More important, I definitely take issue with your comments on #9. This is a spurious charge intended to draw attention away from the main problem: Windows insecurity. Yes, buffer and memory overflow problems can and do occur on all operating systems and all kinds of computer chips. As the Wikipedia article you reference makes clear, each vendor has attempted to minimize the risks in a variety of ways and to varying degrees of success. I suggest that anyone interested in the topic also check out the Wikipedia article on Buffer Overflows, which describe such attacks in great detail as well as the kinds of steps taken to minimize it. Note that the original Wikipedia article describes these attacks as arising from worm or virus infestations… which again, returns me to my argument that Mac OS X is no more at risk on Intel than on Power PC because it is no more at risk to being infested by malware in the first place. That is an OS- and App-level (e.g., software-level) problem, not a chip-level problem. Even if it’s true that Intel’s x86 chip architecture is less capable of handling buffer overflow attacks, Mac OS X is still far safer than Windows because it’s far more immune (notice I didn’t say it was immune) to malware infestation. Further, I note that the second Wikipedia article (on buffer overflows) includes the following description of “executable space protection” and the way Mac OS X itself is designed to minimize risk from buffer overflows, which presumably would be in addition to the CPU-level support on an Intel chip (the “NX” bit).

Executable space protection

Main article: Executable space protection

Executable space protection is an approach to buffer overflow protection which prevents execution of code on the stack or the heap. An attacker may use buffer overflows to insert arbitrary code into the memory of a program, but with executable space protection, any attempt to execute that code will cause an exception.

Some CPUs support a feature called NX (”No eXecute”) or XD (”eXecute Disabled”) bit, which in conjunction with software, can be used to mark pages of data (such as those containing the stack and the heap) as readable but not executable.

Some Unix operating systems (e.g. OpenBSD, Mac OS X) ship with executable space protection (e.g. W^X)…

I am no expert on buffer overflows, but from what I’ve read I gather that there are hardware solutions and software solutions, or a combination of both. Mac OS X and other Unix OS’s have developed a software solution (W^X and others), while Microsoft seems to think it’s Intel’s problem and is depending on a hardware solution (NX bit). I’m sure that’s a simplification, but as I’ve said before, sometimes it’s important to simplify in order to see the big picture. Unfortunately, guys like Coffee who are looking for a way to make Apple look bad tend to simplify in the wrong direction—by making claims that suggest a move to Intel chips makes Mac OS X less secure than it was before. That’s simply making way too much of a possibly teeny-tiny difference, exaggerating its significance, and leading people to incorrect conclusions about relative security on Windows versus Unix.

Cheers,
Leland

I really hope Apple can wow us at MacWorld with the announcement of the secret features. The “leaked details” don’t wow me though they will certainly be nice to have.

7. Apple DID mishandle that by not being forthcoming when released.

9. You’re not quite right. Intel has a hardware level protection that aims to prevent buffer overflow cracks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_bit
which I thought I read was not used by Windows, but wikipedia reports that XP SP2 and 2003SP1 both turn it on by default if the hardware supports it. OS X doesn’t give the option to turn it off, if what I read elsewhere is true. That isn’t to say that it’s the end of Windoze security risks as M$ is still (of course) patching their code constantly. They’re patching Vista, which is supposed to be secure (HAH!). Plus, programmers, including M$, have to explicty request hardware protected memory. Not sure how many actually do that nor do I know how OS X implements it.

As you, and a previous commenter here indicate, your past writings on the Mac vs Windows debate have not been wholly lopsided. It’s nice to see that you have covered some positive developments in the Mac World, and it definitely interests me to learn that you have been a Mac user all these years. I’m very much less interested in the perspective of Mac users who were ardent early adopters of the Mac OS in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, but who have not maintained the same degree of knowledge of the Mac OS since 2001. As you would probably agree, Apple had a major flowering of creativity in the early years of the Mac (and before that), but kind of lost its way for a variety of reasons until Jobs returned to Apple in the late 1990’s. From my perspective as a longtime Mac user, the developments in technology and software at Apple over the past 5 years has been simply astonishing. It’s been a very exciting few years to be a Mac user, both as a software developer and as an end user.

I think it’s safe to say that the same thing can’t be said of the Windows user experience in the same time frame. As a user of both Mac OS X and Windows XP, it’s pretty clear to me that “Vista” will be merely catching Windows up to where Apple has been leading personal computing since the advent of Mac OS X in 2001. And Vista isn’t even here yet, and won’t be for another — what? — 6 months or so. To talk of it as though it were a done deal is simply buying Microsoft’s typical vaporware promises, which have characterized the company’s product announcements for as long as I can remember.

Yes, the banners at WWDC are jokes. They are meant to poke fun, not to be taken seriously. And as I said in my article, the fact that you did take it seriously only underscores the extent to which the joke reflects reality. By the time Vista is here, Apple will be releasing Leopard, and Microsoft’s race to catch up will only begin again. There’s no denying, I think, that Apple is in a position to be much more nimble these days, and it’s also clear that with Jobs, the company has a vision of where it’s going and a well planned strategy to get there.

If you read my article, you’d realize that the point I’m making is that Apple has not been making “point” releases of OS X. The upgrades and new technologies introduced since Jaguar are full-fledged leaps that Microsoft would certainly be calling full upgrades if it could get anything out the door that fast. To that extent, I can point to you a large number of articles–some by diehard Microsoft stalwarts like Rob Enderle and Paul Thurrott–think suggests the tech world’s consensus opinion is that Vista will merely be catching up to Tiger. Yes, Microsoft has a few extras that Mac OS X doesn’t, but these are very minor when you consider the huge holes in Windows functionality Microsoft is finally filling in to meet the Mac standard.

And if Tiger=Vista, then Leopard=Vista 2 is not an unreasonable suggestion. You said it was a challenge you and your colleagues had to take up… to prove otherwise, I assume you meant. And yet, what evidence do you offer to prove that point? I could find nothing at all.

Remember, when you’re comparing operating systems, you have to be talking about software first and foremost. What hardware the OS is running on is largely irrelevant to the functionality and development tools provided by the OS. Your primary point seems to be that since Apple is now on Intel hardware, it makes some difference to the Mac OS X vs. Windows debate. I don’t see that at all.

It has some relevance to the choices users make when buying a computer, certainly. But Microsoft doesn’t make computers, they make operating system software. So to bring in hardware as part of a comparison makes no sense at all. In Mac OS X, Apple brings to the table a set of API’s, desktop software functions, and user interface designs and ideas, that look and work the same whether they run on Power PC chips or Intel Xeons. Likewise, when I run Windows on my PowerPC Mac through Virtual PC, it’s still Windows. Nothing about being on a different chip set matters a hoot to the end user experience. And that PowerPC chip also doesn’t protect me from Windows malware, which is the last point I have time to make tonight.

You seem to have bought into the indefensible argument that somehow Mac OS X security is less now that it runs on Intel chips. I found an eWeek article that you no doubt think of when making this point. Others have long since picked that argument to shreds, and part of my reaction to your article is that you are perpetuating a total crock, which was developed by Windows defenders in order to inject the old Fear, Uncertainly, and Doubt into the security debate. Apple’s Switch to Intel Could Allow OS X Exploits raises all sorts of arguments that just don’t make any sense. Software hackers don’t write to machine-level code! Their work is at a much higher level, which can fairly easily be ported to run on other hardware. Their work attacks SOFTWARE, not hardware. The fact that there are more programmer tools for Intel means absolutely ZERO. Why? There are already so many programming/hacking tools for Unix/Linux/Mac OS X that anybody who wanted to hack Mac OS X would find no shortage of tools. Sorry, but that whole argument just doesn’t hold water, and I found it difficult to respect other aspects of your article knowing that you actually believe that. eWeek seems to want people to think this is a matter of opinion, but it’s not. One of your own colleagues agrees with me, but got his posting labeled as “opinion.” I suggest you read it some time: Move to Intel a Security Non-Issue for Apple

Likewise, comparing Apple’s problems with security to Microsoft’s Windows problems over the last 7 years is like comparing a molehill with a mountain (to coin a phrase . Yes, Mac OS X has security vulnerabilities just like any other software does. But the amount of fuss that Windows “bigots” make about it is simply out of all proportion to the (a) actual damage caused and (b) potential for damage represented. I found a couple of eWeek articles from recent years that were written by guys who obviously understand the fundamental issues here. This one is taking tech writers to task for “analyzing by headlines”, which frankly is what I think you’ve done: A Little Knowledge of Security Can Be a Dangerous Thing
The second is by a guy who writes for the Linux side of the house, but he gets it absolutely right and pinpoints the fundamental reason why Windows has been so insecure in the last decade (which has absolutely nothing to do with the hardware it’s running on,by the way): You Can Run Firefox, But You Can’t Take the IE Out of Windows

Back to Peter Coffee and Leland Scott for a moment before I close. I am sure you took my satirical critique of your article personally… I would have done the same. But it was just too easy a target, and you have to admit you don’t really tackle the central thesis at all. You clearly wanted to write an article critical of Microsoft–who wouldn’t?–but were seriously surprised at the Vista 2.0 “joke”. Did you get similarly incensed by last year’s “Start the Copying Machines, Redmond”? It was the same joke, just in different words. A huge percentage of computer users have absolutely no idea where Apple has been going with its OS these last few years. Anybody who has used OS X daily and then sat down to face Windows XP daily realizes how far behind Windows is. If Microsoft had taken Vista where it originally planned, Vista would probably have leapfrogged over Mac OS X at this point.

But as everyone knows, Microsoft didn’t get there. Vista is a pale shadow of its original planned self, and looks a great deal like Mac OS X has looked for the last few years. That’s the best Microsoft seems to be able to do in 2006/07/08? So to joke about it with the understanding that you yourself have a huge OS upgrade planned at the same time is not at all unreasonable. Microsoft deserves to be the brunt of Apple’s kidding at this point, and the extent to which Microsoft takes “Vista 2.0″ seriously is, as I said before, a measure of how close to the mark the joke is.

Regards,
Leland

P.S. I did a quick survey of the articles eWeek has published over the last few years in its coverage of security issues pertaining to Apple and Microsoft. Unfortunately, the results confirm the impression I conveyed in my article about eWeek’s apparent bias toward Microsoft through all of this security mess. If I have time, I’ll write the results up in a blog post. But here are the summary data. I labeled articles with a pro-Microsoft or pro-Apple slant with green, those with a negative slant to either company with red, and those that were totally ambiguous with brown. Looking at the search results for the phrase “Windows security” on the one hand and “Macintosh security” on the other, I rated the top 50 results for Windows and top 30 results for the Mac. There were 1,810 articles returned for “Windows security” and 204 articles for “Macintosh security.”

Macintosh (of 30)

• 1 Green
• 9 Red
• 5 Brown
• 15 Neutral or NA

Windows (of 50)

• 16 Green
• 10 Red
• 4 Brown
• 20 Neutral or NA

Just as a few examples,

‘Tiger’ Invites Developers In
By Peter Coffee
May 30, 2005

Apple Computer Inc.’s Mac OS X 10.4 offers developers the first broadly used client platform on which to explore application interactions with data—especially with metadata—across world-spanning networks that merely begin with local storage…

Apple Developer Conference Has Enterprising Aims
By Peter Coffee
June 23, 2003

This week’s Worldwide Developers Conference, hosted by Apple in San Francisco, introduces an Enterprise IT track in addition to more familiar Macintosh material like graphics and hardware. Enterprise track subtopics include Java development and system administration, as well as sessions more specific to Apple’s application frameworks…

You accuse me of failing to check facts, but your critique of my comments is riddled with carelessness and errors of its own. If you had actually followed the hyperlinks that I provided in the story, you would have found the examples of Apple’s challenges that I actually had in mind, rather than those that you merely conjectured.

I’ve been a Macintosh user since 1984 and owner since 1985, and I routinely use and have done paid software development on both Mac and Windows platforms for two decades. You presume otherwise, don’t bother to verify your suspicion, and go on at length about what a fraud I am on the strength of your mere supposition.

My comment on instruction sets meant to note that Macs formerly lived in a different universe from Windows malware, but that Intel-based Macs now speak the same language to a much greater degree and therefore offer more opportunity for writing malware that might affect both types of machine. It’s not whether one instruction set has any intrinsic advantages over the other, but whether formerly separate turf is now less so. Yes, operating system issues also matter, but malware often goes below this level.

For you to say that your article is not a personal jab is too little, too late. The article is very personal, very insulting, and insupportable as to many of your putatively factual statements about me. You should focus your ire on writers who ignore the Mac entirely, rather than those who seek to offer buyers an even-handed critique of the hype from all players. (Even Steve Jobs, commenting on my article, has acknowledged that the appellation of “Vista 2.0″ was “hyperbole.”)

Writers who act as if the Macintosh is beneath notice are harder to find, and less fun to castigate, but are much more your problem than I am.

Like I said in the article (which no doubt you’ve read, more than the title), guys like Coffee convince themselves over time that their opinion is correct without even bothering to check the facts, let along write a decent sentence. That’s dangerous behavior in a tech journalist and deserves no respect whatsoever.

Peter Coffee, tries hard to sound like he is a big Mac user in some of his columns, but any Mac user that knows the OS well can plainly see, he hasn’t a clue!

I work in Windows-land except for my small island of Macs in a large corporation. I am interment with Windows and have to use it and support it. It never ceases to amaze me the way the Windows apologists claim Windows superior without ever trying another OS!
Stephen Antonucci
www.ReelSmart.com