Readers contend Mac's OS X is much tougher to crack than Windows

[Seeker of Truth]

Backlash
Readers contend Mac's OS X is much tougher to crack than Windows
By David Zeiler: The Mac Experience
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally published Aug 28, 2003

The Mac Experience
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writing a column containing debatable comments from security experts is nearly as good at filling up your e-mail inbox as the SoBig virus.

Last week, I concluded that Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh OS X provided safer computing than Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating systems -- in part because its small market share offers Internet villains too little opportunity to spread mayhem and partly because OS X ships with all of its vulnerable services turned off. This blocks potential attackers from gaining access to the system's software in the first place.

The disputed quote arose in the effort to ascertain whether OS X is inherently more secure than Windows -- that is, harder to crack -- or is the dearth of viruses and worms for the Mac a result of "crackers" considering it not worth the time.

Incidentially, several e-mail writers objected to the use of the blanket term "hackers," which more accurately describes people adept at crunching code, and not necessarily for malicious purposes. "Crackers" is the term preferred for virus and worm writers. A larger group -- the "script kiddies" -- simply download other people's malware and tweak it.

The remark that many readers found objectionable came from Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant of British anti-virus software firm Sophos PLC.

"It's perfectly possible to write viruses for Apple Macs," Cluley said. "Indeed, a Mac has no more inherent security than a PC, but virus writers appear motivated by a desire to cause widespread havoc and so have concentrated on the market leader."

Many readers, most of them computer programmers, vehemently disagreed.

"Your article, and Mr. Cluley's statements in particular, perpetrate a myth regarding the fallibility of *NIX [Unix-based operating systems] when compared to Microsoft Windows," said Burt Janz, a senior software engineer who is president and owner of CCS New England, a computer-services provider in Nashua, N.H.

Janz has developed in all the major operating systems -- Windows, Unix, IBM Corp.'s OS/2, as well as OS X.

More (http://www.sunspot.net/technology/custom/pluggedin/bal-mac082803,0,1353478.column)

[bannerman]

I would not trade my MAC for a windows machine for fear of DEATH.

I am not a Mac Techie...but I have never had any viruses,...

[Timberwolf]

Methinks my next box may have to be a Mac...

[Rink]

Cant game very much in a MAC.

[bannerman]

the new G5 processor — available at speeds up to dual 2GHz,..should provide the best of all possible choices.

[Peachdiane]

Me too, Bannerman. If ex hadn't destroyed my Mac I'd be using it today.

The article is great but OS X isn't a major operating system. It's really just rock-solid Unix at the core, with Apple's elegant user interface on top.

[ QUOTE ]
Timberwolf said:
Methinks my next box may have to be a Mac...

[/ QUOTE ]

TW, are you serious? You wanna come over to the dark side and be ridiculed by your peers? http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon129.gif Spend all your time debunking Mac misconceptions? http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/computer2.gif

Well if you do, you won't regret this (http://www.apple.com/safari/ ) which puts IE in the dust. Oh to use Safari again! http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/Crying.gif

[Rink]

Opera, use the browser Opera hehe

[Radical-Conservative]

[ QUOTE ]
Peachdiane said:



The article is great but OS X isn't a major operating system. It's really just rock-solid Unix at the core, with Apple's elegant user interface on top.

[/ QUOTE ]
Eggplantt interface?

[nosferatuscoffin]

Opera is fine browser that has finally matured to the level that it can be used as a replacement for IE or Netscape.

As for Max OS X, it is more stable OS since it uses a UNIX kernel. It also has better flexibility for multimedia support as well as true plug and play support via firewire built into the kernel.

However, Apple's problem was, and will always be, that it's platform is really only for graphics creation and development, desktop publishing and multimedia. it is not an industrial strength platform that can handle a plethora of applications such as games, divergent utilities and true all in one office applications. It also has very poor networking support, compared to UNIX, the various Linux flavors and even Windows.

Also, from the beginning, it has used a propreitary kernel and API that was and is very much closed source, UNIX or not. Software developers are not going to jump through the hoops of coding for it as well as paying the licensing fees to create programs for a platform that barely 10% of the computing population uses.

In short, Apple will always be the 10% solution and not a platform that will not ever be used heavily by end-users or corporations as the foundation for their computing needs.

[bannerman]

Me too, Bannerman. If ex hadn't destroyed my Mac I'd be using it today.


--------------------

Destoyed ,..as in Broke, smashed and like that?

[Peachdiane]

[ QUOTE ]
bannerman said:

Destoyed ,..as in Broke, smashed and like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, trashed and smashed. Was a real nifty graphite imac too! I loved the iCal where one could download whole season movie schedules or sports events from Apple and it was all color coded to boot. Have you had fun with that yet? http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I think next time I'd get this, a G4 built to order http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

http://a1600.g.akamai.net/7/1600/51/634ec07d933a12/www.apple.com/hardware/powermacg4/images/indextop02022003.jpg

Rink, Rink, must you be such an enabler? http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon20.gif Ok, I redownloaded Opera. http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/computer2.gif

[bannerman]

sounds like thee plan to me.

I am waiting to buy the Double processor G5.

as a heavy RAM USER with photoshop etc,...I need the speed

I bought my G3 weeks before the G4 was announced and swore I'd wait until the G5 came out,..

[DoctorDoom]

Ain't NUTHIN' in all computerdom as butt-ugly as a G4 (except maybe an iMac). And Jobs wonders why those bizarre things don't even come close to Wintel boxes in sales. They appeal to the pony-tailed Birkenstock-wearers in tie-dyed shirts who work in "creativity-inspiring" environments with multicolored walls and exotic carpeting.

To Apple's credit, it shitcanned that plastic toy look with the G5.

http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/2041/395/store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/productshot_powermac_g5.jpg

IAC, Macs are niche machines. They appeal primarily to heavy graphics users who eat, drink and breathe PhotoShop. It's what they're designed for and it's what they do very damned well indeed. However...

The performance figures (see here (http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/)) that they quote to awe the computer illiterate are based on the speed at which they run specific PhotoShop filter processes or exotic applications such as DNA sequence matching. Put one head to head with a comparable Windows box running a 10,000-cell spreadsheet and that "superior" speed vaporizes.

Note this in small grey letters at the bottom of the performance page (so that the reader hopefully won't look down that far):

[ QUOTE ]
Professional applications tested by Apple in June 2003 using preproduction Power Mac G5 units and, with the exception of HMMer, application software optimized for the PowerPC G5.

[/ QUOTE ]
Got that? Apple used programs "optimized" for the G5, compared them to Pentiums, and crowed that the G5 is faster. Well, DUH!

BTW, the programs that they used for their comparisons will not be under everyone's Christmas tree.

PhotoShop 7 - about $600
eMagic Logic Platinum - $500-plus
Cubase SX 1.051 - $600

BLAST and HMMer are apparently freeware, but I doubt that Jane or John Computerist will buy Macs to run programs for DNA comparisons and protein sequence analysis.

Granted that Macs handle graphics and certain scientific apps quite capably, but using the Mac's highter speed in those applications as a selling point for them is, to be very kind, deceptive.

For the vast majority of us who run real-world programs, Wintel machines are the choice.


Here are a couple of points before deciding on sinking kilobucks into Steve Jobs' "MINE! MINE! MINE!" boxes:

Apple monitors are ludicrously expensive. The 20" unit shown is $1300 by itself. There's no "street price". You want it, you pay Jobs' tab. It is unusable with anything but a Mac without an expensive adapter, and your regular monitor won't work with a Mac.

The G4 being yesterday's Mac, the G5 is the new must-have. It STARTS at $2000, and the dual-CPU unit is $3000. So, you have a $4300 bill for just the box and the monitor, with no accessories.

IMO, it requires a real need for what it can do to sink that much money into a computer. Give me $4300 and I'll give you a Wintel box that would put the HAL-9000 to shame.

In short, for the vast majority of computer users, a Mac is primarily for snob appeal, the "I look down my nose at you, Windows-using peasant!" aura of superiority. For what the average computer user will ever want to do, it's no better than the $700 Walmart package boxes, and there are far fewer useful programs for it (and, as with Windows, even fewer programs that will use a dual-CPU configuration).


As for its greater security, were there enough Macs out there to make the time spent to compromise them worth the effort, there would be viruses targeted at them. However, to the miscreant bastards who write them, the primary value of viruses is egoboo, the delicious thrill of knowing that they did that thing to all the PCs out there. If one wrote a very effective virus for a Mac and set it loose, who would ever hear of it? There aren't enough of them to make a media splash. It's the satisfying feedback from the beset computer owners that drives the little pricks to do their evil deeds.

[DV8tion]

http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yeahthat.gif

[DesertFox]

Well said, Doc. My idiot school district bought into Macs 15-20 years ago and now is too sheepish to just admit it was a stupid decision and walk away from them. We have to use those pieces of shit on our Ethernet system, and there is always something not working.

Jobs is forking liberal, which explains a lot.