Bill Husted answers readers’ tech questions for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. A MacDailyNews reader spotted a Q&A of interest in Sunday’s edition:
Question: I am purchasing a home computer for my family (two children, spouse and myself). Macs have been recommended to me because of ease of use, lack of vulnerability to viruses and spyware and, now, no problems with exchange of documents between Mac and PC software. I’m looking at the G5, which is about $1,300. Comparable PC-based systems are several hundred dollars less. Do you have a recommendation?
Husted: I’m assuming, from reading your e-mail, that this is a first computer for your family instead of a replacement. If that’s the case, the Macintosh makes a lot of sense for all the reasons you mentioned. For someone new to computers, there’s enough to worry about without adding the burden of viruses and worms to the list. Go for it. Buy the Mac. But also keep in mind that it’s still smart — even with a Macintosh — to install anti-virus software. That said, there’s nothing at all wrong about buying a PC. You’ll pay less for more power. And modern PCs are just as easy to use as a Mac. So it’s really a question of whether you are willing to pay a little more for fewer hassles with viruses.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Just a couple of points about what is overall a very positive answer for the Mac by Husted. Husted isn’t bad guy; he just seems to really want to come across as platform agnostic. Husted’s right to say that upfront “You’ll pay less for more power” with a Windows PC vs. a Mac. But, how much will you pay in lost time, spyware removal, virus protection, etc.?
Husted writes, “Modern PCs are just as easy to use as a Mac?” This is the worst part of his answer. Which modern PCs, exactly, the one’s running pirated copies of Mac OS X for Intel? Do modern PCs, by which we think Husted means Windows XP PCs, come with Spotlight, Safari RSS, run iLife, feature Exposé, etc.? In review after review, Mac OS X Tiger is favored when compared to Windows XP for ease-of-use. It’s just goofy to state otherwise.
And, “fewer hassles with viruses?” If by “fewer,” Husted means “zero,” okay. It’s right there in the Q&A: the questioner states “lack of vulnerability to viruses and spyware” for Mac OS X and Husted himself writes, “there’s enough to worry about without adding the burden of viruses and worms,” so why does he recap with “fewer hassles with viruses” when he could’ve more clearly written “no hassles with viruses?”
We think Husted’s just trying to answer in a neutral fashion, and he’s overwhelmingly positive about the reader’s idea of getting a Mac, but to give his readers the impression that “modern PCs are just as easy to use as a Mac” seems to be just a bit too much of a stretch to appear neutral and ends up doing his readers a disservice at worst, confusing them at best.
Does Husted really think that the Mac is a great choice and offer fewer hassles with viruses, but that Windows PCs are as easy to use as a Mac and cost less initially? Which one is the better choice? Does it really matter whether you choose a Mac or a Windows PC? After reading Husted’s answer, we’re not sure, which pretty much obviates the purpose of a Q&A.
Walt Mossberg is know for his impartiality when it comes to tech advice and he doesn’t need to come up with “modern PCs are just as easy to use as a Mac” drivel. The related articles below show how Mossberg successfully tackles questions like Husted received above. The Joy of Tech link about Mossberg’s answer is particularly funny.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Mossberg: most people ‘are good candidates for switching’ to Mac from Windows – February 28, 2005
The Joy of Tech: Walter Mossberg on reasons not to switch to the Mac – February 18, 2005
Mossberg: switching to Mac from Windows isn’t for everybody, just most people – February 17, 2005
Dear Bill,
I guess I am confused about your published reply to David Allen about whether or not he should buy a Mac or a PC.
You seemed to begin your answer telling him that he should, but then you drifted away from that initial position and, in my opinion, you confused him.
You told him that he’ll spend less money on a PC, that he should still get antivirus software for his Mac, and that Windows computers are just as easy to use.
According to Symantec there have been over 10,000 new Windows virus variants and worms during just the first six months of this year. To date, there are still ZERO that affect the Mac. I’ll just say that I completely disagree with your advice that he should get antivirus software for his Mac. After a PC owner pays for and installs antivirus software, he’ll lose his speed advantage over a Mac and will also lose some of his price advantage.
If should acknowledge the fact that Mac OS X already is “professional” level software, but Windows users must pay for an expensive upgrade to get XP Pro. Macs also come with iLife ‘05 (iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie HD, iDVD & Garage Band) plus iSync, iCal, Address Book, Mail, Dashboard and Spotlight for free, so you have an entire suite of programs that are made to work with each other. Some offer capabilities that are not even available on Windows.
Macintoshes are also beautifully designed and earn second glances when people look at them. There must be a dollar value to having a beautifully styled computer for the same reason that many homeowners think that there it is worth paying extra to have stainless steal or other beautifully designed appliances in their home.
I agree that in raw CPU power, one can buy a faster Windows computer than a Macintosh for the same price. However, I disagree that when you factor in all that you do not get in that Windows computer that is included for no extra charge in a Mac, that the Windows computer is not really faster, nor less expensive, nor easier to use at all.
Bryan
To anyone considering a Mac:
I bought an iMac G5 last February. This after owning/building and using several types of computers and operating systems since the early 80’s. It’s a good choice, a good platform and a solid operating system, and the software that comes with the machine is excellent.
Don’t let the tone of some of the five year olds on this site dissuade you, there is a thriving and supportive community on the internet that will be all to glad to help you with any problems that you might have. Get the Mac, you won’t regret it.
The Mac guys are all the same. I am a graphic designer and
have to use both a Mac G5 and PC. They BOTH work GREAT!
“Most” software today is ported for both platforms.
XP Pro rocks and is extremely solid. Tiger is now very solid,
as all of us know it was very buggy out of the gate. I am using
it rght now to type this message.
You keep on saying Windows has nothing like Spotlight. HUH?
Do you Mac guys really even run Windows?
Search works great in XP Pro and will find ANY file.
The only thing I see Macs more advanced in, is the Virus issues and
that’s only because it’s still not that popular. I can say one thing
for Mac folks, they are very loyal even though a lot of what they say
is pure hype.
Actually the guy doesn’t really give a clear answer, which is the whole problem.
The writer was very fair. Give him a break. He DID recommend the Mac after all. He did hedge his answer with the PC reference, but that’s to be expected really. It might have been nice if he had also mentioned the spyware/malware hassles in the PC and the lost time potential as something to consider as well, but oh well! Can’t have it all everytime.
Date: 1968
Me: They landed a man on the moon!!
Weird Uncle Louie: Bulls**t.
Date: 2005
Me: There are NO viruses for the Mac OSX platform!!
Typical Computer Journalist: Bulls**t.
Moral: Some people just can’t wrap their heads around this concept.
Good Job,
It was a JOKE idiot. Humor? Hear of it? Geeze….
Terry Scott,
XP Pro does not “rock” and is not “extremely solid”. Explain to me why my Windows XP system, that I use to run Gigasampler is not able to do as many notes as it did when I first installed XP. I use it only for music. It’s gotten bogged down, and when I quit some programs, it says the directory is corrupt. And running CHKDSK never fixes it. Rock solid. Hardly.
Time the searches in Mac OS X 10.4 vs. XP. No comparison. And the “not popular=no virus” argument doesn’t hold up. PRE OS X versions of Macintosh OS had viruses. I can remember a bunch I had on my Centris 660AV….
XP Pro does work quite well when you first install it. Then it begins a slow death. I think its because of that gawd awful registry and to a lesser degree all the tmp files that never go away unless you manually remove them. So XP can work well if you know how to keep it tuned up.
Oh, but I know how to “tune it”. I defrag the drives. I chkdsk. Still, it has problems.
On a Mac, you don’t have to do this. Plus, look at the slick software that comes PRE-INSTALLED on a new Mac. Compare that to a Windows XP machine.
Stop complaining and being nitpicky! He recommended the Mac.
There, the blind lemmings at it again…
I think he BEGRUDGINGLY recommended the Mac. Why didn’t he say for example that OSX is the most advanced OS with features that may noteven be included in Vista in 2006/7?
You only have to see the UK’s Sunday Times tech collumnists to see the weight they give to sorting Windows issues and the dismissive way they deal with Mac. It’s the norm but at least they can’t say Apple is dying anymore!
I have been reading Bill Husted’s columns in the AJC for over 10 years. Bill considers himself a geek and as such does not recommend Macs. Several weeks ago he was writing about his being a Beta tester for Microsoft Vista and went into great detail about installing and using it. According to Bill, it is really something to look forward to. No comparison to OS X though.
The AJC uses Macs (not sure what version of the OS) so he knows a lot about them from first hand experience. That said, given a choice, he will never recommend a Mac over a PC.
One reason is that he has a Q&A column about computers that is syndicated to other papers so it is in his interest that people use PC’s in order to keep the cards and letters coming for him to answer.
Another reason is that there is not much to tinker with on a Mac. He knows this from his experience with Macs at the paper, Several months ago he wrote about receiving a Mac Mini and setting it up. It went well. He promised to write an update about using it and its software but he has not done so to date. My guess is that he would have to say that the Mac OS/software combination is so far ahead of Windows that he would get no further previews of Microsoft Vista.
In short, ignore Bill.
My primary workstation is a 400Mhz G4, you couldnt PAY ME to use a windwos comptuer… well maybe you could
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
HUSTED: For someone new to computers, there’s enough to worry about without adding the burden of viruses and worms to the list….So it’s really a question of whether you are willing to pay a little more for fewer hassles with viruses.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I think I’ll clear up this misconception. Macs are NOT better protected from viruses than Micrsoft. Just the opposite is true. The Mac’s security hassles more than double the amount of security hassles related to Microsoft.
Everyone assumes that Microsoft is more vulnerable because the problems are more apparent. Mac users assume they never have any problems with their OS system because they never see them. Mac’s “pretty” Open GL graphics don’t provide any protection against viruses whatsoever.
Don’t believe me? Check these links below to see for yourself.
Independent Site:
http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?newsID=1798&
Microsoft’s Site:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.aspx
(Security updates total around 43)
Apple’s Site:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=61798
(Security updates total around 100)
Wait, so, you are taking a Microsoft link as a reference to security? So the Mac, which has NO viruses, is less secure? That Apple provides security updates frequently doesn’t mean anything. You simply don’t have spywear or viruses installing themselves into the system. Apple’s OS X does not allow that without a password.
You need to get your head out of your ass. Security issues and a security problem are two different things. Microsoft has security PROBLEMS. Real things that are going on. Apple has security issues. Things that might, perhaps, go wrong. It doesn’t mean that Microsoft is going to protect you any better. I’ve seen systems running XP that have been hosed completely by hackers and viruses. Have YET to see that on OS X.
Go back to drinking your Microsoft Kool-aid.
Undecided –
So what you are saying: Because Apple releases more security updates than MS, that must prove that OS X is insecure? And because an anti virus company writes an article for Techworld, what they say must be true?
I think there is a more important measure: Which OS has had (and continues to have) more actual exploits (viruses, adware and other malware)? I will give you a clue here – it isn’t OS X.
Undecided
“I think there is a more important measure: Which OS has had (and continues to have) more actual exploits (viruses, adware and other malware)? I will give you a clue here – it isn’t OS X.”
So, you are saying that because Microsoft has had, and continues to have, more security problems, it is a better, and safer than OS X? That kind of argument is stupid. It’s like saying one car is better than another because it, in the course of 4 years, has had more problems fixed and continues to develope more problems than the other which has not had any.
So, you’d trust your money with a Bank that has and has had a history of security problems? Would you trust a police officer that has and has had a history of abusing the law?
If you do, you are insane. You must live in Redmond…
Comment:
From: Eric
Sep 28, 05 – 03:45 pm
Undecided
“I think there is a more important measure: Which OS has had (and continues to have) more actual exploits (viruses, adware and other malware)? I will give you a clue here – it isn’t OS X.”
———————————————-
This is not my quote. This is from “dogfriend”. If that was directed at me then I am unsure as to why.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment:
From: dogfriend
Sep 28, 05 – 03:30 pm
Undecided –
So what you are saying: Because Apple releases more security updates than MS, that must prove that OS X is insecure? And because an anti virus company writes an article for Techworld, what they say must be true?
———————————————-
Hardly. All computers are in some way insecure. I don’t need an article from Techworld to tell you that; it’s common knowledge.
The article is only one of many that states my case.
=====
Both the Microsoft and Apple websites show the vulnerabilities each company has had in the past year. Micrsoft’s vulnerabilities were less than half the amount that Macintosh had.
I’m not saying those numbers make Microsoft better. I’m stating that there are significant problems with Apple that people don’t address.
The majority uses Microsoft, not Apple. Therefore,
you’re not going to see as many “security problems” on Apple because no one cares to exploit them.
Yes, there is a difference in “security problems” and “security issues”, but Apple does also have “security problems”. Don’t single out Microsoft.
You should choose a more current article to try to make your case. That Techworld article warning about the Mac OS was posted in June 2004. We are now in Sept 2005. To my knowledge, none of the vulnerabilities they warned about have been exploited. I don’t know for sure, but I would speculate that all of those vulnerabilities have been corrected by now.
I think another flaw in your argument is that you assume that both Windows and Mac OS are equally vulnerable. I do not agree. Because of the design and configuration of Mac OS X (requires admin password to install apps and has all non essential ports off by default), I believe that Mac OS is less vulnerable than Windows even if there was equal market share.
If users continue to switch to OS X, then we will know if I’m right in a couple of years. If not, then I will always be at lower risk.
Comment:
From: dogfriend
Sep 28, 05 – 06:39 pm
You should choose a more current article to try to make your case. That Techworld article warning about the Mac OS was posted in June 2004. We are now in Sept 2005. To my knowledge, none of the vulnerabilities they warned about have been exploited. I don’t know for sure, but I would speculate that all of those vulnerabilities have been corrected by now.
I think another flaw in your argument is that you assume that both Windows and Mac OS are equally vulnerable. I do not agree. Because of the design and configuration of Mac OS X (requires admin password to install apps and has all non essential ports off by default), I believe that Mac OS is less vulnerable than Windows even if there was equal market share.
—————————————————–
If you want “more current” proof, look at the Apple vulnerabilities link. It comes straight from the source and is not tainted.
I do not assume that Macintosh and Microsoft have equal vulnerabilities. Quite the contrary to what you said, I believe that Macintosh has the greater of the vulnerabilities. Macintosh users are generally oblivious to their vulnerabilities, which is worse than having one in the first place. As you said yourself, you believe that you’re “at lower risk” with your Mac than someone else would be with their Windows system.
Granted, admin password requirements and defaulted ports are nice, but that’s not going to stop someone from getting into your system if they really want to. The essential ports that do not default to “off” are the ports that are used to access your computer. The only way to completely eliminate your vulnerability is to pull the cable of your internet service provider, which none of us will do for apparent reasons.
Mac has made many advances in securing their systems, that’s for certain. They have, however, many vulnerabilities that cannot be overlooked.
Just because a possible threat hasn’t been tried, that doesn’t mean it can’t/won’t be tested. Like I said before, no one cares to break into a Macintosh because major companies and organizations don’t use them. Microsoft has been the leader in the market for years, and the entire government infrastructure is based on Windows. It’s only natural for the hackers to focus on Windows machines.
I’m not trying to disprove your points. All of the security measures on Mac systems are valid and useful.
Just don’t assume those couple extra security measures on Mac systems will sustain you, or you’ll end up infested.
“If you want “more current” proof, look at the Apple vulnerabilities link. It comes straight from the source and is not tainted. “
And when I follow the link, what I see is a list of security updates for the last 9 months (approx.) These are all issues that have been addressed. So, they are no longer a vulnerability.
I’m sorry, I fail to accept your argument that OS X is less secure because they are releasing updates at a (slightly) higher rate than MS.
And I believe that I am at lower risk for viruses or other malware because of the design of OS X. I don’t believe that there is no risk, but I do believe that the risk is much lower than if I were using Windows to surf the net and read e-mail.
I am somewhat familar with Windows, having used computers from the DOS 3.3 days. I use Windows computers at work when I have to, but only the Mac for surfing and e-mail.
Even on the Mac, I use a hardware firewall and I have all unused ports off. I do have anti-virus software (ClamXAV) but so far it has been completely unnecessary. In fact, it can only detect Windows viruses because there aren’t any OS X viruses yet. Keeping the system updated is no hassle at all, except that it usually means that I have to reboot the computer. I normally go between updates without rebooting or shut downs.
Windows users discuss which anti-virus software is more effective and which adware/spyware cleaners work the best. Mac users debate whether anti-virus software is even necessary at all.
Comment:
From: dogfriend
Sep 28, 05 – 08:52 pm
Windows users discuss which anti-virus software is more effective and which adware/spyware cleaners work the best. Mac users debate whether anti-virus software is even necessary at all.
—————————————————-
It doesn’t matter how many unused ports you turn off, or how many passwords you have. Thinking you can avoid a malicious attack without using anti-virus and firewall protection is absurd. I’m not saying you do this, but I do know Mac users who think they’re “invincible” from virus attacks.
I like to think of it this way: You begin to lock up your house for the night. Your password protection is like the lock on your front door, your ports are like the lock(s) on your back door, and finally, your anti-virus and firewall are like your windows. If any of these is not entact, you are very likely to fall to a malicious attack.
In the case that you do have all those precautions in place, a thief could still pick the lock on your front door, or disable the alarm on your windows, etc…It would just take longer, and the chance of you finding out is usually guaranteed.
I’m not sure what your work background is, but when you’ve been working in network security, you learn a lot about the security of the systems you deal with.
I have personally dealt with malicious protection on both MS XP and Apple OS X. The results do not live-up to your secure OS X system, but then again, Microsoft doesn’t do any better.
The issues that Apple addressed were never a problem because no one exploited those vulnerablities.
I would have to say that Mac’s (100) to MS’s (43) is not a (slightly) higher rate, at least from a security anaylist’s point of view. Numbers like these would scare the socks off of any security officer if their problems rose to that magnitude.
To be honest, I had the same opinion you did before I started working in network security.
Macintosh is “allegedly” the leader in computer security. They just aren’t the ones who need it most, so the company and the users slack off on securing their systems from time-to-time.
However, Microsoft must constantly work to improve the security of their systems because of their popularity. Yes, when MS products first come out, they’re extremely buggy and require many security updates. That’s the way Microsoft has always been; get it out first, update later. That’s the only reason that Microsoft is as popular as it is today. They were fastest, and cheapest. While Microsoft focuses on getting the product (finished or not) to the people faster, Mac focuses on getting the completed product to the people, regardless of speed.
In our case, it all boils down to what system you prefer, really. If you’re knowledgeable enough on computer security, (I’m sure you are) you won’t need to worry about what system you choose. There are so many incidents in which one system might be more/less protected than the other, my head hurts just thinking about them.
I think I’ll stop for today. I really don’t have time to discuss the security ramifications of Windows XP and Apple OS X (especially at 11 o’clock at night). I do enough of that at work as it is.