Reader Comments

Let's hear it for an operating system that is so susceptible, it actually requires a built-in anti-spyware solution. And if you want antivirus? You have to pay Microsoft! Enjoy the registry in Vista...

P.S. Apple has revealed more developer details for Leopard: http://developer.apple.com/leopard/overview/

Posted this on another article, but since Presetos is WAY out of topic, i take the liberty to copy paste my oppinion. Here we go: Hello all I am Dan, 30 years old network administrator, from Romania, in Eastern Europe. I have in the office both Macs and Windows. I know pretty well their strenghts and weaknesses. I've been around for months, reading all the "fights" between Windows vs OSx. You will ask undoubtedly, why i'm writing right now. Well.. I'm tired of all this "Mac is better" "Microsoft will die" I've seen all the OSX variants. There are so few changes between them that hardly one can call them to be "a different version of the OS". In fact if Apple would sell XP SP2 instead of Microsoft, it will be call it another OS. Frankly, there are so many changes in XP SP2 compared with original version that is almost another OS. The coomon sense of Microsoft prevent them to call it another windows version. And let's compare Tiger with Panther. For an ordinary user (not a fan of Apple) sitting at the keyboard of a Tiger Mac there are very few visible changes. Regards, Dan P.S. Reffering to this one, it's great that MS did finnish the beta for Defender. Things are moving in the right direction.

I like defender, it's entirely noninvasive, so I let it run. Unlike products from norton and mcafee, I don't know defender is rolling around in there. I take comfort in 0% usage at idle. On the sidenote that has became the sidenote for all the threads here, Apple doesn't make a bad OS, I tend to agree with you highmage on the nomenclature, and I think Apple does too. OSX and its derivatives are just that, incremental subreleases and not full fledged OS revisions. Maybe its the old nature of me, but I tend to think that it doesn't matter how many cosmetic changes you make in a revision, it doesn't make it a new OS. Conversely though, SP2 is a *must have* for XP (I especially love SP2's wireless networking presentation, its the only OS I know that doesn't cryptically present wireless administration) it is still cosmetic. Apple all in all doesn't have a bad OS, of course OSX has its strong points, but my view has always been that anything done on OSX can at a minimum be done the same on windows, if not better. Apple's current strongpoint is hardware integration, as seen by their laptop design and the iPod, and Apple should stick with that. They are an OK football team with some really trashy and ugly cheerleaders, the end.

bonch/preseton/vandil, You know, and don't say you don't, that the reason Windows is suceptible is because of its vast install base. If OS X had even 25% of the installed PC base, it too would be riddled with spyware, viruses...think about it...do the math...why would anybody in thier right mind attack a system that will gain them absolutely nothing??? Mac OS X is not an Enterprise OS...not even in the foreseeable future!!! Get a clue, its just a desktop OS that can't even run modern software that keeps 99% of businesses in America(and worldwide) going.

Will, I don't argue with the fact that XP SP2 is basically the same thing as XP. All I want to say is that if Apple would ship XP SP2 it would call high and loud that is another OS. We are familliar with the "features" added from one version of OSX to another. If Apple fans can say without regrets that Tiger is a brand new OS compared with Panther, and Leopard will bring tremendous changes by just adding a long-awaited backup utility, few cosmetic changes at e-mail client and so on, we can too pretend that XP SP2 is a new OS. But we have common sense. If Microsoft would see the developement of an OS as Apple does, I'm sure that between 2001 and present date not one but more Windows versions were already released. Highmage P.S Sorry for my bad english :)

tayme- Serious attacks are geared more towards specific targets, such as The National Reserve, or Hollywood even. Windows XP and previous versions simply don't even come equpped ready to fight vulnerabilityes, which frankly, are about the level of threat an average high schooler can make and be successful. Real world hackers with a purpose other than for a good laugh don't attack the masses. Nor did the highjackers in 911, who attacked specific targets which in turn would achieve a greater goal. I'd actually be interested in hearing you elaborate further on this issue.

"If Apple fans can say without regrets that Tiger is a brand new OS compared with Panther, and Leopard will bring tremendous changes by just adding a long-awaited backup utility, few cosmetic changes at e-mail client and so on, we can too pretend that XP SP2 is a new OS." Okay true, but let's have a fresh take on this shall we? One, it's the small updates that make OS X worth the upgrade... not the two or so major features. Performance optimizations, enhanced security, and updates to all of your existing mac software which comes with an OS X update make the minor updates worth it. So in a way, it sort-of works like SP2. But SP2 is not quite on the same par. SP2 had performance optimizations and hot fixes, and that's about all really. It wasn't a full system overhaul, (Leopard is a totally different system under the hood than Tiger, for a totally different platform too) and SP2 didn't include any new features to Windows. Nor do Windows XP service packs include a newer and enhanced UI, which is constantly updated in OS X with each update as well. User interface is about more than looks, it's also about functionality. All of those things make the upgrades to OS X a little better quality than a service pack upgrade. Not worth the price tag, IMO. But worth some money for sure. There is a HUGE difference between Leopard (10.5), and Cheetah (10.0). I'll put it this way. If Microsoft continually updated XP until it evolved to what Vista is today (just to put yourself in those shoes - and only, it were still XP just in small increments), would you feel the minor upgrades serve a well enough purpose to cost money? I would, and I feel the same way about OS X. It's worth paying more to have a continually updated sysetm instead of one that's constantly outdated. Which honestly means going beyond security patches and hot fixes does it not? Not disagreeing, just looking for some feedback- yes, I think OS X upgrades go beyond service packs.

DerekTraver - I totally agree with you regarding the "serious attacke". But; as you say, the majority of the vulnerabilities are written by script kiddies with kits. They target Windows because the install base is large...if the prevalent OS used in PCs was OS X, they would be scripting to those...if it was Linux, that would be the target...you get my point...the script kiddies are looking for glorie...not really intending any harm. That is why any Enterprise sits behind multiple levels of protection for each and every OS that they run. If the bad guys want in, at least in my datacenter, it will be nearly impossible, and it would be detected immediately. We have provisions in place to cease operations in the event of an attack of the nature that you are talking about...even on our mainframe. I want to add...DerekTraver, that this is the type of interaction I expect on a board like this...not the bumbling of a Mac zealot...if you look back through most of my postings, I have stated, that I am not a Windows "fanboy", but a fan of all technologies. I will stick by my statement, though...OS X is not an Enterprise OS...not by a long shot. That is not saying that it does not have its positives...because it does...I own and use a Mac at home...but I am not dumb enough to leave it unprotected. I have anti-virus installed...I have a hardware firewall set up...I monitor my kid's usage...Its the responsible thing to do. --tayme

-Tayme Indeed, as I pretect mine as well. I haven't seen the need for a firewall though, as Mac OS X Tiger comes with one built into the system... but I don't blame you, sometimes it just comes down to preference. I realize you're no fan boy, to the same nor am I. From Fedora, XP, to Tiger- I have my favorites, which concequently have been due to past experiences like most of us. And while Mac OS X is not ready for an Enterprise level, Apple as of date targets a smaller populated customer base. Almost all of the digital media from music, to movies, and TV cartoon animations from Disney to Paramount are developed today on OS X with Apple pro app tools. They have their market, which honestly isn't a bad one to be on good terms with. Microsoft's involvement in Hollywood is virtually non-existant compared to Apple's. And perhaps Apple's goal as of date is not to provide solutions for finding the cheapest, most efficient way of expanding businesses and allowing their revenue to grow. If you look at Apple's pro app line, it's all targeted at high profile fields who need specific tools which are uniquely developed by Apple. Apple ready for Enterprise today? No. But I don't make predictions about the future. And while I'm sure there will be more attempts by the lesser on attacking OS X as the more popular it gets (as that seems to be the trend), I'm also partial to Unix myself. Before I even had my first Macintosh in the 1980's, I fully understood the potential of the Unix security system. Which is also the sub-system of Mac OS X. Besides, Windows simply lacks the easiest ways of preventing intruders which OS X provies. Which also makes it easier on smaller hackers to access and destroy people's machines in the general public.

Unix was ok....SGI Irix WAS pretty good. Too bad it's gone now. SGI is trying to make a comeback, but it ain't gonna happen folks. Gone are the days when they can charge $5,000 for a pathetic MIPS RISC-based system (remember those 200+MHz Onyx and O2 systems? I was running 3DS Max on a 450MHz P3 with a real FPU at the time). Maya is now available for desktop operating systems, and SGI no longer sells workstation systems, so Irix died a slow quiet death.

"Indeed, as I pretect mine as well. I haven't seen the need for a firewall though, as Mac OS X Tiger comes with one built into the system... but I don't blame you, sometimes it just comes down to preference." Personally, I prefer a hardware firewall just because its easier to configure it once, and it automatically protects all the computers behind it in the same way, less headache to either keep configuration files to transfer over or do multiple computers manually.

Something I have yet to see is a software firewall responding to UPnP requests. Seems to me that it would be a much better setup than that stupid "an application wants internet access" popup all the time. Hardware firewalls do it, so why don't software ones? Seems like it might be a better way to allow less restricted workstations access through a server firewall too.

"A version of Defender will be included in Windows Vista as well." That's cool, because I used to love to play "Defender".

Off topic, but mildly pertinent to the topic of security. Apple iPod users should be pleased, now you can play songs from other digital music retailers other than iTunes, fairplay has officially been broken. Apple's DRM is now a dead scheme. http://www.smh.com.au/news/digital-music/apples-ipoditunes-code-cracked/2006/10/24/1161455702584.html

Erm Isn't this WINDOWS IT pro? not OSX Vs Windows IT pro?