Why does WotC hate Macs?

[Ingolf]

1. Apple's market share is substantially less than 10%. Closer to 6%.

2. Of all the Mac users I know, exactly one is exclusively a Mac user. The rest are all using boot camp, or some scheme such as parallels to support windows on their mac hardware.

3. WotC, being a business, makes decisions for business reasons. Our mac using posters, who are individuals and not businesses, want WotC to make decisions for individual (read: emotional) reasons.

WotC don't "hate" Macs. They hate spending money on software development that will not prove to be profitable. Of course, the preceding sentence could well apply to the unproven DDI concept as a whole, but you have to start somewhere. Given the Mac OS's low market share versus Windows, and given the fact that so many Mac users are also Windows users, WotC's spending a lot of money to support a tiny market share for an already questionable software product makes absolutely no business sense at all.

 

[Ingolf]

Thirdly, the exploit was through a malicious code that was installed on the computer via browsing to an executable file on the internet that had to be downloaded. Any douche who downloads, installs and runs a file from an unknown or insecure source like that deserves to get hacked.

Guess how most compromised systems get that way?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No, it wasn't.

It was hacked on the second day after the restrictions were relaxed to allow puppet access to the machine, ie. the hacker could direct someone to do whatever they asked.

You're correct, it was the second day. I should have checked closer. Still, it "relied" only on Mac software (in this case, it was Safari that proved vulnerable).

Secondly, they were offering a Macbook Air vs. some crappy PC laptop (I think they were Sony's but still...). Which one do you think got the most attempts? Gee... wonder if it was the expensive, kick-ass, lightest notebook on the planet?

Yes, that might have been an additional motivation. But this isn't really a good reason, if you can also win 20,000 $?

Thirdly, the exploit was through a malicious code that was installed on the computer via browsing to an executable file on the internet that had to be downloaded. Any douche who downloads, installs and runs a file from an unknown or insecure source like that deserves to get hacked.

I think basically all common exploits these days require user interaction. But the problem is that this actually works often enough! Maybe it would be better to not give computer access to some people, but that's unrealistic...

Fourth, the exploit was in Safari only and was patched within two days (some said two hours, but I personally remember getting the Software Update two days later). Considering Microsoft's track record, I think two days is pretty damn good.

I don't have much to add to this. I don't like Microsoft slow update cycles either. I suppose that's due to the fact that too many people rely on M$ products, and they really have to ensure that stuff keeps working, and thus need to test longer. (Consider how many old applications are "broken" due to the new security features in Vista...) Still doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[Kzach]

Guess how most compromised systems get that way?

I should also point out that Leopard and Safari have in-built protections versus this kind of idiocy that have to be manually by-passed, ie. warnings that you're downloading from an insecure source, warnings that you're running a program for the first time that was downloaded from the internet, and an admin password prompt to allow the installation.

 

[Maggan]

I'm using Safari 3.1.1 (5525.18) on 10.5.2 on an iMac 2.4GHz C2D 20".

My configuration is:

MacBook Pro
2,16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB of RAM
Mac OSX 10.5.2
Safari 3.1.1 (5525.18)

No problems accessing Gleemax. Not that I do access it.

/M

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Interestingly it seems that there are at least two other people who are successfully using Safari/Mac.

My MacBook Pro with Safari works fine on Gleemax. Well, as fine as Gleemax works on my daughter's window's machine. Using

Safari Version 3.1 (5525.13)
Mac OSx version 10.5.2
2.4 ghz with 4 gig mem.

 

[Aeolius]

I can access Gleemax and post in the blogs, using Safari, but there are a host of formating tools which simply do not show up, unless I browse the blogs using Firefox. As I tend to only browse the web using Safari, I am less inclined to visit a site that requires a different browser.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just reminds me that I couldn't get Safari to load up the configuration site of my router. Very annoying. But then, the router was... old. I nearly said crap, but I suppose his shortcomings in connecting both the MacBook and the newer Vista PCs at home must have been from his age..
[/tangent]

 

[hong]

Eh, it's not a Mac-only thing. The main WotC site is horribly borken when I browse it from work in IE6.

 

[smathis]

Macs comprise 10% of the market. Macs are able to run Windows via Boot Camp or Parallels. WotC looks to be using DirectX for their software. DirectX doesn't work on OSX.

Don't forget VMWare Fusion. Reportedly it supports DirectX 8.1. Using their Unity feature, it looks like I'm running Windows programs on my Mac. But you will need a copy of Windows XP to load on the VM.

Now I don't know how fast VMWare Fusion will be to run something like DDI on -- but it may be okay. Overall, I'd recommend it over parallels. Especially if Parallels doesn't give you access to DirectX.

As for WotC hating Macs... I seriously doubt that's true. What they were doing was developing DDI at a fairly rapid pace and choosing to use DirectX because, well, it's just a lot faster and captures the majority of their user base.

I don't think they were thinking about the group with one or two mac users having to pass on DDI. That's a valid point. In my group, we only have one or two Windows users. So, while I think WotC probably made the best choice for them at the time, I also agree that this was a major oversight.

What I don't understand is why WotC didn't just buy up one of the existing companies out there that already do this. Why design something from scratch? Something like Fantasy Battlegrounds (I think that's the name) is already built, stable and supports everything.

So instead of spending multi-millions of dollars to build something from scratch making obvious shortcuts to meet the deadline, they could have bought an existing application (or, heck, company) and then invested their money more wisely in improving that application.

I don't understand the reasoning behind building from scratch. But, then again, I wasn't privvy to the business dealings going on at the time.

As far as Gleemax...

It's frustrating to navigate and one of the best examples of how NOT to design a website.

I have no problem accessing it on the Mac. I use Firefox, though. One thing I will point out is that my bookmarks and links to the site don't work. But they've never worked all that well.

Basically, if I want to find something on their site, I have to log in and then try to find it by navigating (the search is worthless). And I've already pointed out how horrible it is to navigate so there you have it.

In a nutshell...

If you want to use DDI, VMWare Fusion might be an idea. I wouldn't buy it just for DDI. It costs around $70. I have it because I need access to Windows programs for testing purposes. So I had a need for it outside of DDI.

And I'll echo the forum member who said wait and see about DDI/Gleemax. It is an untested entity, for sure. And there may be changes coming down the pipe. Or it may bomb altogether. Who knows?

Gleemax is horrible, though. I really wish they would do some usability testing on that site. It's like a 1990's level of bad.