Security Issues Plague Windows-Based PCs

seraph

Security Issues Plague Windows-Based PCs, Impairing Ease of Use

By WALTER S. MOSSBERG

Thirteen years ago, this column was launched with the opening sentence: "Personal computers are just too hard to use, and it's not your fault." Since then, I have periodically stepped back to look at the progress of the technology industry in making computers easier to use.

Obviously, we've come a long way since 1991. Personal computers, software and peripherals are much more stable and far simpler to operate. New products, like digital cameras, PDAs and music players, have come along as welcome additions, often integrating with computers.

But for the vast part of the public whose computers aren't bought and deployed by corporate computer departments, things have gotten much worse lately. For these consumers and small businesses, the burden of using personal computers has grown dramatically heavier in the past couple of years because of the plague of viruses, spyware and other security problems that now afflict the dominant Windows platform.

To cope with this assault from an international criminal class of virus and spyware writers, hackers and sleazy businesses, average users have had to buy and monitor an arsenal of add-on programs. They have been forced to learn far too much about the workings of their PCs. And too many users have had to take drastic steps, like wiping out their hard disks and starting all over.

So instead of being able to view their computers as tools for productivity, research, communication and entertainment, consumers have been forced to devote rising amounts of time and money just to keeping the machines safe. The PC has, in many cases, gone from being a solution to being, at least in part, a problem.

A big reason for this slide backward is the failure of Microsoft to cope adequately with the security crisis. The software giant, which has reaped tens of billions of dollars from its Windows monopoly, first designed the operating system with too little attention to security. Then, it failed to move quickly enough or comprehensively enough to respond to the security problem. As a result, most of the gains in ease of use that the company delivered to users in 2001 with the sleek, stable Windows XP operating system have been reversed.

This year's big move by Microsoft was to release a massive security fix for Windows XP. This patch, called SP2, closed some of the holes in Windows that had been exploited by the criminals. But SP2 didn't include the capability to specifically detect, block or remove viruses, spyware and spam. Its firewall, aimed at barring intruders, is inferior to others on the market. And its built-in "Security Center" does almost nothing to enhance security.

So consumers and small businesses are still on their own, forced to buy programs from security vendors that still insist on designing separate remedies for each type of threat instead of an overall solution that will simply keep outsiders from invading PCs.

To be fair, Microsoft has made some contributions to ease of use in the past couple of years. Its Media Center interface, which allows a computer to be controlled with a remote from across a room, is beautiful and functional. Its new MSN search service can do things Google can't. And its OneNote program for organizing research is terrific.

But the company's dominant Internet Explorer Web browser has fallen way behind smaller rivals in features and functionality. Its free Outlook Express e-mail program hasn't had a major upgrade in years. And it won't have an all-new version of Windows until 2006.

Meanwhile, the company's historic rival, Apple Computer, has been making giant strides in ease of use. The Macintosh, with its OS X operating system, is rock solid. It is elegant, and -- when you do a feature-by-feature price comparison with Windows competitors -- it's surprisingly affordable.

The Mac is also packed with extras that Windows lacks. It has a suite of easy, free, multimedia programs that can't be matched on Windows at any price. It has a better free browser and e-mail program than Windows. It can read and create PDF files without requiring the purchase of any extra software.

Apple upgrades its operating system far more often than Microsoft does. The company's new iMac G5 model is the single best desktop computer I have ever reviewed. And Apple is the only computer company whose business is focused on consumers and small businesses.

Best of all, the current Mac operating system has never been attacked by a successful virus, and almost no spyware can run on it. This is largely because the Mac's small market share presents an unattractive target for digital criminals. But it's partly because the Mac operating system is harder to penetrate. I'm sure there will eventually be viruses that afflict Mac users, but nowhere near the 5,000 new Windows viruses that appeared in just the first six months of this year.

In terms of ease of use, Apple has opened a greater lead over Microsoft than at any time since the late 1980s, when the Mac was pioneering the graphical user interface and Microsoft users were stuck with crude, early versions of Windows.

Microsoft and the PC hardware companies that use Windows need to do much, much more to solve the security crisis and rescue the gains in ease of use they made in the 1990s.

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20041209.html

mosc · Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:02 pm Post subject:

zynthetix · Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:29 pm Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:12 pm Post subject:

Maybe some other vendor would be locked out of a big market. Maybe not.

jksuperstar · Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:54 pm Post subject:

I read a book once on security, and the guy who wrote it insisted that in practice, closed-source code was always more vulnerable than open sourced code. I guess the plague on windows compared to BSD unix (OSX) and Linux is proof. Since Apple used BSD as a base for OSX, maybe Micro$oft should do something similar?

As for ease of use, I've always felt like there's been an inverse relationship between me being in control (and learning curve), and ease of use. The only solution to this I've ever become fond of is the pairing of command-line programs with GUIs. Usually, the command-line program is stock full of options, and allows for use with powerful scripts for c-shell, awk, sed, perl, etc. And there's almost always at least 2 choices of GUI, which is just a pretty face (ie- easy to use) front for the command-line engine behind the curtain.

Though, I've also always been as fascinated by the hammer as I have the nail.

mosc · Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:07 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:53 am Post subject:

Well, the only real mess Apple has made of the GUI/command line thingie is on OS X Server, and this does not really Apply to OS X.
What they did here was totally goofing on how to make a GUI tool for setting various Apache and DNS settings etc. It is not dysfunctional at all, but you either have to go for the Apple tools.. and a very limited set of fetaures when using apache, or use the terminal .. and never use the Apple Server Admin tools. Apple is supposedly back on track with the coming 10.4 release of OS X Server. This does not mean that OS X Server is bad.. for from it.. but Apple messed up with the 10.3 breed of server/gui tools and the documentation of some of the small weird stuff is very very bad. For the record: OS X Server is a great file server.

The terminal is not hard to get at. I have it set to appear when I click F12 on the keyboard.

Kassen · Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:49 am Post subject:

That´s all very interesting, but it asumes all computers are connected to the internet or at least are involved in sharing executable files. That´s not typically the case for DAW´s. None of this strikes me as particularly relevant to musicians or engineers. Both virus scanners and firewals are a very bad idea for DAW´s, imho.

elektro80 · Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:46 am Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:58 am Post subject:

Good point about the software firewalls. Windows XP Service Pack 2 has a builtin firewall. I turned it off because I use a router-switch-firewall between all of my computers and the cable modem. I recommend this for everyone, even if they only have one PC or Mac.

Also, if you are concerned about Windows security, it is a good idea to use Mozilla's new FireFox browser and Thunderbird email client instead of IE and Outlook Express. I use these on the Mac too. The FireFox popup blocker is excellent.

I run Norton Anti-virus both on my PCs and on my Mac. I haven't seen any reduction in DAW performance when one turns off the browsers and the email client; both of which are much more of a drag on the system than anti-virus software. Of course you must also not do any maintenance anti-virus scans while working on audio.

BTW, XP SP-2 is much more secure than previous versions of windows. The Windows security model, including file and program access control lists, is far more advanced than both Linux and OSX. It seems like lots of people like to complain about Windows security, but it seems to me they are either Mac users or people running on old versions of Windows. If you use Windows, then upgrade to the newest verion of the OS you can run on your machine.

Kassen · Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 12:19 pm Post subject:

Indeed, the bit about mac users complaining about Windows security was what I tried to hint at. In general I think it´s a good idea to have seperate computers for browsing and working. Those need to fill completely different roles and it might well be that a different O.S. is more suitable.

A lot of the factors that make Mac v.s. PC debates so ugly fall away if you look at it that way. It doesn´t realy matter that there are less programs for Apples if you have the three or four that you like and use and Windows security isn´t that relevant if the PC isn´t online at all. In general I think it´s very dangerous to apply statistics to individuals. No doubt the average Windows PC has many viruses and spyware, my individual boxes don´t. No doubt Mac´s are more expensive but that might not matter to studios with a large budget that feel they need one and for whom the price of a computer is only a very small part of the overall costs of the studio.

As a side note; perhaps SP2 is more secure; it´s not nearly secure enough by itself. A very modest budget gets you a router and a Linux proxy server that will double as a fileserver, any stray pentium 1 or 2 will do; you can probably get one for free.

paul e. · Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:34 pm Post subject:

'just don't connect your PC to the net'

not a very nice solution

elektro80 · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:50 am Post subject:

seraph · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:10 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:35 am Post subject:

Hmmm....

Kassen · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:10 am Post subject:

paul e. · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:13 am Post subject:

seraph · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:39 am Post subject:

paul e. · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:41 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:55 am Post subject:

E?

uh huh huh huh huh?

Uhh.. right

mosc · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:57 am Post subject:

paul e. · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:53 am Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:03 am Post subject:

Paul, I've had tons of problems using the audio on my G4 Mac and the MOTU 828 MK2. The Mac crashes from time to time. Upgrading the OS takes forever. Java sucks on OSX. Setting up wireless networks is more difficult with OSX. It can get hacked too - there is a reason the Norton sells anti-virus for OSX.

Get your ass back on the harmonious side of the steet - please. Twisted Evil

paul e. · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:13 pm Post subject:

well..we can agree to disagree..that is also harmonious Confused

seraph · Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:18 pm Post subject: