Windows users - a 'Tolerating' bunch?

Preamble: This post is lengthy. I apologize. Two analogies • three questions • two deductions • The general science is that Windows users are a 'Tolerating' bunch for accepting malware-ridden platforms from the maker willingly. I suggest they are not 'Tolerating' anything, but doing quite well in an all-encompassing religion. I suggest the Windows user is the proverbial fundamentalist applying quirks of his doctrine to full effect, and that his form and practice, deemed awkward and at times hilarious, appear quite normal to him. He is numbed into treating the issue of malware-breach as a 'sidebar' rather than an 'emergency'. I suggest he is at peace with his platform.

Analogy. Two houses are on the market. Both models bear common features of a typical home, but one has a major flaw. Its foundation is not termite-treated. The other model is sound and comes with a termite-proof guarantee.

Question! Why do majority of home owners prefer the termite-ridden model over the one with a termite-proof guarantee?

Analogy. You are handed keys to a car you purchased and the salesman reminds you that the vehicle is manufactured and sold without brakes. On behalf of the maker of the vehicle, he further insults your intelligence by reminding you that installing brakes is necessary to prevent crashes. He reminds you that the brand and level of brakes you install are your responsibility and not the duty of the maker.

While you absorb the insults and bizarre terms of purchase, you are silently aware of another brand of vehicle available on the market. You are aware that this particular car is also manufactured and sold without brakes.

The thing is, despite the lack of brakes, you are aware that the vehicle is designed to avoid crashes and the maker, like a good corporate citizen, accepts full responsibility in the event its intelligent design fails.

Question! Why do majority of car owners prefer the crash-prone model over the one that is crash-proof?

You see my point! The hypothetical ‘preference’ for the termite-ridden home and crash-prone car is analogous to preference for a Windows-based computer.

It is well known that the integral bane of the Windows platform is its ability to attract malware. The existence of a billion-dollar spyware industry underscores this weakness and despite dominance of Windows of the IT media, this fact is too cold to ignore.

Akin to assuming responsibility for installing brakes in your car, Windows users are put in an shameful position of being forced to pay for security of malware-ridden platforms they purchased, when it ought to be the responsibility of the maker.

Computer platforms are entrenched in Enterprise (the server market) and Homes (the personal computer market) both of which are dominated by Windows. Enterprise is left with little choice because of its monopoly of the server market. However, although it dominates the personal computer market as well, the Home user still retains the power to choose his personal computer platform.

Question! Why then do majority of Home users opt for a malware-ridden platform over one with a malware-proof guarantee?

Deduction. Applying Occam's Razor (a principle that says - in explaining a thing, no more assumptions be made than are necessary) a simple answer would be that Windows users are a tough, tardy and 'Tolerating' bunch, who have a higher threshold of pain over their counterpart – the vain Macintosh user - who operates in a secure malware-free environment. The intolerance of the Macintosh user to the malware nonsense from the web is legendary, but is subject of another post.

Deduction. A self-analysis suggests that the 'simple answer' above-mentioned does not apply. As a previous Windows user, I did not 'Tolerate' the environment. On the contrary, I was actually 'living' it, to the point of relish. I was a fish who was repeatedly asked the rhetorical question - 'What is it like living in water'. Not having experienced the benefits of land-life, I did not have a reference point to form a balanced opinion of the environment in which I was reveling.

Being in the Windows realm, I was practicing an all encompassing religion. I was the proverbial fundamentalist applying the quirks of the doctrine to full effect. Practices deemed awkward, and at times hilarious to a small group of enlightened people, appeared quite normal to me and my large group.

One enlightened friend - a Macintosh user - said he pukes when he hears of the active firewall widget on my Dell displaying 15,000 odd malware events per second attempting a breach. I was told the widget in itself was a cutting-edge software and was quite happy with it. I wondered why he was all hot and bothered when Windows users deal daily with malware breach as a 'sidebar' rather than an 'emergency'. I did not see what the fuss was all about.

Given the march of the Windows-controlled IT media, I believed it was polite fiction when he declared that his Macintosh malware-free. I believed it was polite fiction when he declared that his Macintosh costs less than a similarly-specified Windows computer. I believed it was polite fiction when he declared that his Macintosh runs Windows Operating Systems as well.

Cheers, Tommy

image: techfresh.net