform, but not only because Linux has a small user base, but also because a virus is virtually harmless on Linux even if you get one.

By default in Windows, the user is an administrator, therefore he has access to all system files. A virus takes advantage of that and infects the system files. Plus a virus can be run almost automatically from Windows.

On Linux, the user is restricted, and can only modify files and folders that he owns or is allowed to modify by other users or the root account. If a virus were to be executed normally on a Linux host, the most damage it can do infect the user's home directory. Furthermore, if you download a virus, you won't be able to run it right away, you must first change it's permissions to allow it to execute. the only way you can mess up your system with a virus in Linux is to download it, give it permissions to execute, and run it as root. This is a complex process for most users, and advanced users probably wouldn't do it. That's why it is virtually impossible get a virus working on Linux.

I have had a couple of viral infections of an old Fedora v1 system but they did absolutely nothing but sit there looking pretty. Conversely, I've had only a few viral problems with Windows too but the sheer ammount of security that must be set up is quite shocking compared to other OS's. Of course, there are a large number of very dangerous things a virus/worm etc. can do to a windows system, largely due to the permissions issues stated already. I have yet to experience Mac OS X - I will have to invade one of the art or physics rooms at university and have a play. Of course any experience is good, so I may think about getting a Mac Mini when they move to Intel. That would be quite an attractive option for me.

Your Comments (required):

READER COMMENTS: We want to hear what you have to say about this article!     Acceptable Use Policy Your Comments (required): Your email is only used if our editors need to contact you. It is not used or stored for any other purpose, nor posted with your comments. Enter the text from the image below Please refresh the page if you have trouble reading this text.