Oh, that’s right, unless you believe what a very few might tell you, there is nothing to report about Mac malware. Despite some security leaks that Apple patched over the year, there were no official confirmations that any of those leaks were actually exploited. So we are left with a potential but not necessarily a reality.

And that’s how our story begins.

If you are an avid reader of Consumer Reports magazine, which has a penchant for both praising Macs and getting the facts absolutely wrong, you might believe there were malware threats. After all, the magazine ran a survey that 20% of Mac users had encountered viruses in recent years. But isn’t it also true that the only Mac OS X viruses were a handful of proofs of concept created in labs? While it shows the potential, that doesn’t make it a reality, although the companies who make Mac virus protection applications didn’t hesitate to make sure you are protected anyway. You never know if those things will somehow escape into the wild, thus creating genuine threats. Of course that doesn’t explain that crazy survey, and you have to wonder if the magazine’s other reader surveys are equally flawed.

Besides, isn’t it also true that you want to help protect your fellow consumer users out there who use the Windows platform? Yes, you see the Mac virus protection packages will generally scan for Windows-based virus, and eradicate them, so you don’t accidentally forward a virus-infected message to someone by mistake. This is actually a serious issue, but at the same time virus protection software can be somewhat invasive to your system. In fact, there is a known problem with both the Mac and Windows versions of Symantec’s Norton Anti-Virus that may create a security hole. It’s a shortcoming that will, of course, be fixed.

So much for Mac viruses, at least for now. Although Mac OS X is more secure than Windows, however, it’s not immune. Some feel that we don’t get much attention simply because the Mac market share is so small, and Internet criminals prefer bigger, more vulnerable targets. As users of the Classic Mac OS recall, there were some pretty irritating viruses on our favorite computing platform over the years, so never say never.

But what about spyware, those irritating applications that cause system slow-downs, unexpected pop-up screens and create the potential for numerous security lapses on Windows? Can that happen to Mac users as well? Well, of course it can, and one person who runs a small software and computer security company says it has happened, and that he has software to protect you. Of course, when I interviewed Nicholas Raba of SecureMac.com for this week’s episode of The Tech Night Owl LIVE, I had to decide whether to seem confrontational or just skeptical. I was sorely tempted to take an “O’Reilly Factor” approach, but I chose to remain calm, and I gave Mr. Raba a chance to tell his story, but I just don’t buy it.

Raba’s product, MacScan 2.0, will supposedly “find, isolate, and remove spyware, keystroke loggers, and trojan horses as well as detect whether remote administration applications have been installed on a computer.”

Now Raba claims that it isn’t a virus protection program, yet a trojan horse is generally placed into the virus category. As to spyware and all the rest, I asked a couple of pointed questions as to whether such things really exist. He says they are encountering roughly three each and every day that have to be detected. Unfortunately, getting specifics isn’t easy. The online list that his company maintains to catalog spyware hasn’t been populated with anything but a statement that “An updated Spyware list will be released after beta testing.”

Now maybe it’s true that he hasn’t had time to address this oversight since the application was only released a couple of weeks ago. But wouldn’t just one be, shall we say, reassuring to potential customers of his product? To be blunt, the online chatter about MacScan is highly skeptical, and I won’t quote some of the less complimentary remarks, but you get the picture.

So is Raba just hoping that people will be paranoid enough to pay $24.95 to combat a potential threat until the real one arrives? Or is he a smart businessman entering a market that has immense growth potential when malware really infects Mac OS X? Of course, until some independent party has a chance to test the program against real spyware (if they can find any) and other potential threats, we won’t know.

Now with the Mac platform expanding, it is indeed important to practice safe computing. What’s more if you do exchange messages and files with Windows users, installing a Mac virus protection application and keeping it up to date may actually be a good idea. At the same time, so long as you don’t attempt to open or forward files from strangers or from people you know that you didn’t expect to receive, you can probably remain safe without having to install any new software.

At least for now.

Related Articles

• The iMac Report: Apple Left the Proprietary World a Decade Ago
• The Apple Security Report: Safari Needs Better Protection!
• The Mac Clone Controversy Rears Its Ugly Head
• The Leopard Report: Slower than Windows XP?
• The Apple Wish List

A year ago, there were great hopes and dreams about how Macs would improve this year. Perhaps we’d see the arrival of the long-awaited PowerBook G5, a Power Mac with a 3GHz processor, and lots of other great gear. You even heard speculation about a Video iPod, although you almost had to give up hope as the year progressed. When it did come to pass, it was still an iPod; the video was just an added feature, not the main focus.

In fact, the end results were something less than you might have expected in some areas, and a stunning development that promised to change your expectations of the direction of Apple Computer forever. No, I’m not going to focus on the sales picture, although it was great to see the Mac’s market share increase after years of decline. Whether due to the iPod halo effect, or growing disenchantment with the ongoing problems with the Windows platform doesn’t matter, so long as the trend continues. And industry analysts expect that it will, although you shouldn’t take such expectations as gospel.

Of course, you had to feel something was afoot when Apple continued to throw cold water on the prospects for stuffing a G5 in a PowerBook, because of the “mother of thermal challenges.” That the fastest Power Mac had liquid cooling in addition to its multiple set of cooling fans and sophisticated cooling pathways clearly demonstrated the potential problems. Sure, a G5 could be placed within an iMac, but its cooling system was no less an engineering marvel, even though it seemed far less extensive. A laptop?

Some feared it would never happen, and they were right. Upgrades to Apple’s laptop line were relatively modest in the scheme of things. In fact, the last PowerBook update retained the processors of the previous model. Apple used the sleight-of-hand of more screen pixels to demonstrate an improvement, along with speedier memory to eke out a tiny performance advantage. Enhancements to the iBook were also slight, and the official rating of the Mac mini’s processor was the same at the beginning of the year as at the end, except for the possibility that some shipped with an unadvertised processor upgrade of very modest dimensions. The improvements to the iMac ended its easy serviceability, but you can’t argue with the built-in Web camera, the remote and the slightly lower pricing of the 20-inch version.

All right, Apple did take advantage of a new generation of G5 chips, with dual cores. So it got the equivalent of four processors, sufficient to provide a compelling speed bump for Power Macs. Content creators must be delighted, although we won’t know the real sales impact for a few more weeks. It’s still not 3GHz, of course, but gigahertz doesn’t officially matter any more even for the x86 processor universe.

At the same time, this is supposed to be the last PowerPC Mac. The next model, which may or may not appear by the end of 2006, depending on whom you believe, will have one or more Intel processors. Or maybe it’ll happen in 2007, although many expect Apple is working as hard as it can to finish its Intel transition as fast as possible to reduce the possibility of a sales slowdown.

As the year draws to a close, it’s clear that most of the hopes and dreams about the imminent arrival of speedier Macs were dashed except for the Power Mac. The Intel announcement and the reasons why it was made put a quick damper on the rumors and speculation and created new topics to gossip about.

The speed rating of the forthcoming MacIntels, to use my personal vernacular for such devices, won’t matter. It’ll be the same as other Intel-based PC’s. Regardless, they’ll be much faster and use less power. Your electric bills will go down, and your workflow will increase, I suppose. Of course that depends on what sort of workflow you’re involved with. If you’re just writing and surfing the Web, the snappier performance will be neat, but at the end of the day, the few dollars you may or may not save on electricity will be your only tangible benefit.

Of course, you and I may have to come to terms with the fact that Mac OS X was a stealth fighter. The sometimes tepid performance resulted from the fact that it was always meant to run on an Intel processor, not PowerPC. Development of versions for the two architectures has proceeded all along and you will be absolutely amazed at what it can do in the land of x86. It will be like Clark Kent taking off his glasses and his civilian duds to reveal his true identity of Superman.

Is this a reality you can depend on? Well, the unofficial stories from Mac developers who have worked on Apple’s beta hardware with a generic Intel processor are highly encouraging. As 2006 approaches, fasten your safety belts, and put your seats in the upright position as we prepare to take off.

Related Articles

• A Fast Look at the Apple Hardware Upgrade Equation
• The MacBook Pro: Two Years On
• Is it Easy to Tire of Your Mac?
• The Mac Hardware Report: How Important Are Looks?
• Newsletter #429 Preview: The Mac Is On Top Again!

Whenever you read a report about someone cracking Mac OS X for Intel and making it run on a plain, vanilla PC box, you have to wonder whether it’s something you need to take seriously. Lest we forget, we’re still talking about a beta operating system. You don’t know what sort of software and hardware protections Apple will place on its new Macs to prevent such shenanigans.

In the end, even if it happens here and there, it doesn’t mean that Mac OS X will be freely available so it can be installed on a $399 Gateway. There are issues of performance and peripheral drivers and the strong possibility that, even though the operating system may work after a fashion, the applications themselves may present obstacles.

There is also a published report from a Mac rumor site that Apple is handing off development of the logic board for the next Power Mac to Intel. I suppose it’s understandable that this can lead to speculation that the next generation Macs will be no different from standard PCs except for the form factor and operating system, as if that was a significant development. Why Apple might do this, of course, doesn’t matter. It may be, as claimed in that report, to save money and speed product development, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

In point of fact, today’s Mac contains lots of industry standard components, from hard drives and RAM to support parts that provide USB, Ethernet and various forms of PCI support. Aside from the processor the support circuitry, and the various cooling-related components, there’s probably not a whole lot that’s terribly different about the parts inside your typical Mac. But does that make a difference? Back in the heady days of the Mac OS clones, various companies slapped an Apple-designed logic board into a perfectly ordinary PC case with standard components from the parts bins, but it made no difference. Why? Because when you turned it on, the screen display told you that it was still a Mac.

Today’s Mac, as we all know, is no longer just the operating system. The computer itself has a distinctive look that stands out from the pack. Few PC makers understand or perhaps care about such things, except perhaps Alienware, which specializes in higher-priced gear for gamers and professional users.

So when the first so-called MacIntels appear, what do you expect they’ll become? Will they be no different from hundreds of other PC boxes? That’s absurd, of course, although I’ve seen that suggestion raised from time to time. The theory goes that, since the inner workings will be essentially the same as a Dell or an HP, Apple will lose its competitive advantage somehow. The possibility that they will be able to run Windows too may enhance that belief. The Mac difference will eventually vanish altogether, so they say.

At the same time, if you took any of today’s Macs and swapped out the logic board with one designed by Intel, and it booted Mac OS X for Intel, would it be a Mac or just another PC? What’s the difference if the parts are the same? Of course, that difference remains, and it’s the operating system, and the fact that Apple enhances the system by giving it attractive duds is the icing on the cake. Suggestions that Windows and the Mac OS are really quite similar in most respects, which is implied, for example, in the rather lame reviews from Consumer Reports magazine, are clearly as silly as they’ve always been.

Now it’s very possible that Apple will opt to put an Intel Inside sticker on the box or even on the computer itself, although you’ll no doubt be able to remove the latter with very little effort. No reason for Apple to refuse millions of dollars of marketing cash from its new processor partner. But to most of you, it should make no difference whatever to your perception about the finished product. A Mac didn’t become less of a Mac when it went from the original Motorola 680×0 processor family to PowerPC, even though software had to be reworked extensively to be fully compatible.

In the coming months, you will hear that Apple has sacrificed its distinctiveness to move over to Intel. However, the end result will be a sleeker, faster computer. If IBM had managed to produce the G5 chips Apple hoped for when it made its original deal, you’d still have a sleeker, faster computer. And that is both the beginning and end of the story.

Related Articles

• A Fast Look at the Apple Hardware Upgrade Equation
• The iMac Report: Apple Left the Proprietary World a Decade Ago
• Newsletter #440 Preview: The Mac Versus PC Hardware Wars Continue
• Apple and the Enterprise: A New Focus?
• Newsletter #439 Preview: Apple Goes Up, Microsoft Goes Down