Macintosh considered dangerous!
Comments: 39
Help needed! I have a friend who works for a large international organisation. A big part of his job is graphic design and production, web design and maintenance, writing, and photo editing. This friend is a long-time Mac user and has amassed a considerable repertoire of tricks and tips, scripts, shortcuts, knowledge, and general productivity-enhancing goodness that makes doing his job on a Mac a far easier, more thorough, and in all ways more satisfying experience. Love him, love his workflow.
Here’s his problem: he finds himself in a very Mac-hostile environment. He was told that Macs on the network are dangerous, and it looks like plans to obtain one for him have been shelved unless he can make a case for it (apart from the fact that computing monocultures oughtn’t to be any more desirable than environmental or cultural monocultures).
He has no need to connect a Mac to his organisation’s Notes databases (heaven forfend!) or any of its private networks (he’s quite happy to use his PC for that): it really just needs to sit there on an outside internet connection and let him get some work done.
He needs help, and that help should be in the form of links or pointers to well-credentialed demolitions of the Macs-are-dangerous argument (he’s trying to find out just why they’re considered dangerous and couldn’t give me reasons, but don’t shy away from the technical facets of the conundrum — technical details are highly encouraged. If Macintosh network traffic exites electrons in such a way that they smell different, thereby causing nearby PCs to cough, he needs to know!).
This is most emphatically not a Mac vs. PC thread, so please don’t take any replies in that direction, but if you can point me to any authoritative and helpful sources (on his behalf), please leave a comment.
He’d be very, very grateful.
•••
Posted to Computers • 2004.09.22 (Wed) • 22:06
Comments
Posted by Christopher 2004.09.22, 22:59
Ugh. I think I found the culprit. I did a quick search. There’s the xvsxp.com site. There every feature of X and XP are compared and rated. There’s a link there to a techworld article on Secunia. Here’s the link to the article: Techworld article on OS X security
I know it’s not the kind of pro OS X information you were looking for but perhaps it’s something that folks smarter than I can attack.
Posted by Anonymous 2004.09.22, 23:45
I haven’t used a Mac in years (since I sold my SE/30 nearly 10 years ago). I wouldn’t mind having a Mac, because there seem to be so many nifty software toys to play with. My philosophy has always been “the right tool for the job”. It doesn’t matter if the tool is Windows, Mac, Linux, or a Commodore-64, as long as it’s the best tool for a particular job. In your friend’s case, the Mac is the best tool, because he is proficient with it for the kind of work he needs to do.
I have a feeling that it’s going to be hard to dig up references that refute the idea that Macs are dangerous. Because I can’t imagine that anyone ever considered the idea valid enough to write about. However, you might try a quick google on “virus infections mac vs windows”. It turns up some articles that look promising.
Posted by Richard Earney 2004.09.22, 23:57
Dangerous to a PC support person because there is less support to do on Macs!!!
First off all the company ought to justify the statement. It is pretty ridiculous in this day and age. Using a Mac in a PC environment is transparent. There is less risk of virus infection, fewer problems etc etc.
I am a lone Mac user in a Windows environment and I can share back and forth and print using IP printing and all is fine. There have been no problems.
Macs talk standard networking protocols even more so since OS X.
If your friend is likely to be more productive on a Mac that is a pretty good reason for having one!
I used the work PC for a couple of days and just found it got in the way of getting stuff done.
Posted by Alex 2004.09.23, 00:02
Windows PCs are prone and are infected out-of-the-box and are inherintly insecure even on an intranet, until you spend your valuable time making it secure until someone discovers the next vulnerability. Mac OS X boxes are secure and the only network exploit that exists for Mac depends on Windows machines to be compromised first.
Mac OS X = UNIX, for our intents and purposes, which is THE network OS that was designed to be secure on a network. UNIX/BSD/Mac OS X have a security record a mile long, Windows’ vulnerability record is twice as long.
There are no Mac OS X viruses/spyware/malware etc., which is what causes most of the problems anyways. Once one Windows machine is affected all machines on that network will be within a short time … this is not a problem with Mac OS X.
I suggest posting a request on MacNN forums or something similar to receive a greater number of suggestions.
Posted by Brent 2004.09.23, 00:21
The IT admin for the office I work in is very much against mac’s because they don’t come from our M$ friends in Redmond. I’m really not sure what he thought he was going to happen if one entered his network. However, my department managed with some finangling to get two, on for me and one for another programmer. After 18 months, we are still running fine. And the network hasn’t crashed. When it has crashed, it was from some PC virus and usually we are able to continue working just fine.
I don’t have specific links, but as far as the safeness factor, the only thing I can think of is that they put in jeperty the almost god like status that ID admins have. If there is a problem, they don’t know how to solve it and there status/ego/wisdom is crushed.
Good luck. It really is worth the fight!
Posted by m d 2004.09.23, 00:26
I feel for […] your friend.
Especially since it’s always been easier to prove something exists than the opposite. To me, it seems almost impossible to convince people that seem to be so biased in the first place. Since it’s work, it’s delicate but I would still first try to find out where they got their opinion from. You could play it interested like “really? Wow, that’s crazy! I didn’t know! Can you tell me more? ‘cause maybe I should switch to PC in my home too…” kinda thing and see if you find out what they’re actually afraid of, or who/where it’s coming from…
I mean, of course you thought about the whole “Unix powers 75% of all servers in the world” approach already right?
Yeah… that sucks… Good luck to your friend…
Posted by mgseeley 2004.09.23, 00:36
I did a quick Google for “Mac Myths” and found a lot of resources. Most of them are Mac news/info related sites which may seem biased. There was one from Computerworld though which your friends employer may put more trust in. Here is the URL: http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/macos/story/0,10801,84023,00.html
Posted by kev 2004.09.23, 00:42
The first step is to establish and get the IT guys to agree that UNIX is not harmful when connected to a Windows network. If they can agree to that, then simply bash them over the head with the stupid stick, because MacOSX Panther is UNIX.
And even if he doesn’t need to connect to Windows-based resources such as file shares, he still could because of Panther’s built in SMB client. It’d look and act on a Windows network exactly how a PC would, except, you know, without the evil.
That’s the other thing I don’t get; how an IT department can claim an operating system/hardware configuration such as the Mac could be inherently more harm than Windows, with its monthly security updates and the gaping holes in Internet Explorer. Is Spyware not something people in Japan have to deal with? Because in the states, just about every PC in my office has Adaware or any number of other spyware-detecting programs, usually more than one at a time in case one misses something!
I think what a Windows-centric IT department would call “dangerous” really translates to me as “work we don’t wanna do because, well, we don’t know how.” If your friend can sufficiently trouble-shoot his own system and fix any (few) problems that might arise, I see zero reason to keep a Mac off the network; release the IT staff from having to support such an alien system and they’ll probably reluctantly agree to allow it on their network.
What it comes down to is productivity. If he can’t work on Windows as well as he would on a Mac, any vaguely-aware IT person hopefully undestands that they exist to help the production staff and not to further their own ridiculous ends.
Of course, if we’re talking about OS 9, most of my arguments above still hold up except for the Unix part of it. I’m sure there are hundreds of articles out there about why the Mac is no longer difficult to include on a Windows network, and many more articles about spyware and virii that include the Mac’s invulnerability.
Posted by Ste Grainer 2004.09.23, 01:02
I can only offer my own experience at a fairly large university, but they had no problems accommodating my need for a Mac. Indeed, I am able to access nearly everything that my Microsoft-fearing compatriots can. (The only exception is Access databases - surprisingly, Microsoft Office for Mac doesn’t include any utility to open an Access database. Not that I’m really complaining, mind you.)
I was able to access the shared Windows-based file server with very little tweaking from either end. They were even able to install Lotus Notes just fine, against my own preference. (Seriously, why is that system still around - it’s hard to imagine software that could be more inherently cruel to its users.)
From my own technical standpoint, I can’t see how a Mac would be any more dangerous on a network than an unsecured Windows box. From what I’ve read, it takes between 40 seconds and 5 minutes for a non-updated Windows computer to be infected or owned after being placed on the Internet. There are less known vulnerabilities on the Mac, and virtually no known viruses. Most “dangerous” services (web serving, SMTP, telnet, etc.) are turned off by default. As others will point out, this doesn’t mean that Macs are more secure, however (in my experience) Apple and the wider open source community tend to respond faster to threats than Microsoft.
Posted by Massimo Fiorentino 2004.09.23, 01:22
The obvious links: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/networking/ http://developer.apple.com/networking/ might help?
Posted by M. Douglas Wray 2004.09.23, 01:25
StorageTek uses primarily PCs on their in-house network, but their Design group is ALL Mac and has been for years. Not one security issue has ever been raised by that group, nor has any security issue or problem been associated with them. Numerous staff in the Call Center also use Macintosh Powerbooks on the network - routinely guraranteeing a 98% compliance with all Service Level Agreements.
I routinely use my Mac to connect to the corporate network via VPN over cable so I can work at home. I use Remote Desktop Connection to access my work PC to run PC-only applications and in six years I’ve never once had a security issue of any kind.
Posted by monkeyinabox 2004.09.23, 03:14
Where I work, it’s a PC office. I have my own iBook, which I bring in everyday to help with projects and use for personal email and such. The iBook needs the same access granted to access servers as PCs do. It can’t bypass security, just because it’s a Mac. The danger aspect makes little sense. My iBook never gets a virus, or can spread a PC virus. If anything it’s the safest computer on the network. For benefits of using the Mac, I personally prefer it for the same work as your friend. Photo editing, image editing, and web design. Photoshop on the PC isn’t as bad as it used to be, so that’s a mute point, but some good apps are only on Macintosh (BBedit). Besides, the cost, there are no reasons why a Mac would do any harm or have any ill effects on anyone else in the office. WHy hurt the Mac users productivity, for no reason beyond personal preference?
Posted by puppy 2004.09.23, 03:28
I’ve never heard that argument before. It seems like a rather specious plot to not have to get another computer.
Posted by Jeff Minard 2004.09.23, 03:52
It’s hard to combat their refuseal without some kind of reasoning - if they were to say “They get mad viruses” you’ll be much more likely to be able to prove them wrong. As it stands “Macs on the network are dangerous” is just too vauge to rebuttal without it turning into a ‘Yo’mama” argument.
Posted by neri 2004.09.23, 04:35
Well, just the term “considered to be dangerous” warns me that this is a religious decision and nothing based on any technical issue. 1. The first and foremost argument in this case is that computers ar’nt any dangerous; it’ll always be the person using and programming it. From all what I know, a computer has no intention, neither harmful nor harmless. 2. The next thing “dangerous on networks” let the question arise, what kind of network is involved. /Me assumes it’s a Windows based network, which the Mac “simulates” via the samba server/samba client application. This is all open source and any person who considers this to be supicous, should check the the code sigh. There is nothing dangerous on a samba server or client. 3. Can a Mac be dangerous for some data integrity and destroy data due to the fact it’s emulating SMB-Services? Not if the Servers are apropriately adminstered. And if it is not some data loss can also be caused by and Windows based box. 4. Macs are safe. AFAIR, if any filesystem on a Mac needs to be restored in Northern America for some forensic reasons, the drives will be sent to the Canadian Mounty Police, since they have the most sophisticated skills on that; means some special knowledge is needed to get into the Mac internal secrets. 5. There might be some system close tools installed by default, which can be used to do some manual network attacs, although this is not their intentional use. These tools are there due to the Macs Unix nature and made for debugging and system analysis. But most of these tools or equivalents are available for any other system. Most of them are so small and simple that they don’t even need to be installed, means a restricted Windows account is no reason to be protected from such things. 6. What will be the alternative? Migrate to Windows? Who will pay the new software? Usually cross-platform upgrades are as expensive as buying the software completely new. I don’t think this is desirable.
What I wanna say, it’s really hard to argue against such an, well, no, i won’t call it “argument”. The plan would be to provoke any more detailed reaction. If they could specify their “fear” arguing would be way easier. My guess is that company policy has changed a bit toward more security. And this means “to know your system”. If the admin is not familiar with Macs it will be considered to be a security hole. Last but not least, any harm which can be done via a Mac on a network can also be done with a PC, it’s never the computer but always the user.
Posted by Michael 2004.09.23, 04:47
They might be referring to the old AppleTalk networking protocol used by Macs in days gone by. It was rather chatty (especially when the Chooser was up trying to find printers or file servers). There is no Chooser in Mac OS X and he should have no reason to turn on AppleTalk, so he should be fine.
Posted by Rob Menke 2004.09.23, 05:21
There was a time when Macs were dangerous on corporate networks, due to the way EtherTalk was implemented: a Mac would occasionally do a broadcast flood to locate other AppleTalk nodes and that would not only congest the network but also crash more sensitive machines (DEC VAXen, for example). Of course, this problem was eliminated back in ‘98, but network admins who are out-of-date still think it’s a problem. (“Things change? Never!”)
Most modern PCs are hardened against broadcast floods. If they can play a broadcasting FPS on the local net, they can damn well handle the occasional AEP packet fluttering their way.
Posted by Keith Fox 2004.09.23, 06:32
This is pretty fresh so it came to mind immediately. http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040916.html
Posted by Jerry Kindall 2004.09.23, 07:04
Macs are “dangerous”? Well, sure. After the other employees see how much more work your friend gets done with his Mac, they’ll all demand one, which could be very dangerous for the company’s bottom line!
In other respects, Windows boxes are far more dangerous, since they are so easily compromised. See “Microsoft Windows: A lower Total Cost of 0wnership.” Note that that’s “0wnership,” with a zero, i.e. leet-speak for hacking into your computer. In other words it’s saying that Windows is “cheaper” (easier) to break into than any other OS.
(Of course, this piece also refers to Mac OS X as “toy-like” so it might not be the best article to show to the brass.)
There are no real viruses, trojans, adware, or other such malware for Mac OS X at present. There have been a couple of proofs of concept, none of which have ever been found in the wild, and there was one trojan found on pirate sites that claimed to be Microsoft Word but would actually delete your home directory. (If you don’t download pirated software, you won’t see that one.) There were a few viruses for the Classic Mac OS, but if you don’t run the Classic environment under Mac OS X — and there is barely any reason to do so in 2004 — you can’t be affected by any of these. There has never, ever, been a report of a Mac being hijacked and being secretly used to send spam or launch distributed denial-of-service attacks, not one.
Add to this the fact that the Mac comes with most network services disabled by default, receives regular security updates via the OS’s built-in automatic Software Update, and has a good firewall built-in, and the biggest real problem you’re left with is the gamma mismatch that makes PC graphics look too light on a Mac and vice versa.
Posted by Nathan 2004.09.23, 07:15
As a fellow graphic designer and mac user, I can sympathize with your friend. Let me see if I can help:
Firstly, since macs are only used for 5% of the market there are very few exploits and virii written for them (most hackers like to focus on the other 95%). You can find this chunk of common sense all over the net.
I googled around and found an interesting website that echoes what your friends employer is saying. This is the first time I have ever heard this argued: http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1798&Page=1&pagePos=5
This article implies that OS X is MORE unsafe than XP, but a check at the website listed by the author (http://secunia.com/) reveals the following information:
WINDOWS XP: 66 ADVISORIES http://secunia.com/product/22/
APPLE OS X: 39 ADVISORIES http://secunia.com/product/96/
BUT - the number 39 includes all advisories going back to 2002! There have only been 13 in 2004. Look at XP Professional: there’s been 16 in 2004.
There is also this interesting but admittedly biased site: http://www.xvsxp.com/
I hope some of this helps. Good luck!
Posted by Jim Renaud 2004.09.23, 07:19
Now, I’m no expert or all that technical, but I work in a PC-centric office and I use my G4 Powerbook on the network just fine. I connect using SMB and no complaints.
I think there might have been issues beack in the Appletalk days, but not sure.
I even use VPN with no issues… Here are some links:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/windows/ http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=153479
Let the admins know that OSX is completely different than OS9. Tell them that Microsoft makes apps for the Mac…
Posted by Tim Rutter 2004.09.23, 07:48
I do work here in South Australia for three government departments. “Environment & Heritage”, Tourism and Workcover all have a Graphics units.
The only thing Dangerous about macs in manly a windows environments is that it may start organised jealousy.
1)MacOS X has had an internal firewall now for over three years. can’t say that for windows and even with XP SP2 it is still not usable. 2)Viruses? what Viruses. 3)With 10.3 .local Domains are not to much of a problem any more. 4)MacOS X works fine with ISS proxy authentication.
Posted by Michael Glaesemann 2004.09.23, 09:01
Perhaps not a defense of Macs, but an example of Macs and Windows getting along is MacWindows, featuring various topics centered around mixed Macintosh and Windows environments. When there are problems, they discuss them.
Posted by Steve 2004.09.23, 09:22
Probably the best place to start is Mac vs. PC:
This site was specifically designed to debunk PC myths and is a chock full of great links to studies and the like. It’s intended for schools more than anything else but will give your friend plenty of ammo. This fellow has combed through the garbage and come up with 500 (give or take) articles.
Your friend may also want to check Apple’s networking page. A clip: “Mac OS X can talk to every major file server protocol on every major server platform on the market today. This includes AFP, SMB/CIFS, WebDAV and NFS file services running on Mac OS X Server, AppleShare, UNIX, Linux, Novell NetWare, Windows NT and Windows 2000 servers. Mac OS X is the most compatible operating system available today.”
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/networking/
To take matters even further, check out the Windows -specific page at Apple. A clip: “Mac OS X Panther provides a variety of technologies and features that enable Macs and PCs running Windows to work extremely well together.”
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/windows/
There’s even a link to a 10 page pdf on the right-hand side that spells out OS X compatibility with Windows apps and peripherals. Relevant network information with light geek-speak on pages 7 through 10.
To be honest, I don’t know what the IT guys are talking about when they say Macs are “dangerous” on the network. OS X is designed to work on a Windows network seamlessly. I’ve worked in dual environments without an issue. I’ve seen single Macs work in Windows environments without an issue. OS X is far less succeptible to viruses. OS X has a better uptime. OS X is more secure. Blah, blah, blah.
I personally think the “dangerous” claim is an indication of either fear or ignorance. Fear because they don’t have a clue about Macs and don’t want to look stupid and ignorance because they believe everything every other ignorant IT person has told them instead of doing the proper research.
Tell your friend to ask them this: Is Linux dangerous on the network? Is Unix dangerous on the network? They will most likely say no at which point your friend can politely point out that OS X is based on FreeBSD (a flavour of Unix). If they don’t have a problem with Linux, why should they have a problem with FreeBSD?
Sorry for the long comment. I’ve only met a handful of IT people who actually know more than how to apply a patch or follow a Microsoft wizard so I have a dim view of them.
Posted by Brent 2004.09.23, 10:43
These should keep you busy for a while.
http://macs.about.com/cs/macvspc/ http://forgetcomputers.com/~jdroz/ http://www.igeek.com/articles/Myths http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/networking/ http://www.apple.com/switch/
Posted by Max Christian 2004.09.23, 15:54
Don’t know about Macs, but iPods really are dangerous.
Posted by Simon 2004.09.23, 18:43
I don’t think it’s possible to avoid a Mac vs. PC debate in this, but there are some potentially useful points here:
http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows
“Arguing that it’s technically possible that the Mac could suffer just as many security exploits as Windows is like arguing that a good neighborhood could suddenly find itself strewn with garbage and plagued by vandalism and serious crime. Possible, yes, but not likely. The security disparity between the Mac and Windows isn’t so much about technical possibilities as it is about what people will tolerate.
And Mac users don’t tolerate shit.”
Posted by Andy Ruff 2004.09.24, 00:26
Hey, I’m a Program Manager at the Macintosh Business Unit at Microsoft. The idea that Mac’s are dangerous within a network is incredibly ignorant. My recommendation, have him pose his question to the folks at http://www.macwindows.com/.
Using the latest updates on 10.3, he should be able to even bind (assuming a Windows network) his machine to the ActiveDirectory, thus using the same credentials as his PC. There’s solid Kerberos support in the OS, so secure authentication to most network resources should not be a problem (Unfortunately, Safari isn’t Kerebos aware at this time and Mac IE is the only (no longer supported) solution to the problem).
Considering the underpinnings of the MacOS 10.x are all UNIX based, I’d tell him to challenge his administrator to prove that the FreeBSD and Mach are as threatening as his admins put forth. I’m not making a UNIX-Windows comparision, but it’d be insane for me to claim that the UNIX underpinnings of the MacOS are inherently insecure.
There’s a long, long list of companies, including many Fortune 500s, that run Macintosh computers alongside their Windows counterparts without a hitch. BTW, Microsoft is on that list :).
Posted by Saltation 2004.09.24, 02:57
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=9701
has a link to “Mac or PC? Windows’ security issues help some users choose.” (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2004-09-21-maney_x.htm)
Posted by Daniel 2004.09.24, 05:06
Interesting..
I work within security, often working on vulnerability analysis and research into security issues for various platforms and technologies (see http://www.owasp.org for more info).
I have also been a mac user for 4 years now, mainly on the OS X platform. Obviously i would consider myself a serious user when it comes to choosing a secure platform (yes i have discovered security issues within OS X and reported them to apple) and OS X to me is one of the most secure desktop OS’s out of the box (besides OpenBSD)
by placing a OS X laptop on a traditional network, you have zero services running by default, unlike windows with its networking layer going mad as soon as a net connection is found.
I also work within a major Investment bank in London and believe me, NOTHING connects to our network if its not secure. needless to say, macs are ok to connect, whereas pc’s have to be checked by the sec team first
feel free to contact me via mail if more info is needed
Posted by riccard0 2004.09.24, 17:59
Some possibly useful links:
Posted by Paul Reid 2004.09.24, 22:41
This article sets out some very cynical, clear and concise advantages of using a Mac:
Posted by Oli 2004.09.26, 00:22
He was told that Macs on the network are dangerous
I wonder what that means. They’re good enough for the US Army after all. Your friend first needs to find out what specifically his boss/net admin is referring to. Until that he can research on a couple of points:
Security: No system is ever secure. However Mac OS X is certainly no worse than Windows, and more secure by default (eg firewall, no IE/Outlook/ActiveX, not targetted much by viruses). Find out if they run Unix-based web servers, which would be good for comparison. Other research:
- Apple’s security info page
- (Apple are applying for Common Criteria certification, which should make them more enterprise-friendly when they get it)
- Apple security updates
- Microsoft security updates
- CERT current vulnerabilities
- CERT says don’t use IE (your friend could ask if other company staff use IE or Outlook Express)
- Viruses eg Symantic’s virus center
Productivity: If your friend is more productive on a Mac then that saves the company money. Get him to think of some ways the having a Mac helps his productivity. I’d suggest Apache being one click away, but this might be ‘dangerous’ ;-)
I suspect their fear is based on bad network behavior of MacOS 9 and earlier specifically Appletalk network litter (Appletalk Broadcast storms). Many older network admins have memories of listening to users complain about the network being slow, while watching the few Macs on the network chatter incessantly for no good reason. Many network admins still hate Macintoshes. This is no longer a problem if you using MacOS X and are not using Appletalk. Also if the Windows machines are using NetBIOS (hopefully unlikely), then complaining about a MacOS X box seems silly. NetBIOS machines litter the network with broadcast packets, while MacOS X boxes are much better neighbors. A little reading into the history of MacOS X and NeXTStep and the Internet might also help make a persuasive case.
Posted by Durf 2004.10.05, 17:14
If the friend is going to be using a lot of network shares, then the admins are going to end up annoyed by all the damn .DS_Store things that get littered everywhere. But beyond that there is no reason to prevent a modern Mac from getting plugged into a network.
Macs aren’t susceptible to viruses and worms and such, but they can be vectors for them … Maybe some AV software (I know, I know) would be good to have on the machine for the admins’ peace of mind, even though it isn’t necessary for the machine in question.
If all else fails, just stick an Airport Express onto a hidden ethernet cable somewhere and go to town. ;)
This might be a good question to ask on the Mac Ach at arstechnica.com, too.
Posted by Eric Ott 2004.10.08, 02:59
Mac’s Dangerous? That is stupid. I have worked with PC’s for over 15 years and have been head of my IT department for 4 years. We have a PC based network running server 2003 & NT4.0. I use a PC for ColdFusion and use my Apple G4 for graphics, etc. If we all used Mac’s we would not be dealing with the onslaught of Viruses.
I am by no means a PC basher. I love both (love is a strong word), I like both platforms. I found that I have been much happier since OSX networking wise with PC’s. Our Graphics Depart ment have Macs and are networked to the server and printers.
I hope this helps.
Posted by SashasDoc 2004.10.10, 23:18
From www.xvsxp.com:
Macs save $$ over PCs at Syracuse.Net
Wayne and Linda Bibbens own two ISPs— Syracuse.Net, Inc and Baldwin Communications Internet (BCI), Inc. Each ISP supports approximately 2,500 customers.
Most of BCI’s customers are PC users while Syracuse.Net caters exclusively to Mac users. “I have 2 full time tech support employees that endlessly help Windows customers with their internet problems, and also endlessly maintain and patch mail and web servers running Windows NT”, says Wayne.
“On the other hand, support calls at Syracuse.Net average about 10 per week and the Macintosh mail and web servers have never needed a single upgrade in 1-1/2 years. There is only enough Macintosh activity to require a part time employee.
“The number of Windows problems continues to amaze me. The Macs amaze me too— on how well they continue to operate and perform. The Macs certainly cost more— the server class Macs were about twice as expensive as their Windows counterparts, but the constant babysitting of Windows has ultimately cost me more than 5 times what the Macs cost. The Code Red virus alone exceeded $5000 in expenses, while none of the Macs got ‘Code Reded’!”
Although the above refers to an ISP and operations that your friends may not be using on his network—the premise that Macs (running OS X 10.3 Panther) are more stable and more secure than Windows flavored PCs is supported.
I have used Windows based OSes since 3.x in the US Government. I currently use OS X on an iMac at home and on an iBook while travelling and have had no problems—and more importantly CAUSED no problems—on any of a variety of official client networks or hotel systems while travelling.
My Win98 PC has been constantly under siege by spyware and malware even with virus updates. As a result, it has never even been connected to my DSL-powered home network and it is only used for games and a few legacy MS Access databases that I still use.
I think the post by the MS Program Manager above is a compelling one for your friend to reference in any rebuttal at work.
Good luck!
Posted by SashasDoc 2004.10.10, 23:29
A post script:
I worked as a physical security specialist for a Fortune 500 client on the West Coast a few years ago. This company handles billions of dollars worth of client assets and advises on nearly a trillion dollars worth of client financial dealings worldwide.
Although most of the computers in the Corporate HQ were PCs, the entire graphic arts department and some select other individuals used Macs on the corporate network.
I have also observed Macs used on Windows networks in clients’ facilities as varied as a high school, a major food distributor, and a software developer that had a proprietary product whose security was synonymous with company survival.
They all had no problem with Macs ‘in the loop’.
Posted by John "Remote Support" West 2005.12.26, 00:50
Having worked with PC for many years now in cormporate environements and also at the same time seeing the MAC’s networking capabilities develope over the years, network/LAN admins really often over react to MACs on their networks. Their initial knee jerk is to say something negative of the MACs mear existance. They’re lower maintainance once they’re up and running with all the software needed by the end user and just as another poster/commentor pointed out, they’re less vulnerable to security threats and often it’s the PC on the same LAN that “opens the door” not the other way around. my 2 cents….
Post a comment:
Send This Story to an Enemy
• • •
