Keeping Computers Safe From Bugs; How Walt Makes Recommendations
There's no other major item most of us own that is as confusing, unpredictable and unreliable as our personal computers. Everybody has questions about them, and we aim to help.
Here are a few questions about computers I've received recently from people like you, and my answers. I have edited and restated the questions a bit, for readability. This week my mailbox contained questions about computer security and the methodology behind his recommendations.
If you have a question, send it to me at
mossberg@wsj.com, and I may select it to be answered here in Mossberg's Mailbox.
Because of the volume of e-mail I receive, I can't routinely answer individual questions by e-mail, or consult on individual problems or purchasing decisions. I read all questions I receive and select three each week to answer in the column.
Q: Last week, you wrote that people who want to avoid viruses and spyware should consider switching to the Apple Macintosh from Windows. Are you saying the Mac is invulnerable? Isn't it true that if everyone switched to the Mac, the virus writers would target it?
A: The Mac certainly isn't invulnerable to viruses and spyware, and I never said it was. What I said was that there has never been a successful virus for the Mac's operating system, OS X. There have been theoretical security holes discovered in OS X, but Apple patches them as they are found. There have been viruses created in the lab for OS X, but none has infected users' computers, at least that we know about.
Because the Mac operating system is based on Unix, the technical operating system popular with engineers and in servers, it is somewhat harder for viruses and spyware to work on the Mac than on Windows. But the most important reason the Mac isn't a target of viruses and spyware is that its market share is so small that virus and spyware authors get little publicity or financial gain from infecting the Mac.
Sure, if the Mac ever became the predominant computer in the world, it would be massively attacked. But that isn't going to happen. Even if its market share doubled or tripled, it still would be very small. So, by using a Mac, you are hiding in plain sight. There may well be viruses and spyware unleashed on the Mac, if only so the criminals and vandals can prove they can write them. But they aren't likely to amount to more than a fraction of those afflicting Windows users.
Q: Why don't you recommend Linux instead of the Mac as a less virus-prone alternative to Windows? It's based on Unix, just like the Mac operating system; it's much less expensive than the Mac; and it runs on the same hardware as Windows does.
A: I write for average, mainstream, nontechnical users. And, in my opinion, Linux still is too difficult to install and maintain for these users. Plus, I consider the Mac operating system to be far more capable, advanced and polished than Linux, with a better variety of high-quality consumer software.
Also, I believe Linux is likelier than the Mac to be targeted heavily by virus and spyware writers, eventually. Since Linux is free and runs on the same hardware Windows hackers already own, it's much more accessible to them than is the Mac, which requires the purchase of a separate computer. Also, Linux already is far more widely used in corporate servers than the Mac operating system, which makes Linux a more attractive target for hackers looking to cause major trouble.
Q: Most of the security programs you recommend Windows users install cost money. But there are free counterparts for each of them. Why don't you push these free products?
A: I base all my recommendations on my testing, and I value effectiveness and ease of use over a lower price, especially when it comes to security software. Two of my picks, the basic version of the ZoneAlarm firewall and the Firefox web browser, are free. But my suggestions for antivirus, antispyware and antispam software do cost money.
I prefer these paid programs to the free competitors I have tested. For instance, while I have recommended Ad-Aware and SpyBot -- free antispyware programs -- in the past, I now believe Webroot's $30 Spy Sweeper is better.
* * *
Because of the volume of e-mail I receive, I can't routinely answer individual questions by e-mail, or consult on individual problems or purchasing decisions. I read all questions I receive and select three each week to answer in the column.
苹果Mac是否百“毒”不侵？
在我们大多数人拥有的大件电器中，再没有什么比个人电脑更令人费解、更变幻莫测的了。每个人或许都有些关于电脑的问题，而《莫博士信箱》将为您提供帮助。
本期的问题将涉及电脑安全和我向读者进行推荐的方法。
问：你在上周的专栏中写道，希望电脑免受病毒感染和间谍软件攻击的人们应该考虑舍弃Windows，改用苹果电脑(Apple)的Macintosh。你是不是认为Mac百“毒”不侵？如果所有人都开始使用Mac，病毒制造者是否将会把Mac作为攻击目标呢？
答：Mac当然不能防御所有病毒和间谍软件，我从未说过这样的话。我所说的是，到现在为止没有一种病毒得以成功袭击Mac操作系统OS X。OS X在理论上存在著安全漏洞，但是苹果对这些安全漏洞进行了修补。在研究室中，一些针对OS X的病毒被制造出来，但是没有一种病毒感染过用户电脑，至少我们知道的情况是这样的。
由于Mac操作系统基于Unix－－一种深受工程师欢迎并且在伺服器上普遍使用的技术型操作系统，因此与Windows相比，病毒和间谍软件比较难以侵入Mac。但是Mac未成为病毒和间谍软件目标的最主要原因是是它的市场份额太小，病毒和间谍软件的制造者很难通过攻击Mac吸引公众注意或得到金钱利益。
当然，如果Mac成为世界上的主流电脑，它也会受到猛烈的攻击。但是这种情形不会发生。即使Mac的市场份额增长一倍或两倍，其市场占有率仍然很低。因此，Mac的用户不会引人注目。Mac上很可能有病毒和间谍软件，但这也只是犯罪分子和破坏者证明他们能够编写这些病毒和间谍软件。这些病毒和间谍软件的数量与痛苦不堪的Windows用户所遭遇的数量相比简直是沧海一粟。
问：在推荐一种不易受病毒感染的Windows替代系统时，你为什么推荐Mac而不是Linux？Linux基于Unix，这一点与Mac操作系统完全一样；它价格远比Mac便宜；而且所使用的硬件与Windows一样。
答：我是对一般、主流和非技术用户做出这一推荐的。我认为，Linux的安装和维护对这些用户来说过于困难。此外，我认为Mac操作系统比Linux能力更强、更先进和更完善，并且其可使用的高质量消费者软件种类更齐全。
我还认为最终Linux比Mac更有可能成为病毒和间谍软件制造者的目标。由于Linux是免费的，并且在Windows黑客早已拥有的同样硬件上运行，它比Mac更容易被侵入，因为Mac需要购买一台不同的电脑。此外，Linux在公司伺服器上比Mac操作系统被更普遍的使用，这使得Linux对于寻求制造大麻烦的黑客来说是一个更有吸引力的目标。
问：你向Windows用户推荐的大多数安全程序都很昂贵。但每一种安全程序都有相类似的免费程序。你为什么不推荐这些免费的产品呢？
答：我所有的推荐都是基于我的测试，我更看重软件的有效性和使用的容易程度，而不是较低的价格，特别是对安全软件而言。在我的推荐中，有两个软件是免费的，它们是ZoneAlarm防火墙的基本版以及Firefox网页浏览器。但是我推荐的防病毒、反间谍软件和反垃圾邮件的软件确实价格昂贵。
与我测试的免费软件相比，我宁愿使用这些付费软件。举例来说，尽管我曾经推荐过反间谍软件的免费程序－－Ad-Aware和SpyBot，但是我现在相信价格为30美元的Webroot的Spy Sweeper更好。
