Binary Rescue

Summer of Mac Love - Week 3 - Software Installation

July 23, 2008 – 8:48 pm

Last week I covered the differences between the update processes of OS X and Windows. Of course without any software to update these services would not be needed. This week I will examine the process of installing new software on each of the platforms.

The Facts

Windows utilizes a separate installation program (MSI.EXE) to install all software. This software is responsible for making the necessary changes to the registry and file system that allow the software to run.

Most software installation on OS X takes place by copying the program from the source to the application folder. This can also achieved by dragging and dropping. The notable exception are the programs such as Microsoft Office and Adobe products that rely on propriety piracy prevention measures.

The Windows registry dates back to Windows 3.1 and was designed to replace INI files.

The Windows registry houses the configuration and options for all hardware, the operating system, and third party software.

OS X utilizes “property list” files to store this information. Settings are separated into two groups of files per user and for the system as a whole. These files apply to only to applications and the operating system, hardware is handled elsewhere.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Software installation mechanisms must consider several factors to be deemed truly capable. The software must be verified to be compatible with the platform it is being installed on. The installation must complete and result in a functional program. It must also ensure that all prerequisites, if applicable, are fulfilled prior to installation.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The mechanism by which software is installed must be functional when required. How vulnerable to failure is the mechanism itself.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  How easily can the average computer user complete the installation process. Is the process clearly and adequately described? Are any errors experienced clear and useful?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  Not applicable for this discussion as this comparison can be adequately addressed by comparing usability.

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  OS X verifies the intended platform prior to installation. Software written for OS X 10.5 will not install on a Mac running 10.4. Windows however will attempt to install any Win32 application without verification. This has led to many problems as the common user often ignores the requirements of the software and will attempt an installation on a non-compatible version of Windows. For an example of the consequences see this article.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Without a way to scientifically test this attribute I must fall back on my experience and one key fact. The key fact is that there are zero utilities written to repair the OS X installation mechanism. Apparently copy and paste is not prone to problems. This is not true of Windows. There are numerous utilities designed to repair the Windows installer both from Microsoft and third parties. In 6 years I have never had the OS X installation mechanism fail. I repair the Windows installer on a weekly basis for my clients.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  The main stumbling block that I have seen in installing OS X applications comes from Windows users who expect the process to be more complicated. In most cases an icon for the program and the applications folders appear, requiring the user to drag the program icon over the application and drop it. Windows users are accustomed to a series of dialog boxes, license agreements and countless progress bars. The number and complexity of the dialog boxes vary by application. OS X does suffer from error messages during installation that can appear cryptic to the novice computer user. The most common error results from trying to update an application that is currently running. Closing the application and re-attempting the install solves the problem but the dialog box suffers from nerd speak.

The Winner

My initial reaction to installing software on OS X after I switched from Windows was “It can’t be that simple”. The fact that applications are installed via drag and drop alone makes OS X superior to Windows. The implications of this only reinforce this fact. When performing a data recovery or operating system reinstall on Windows I have to warn my clients that their software is not recoverable. The Windows installation process does not allow for this. Recovering OS X applications is simply a matter of copying the application from one disk to another. Additionally when a OS X program misbehaves and requires repair, simply deleting the associated preference file via the Finder and restarting the application solves the problem 9 times out of 10. Try deleting items from the registry by hand to fix a problem. Actually don’t, not only is it terribly confusing but you will likely break Windows.

Score another win for OS X:
OS X 3 Windows 0

Posted in Apple | 3 Comments »

Summer of Mac Love - Week 2 - Software Updates

July 18, 2008 – 4:51 pm

Certain things in life are unavoidable. The phrase “Death and Taxes” comes to mind. I would add a third item - software bugs. Every piece of software ever written has been imperfect. In fact it now seems that users have become an outsourced quality assurance department for software developers. Both Windows and OS X suffer from this malady. The difference between the two is the software update process. Prior to Windows Vista, the update mechanism for Windows was an Active-X plug-in to Internet Explorer. OS X on the other hand has always used a dedicated program, named appropriately enough, Software Updates. To be blunt the Windows update is a complete POS compared to OS X. You might have already guessed the winner this week, but keeping with the rules here is the breakdown.

The Facts

Windows 98, Me, 2000, and XP receive their updates via Windows Update or optionally Microsoft Update. Both Windows Update and Microsoft Update are simply an instance of Internet Explorer that automatically opens www.update.microsoft.com. An Active-X plug-in then scans your computer for updates for Windows only in the case of Windows Update and then downloads and installs the relevant updates. Microsoft Update adds the ability to update Microsoft Office 2003, Office XP, Microsoft Exchange Server, and Microsoft SQL Server.

Windows Vista utilizes a standalone application by the name of Windows Update to handle all the update process for Windows, Microsoft Office 2003, Office XP, Microsoft Exchange Server, and Microsoft SQL Server.

OS X uses an dedicated application, Software Update, to scan for, download and install updates to all Apple software on your computer.

For purposes of comparison I ran software updates for both OS X and Windows XP on my MacBookPro. The laptop was connected via wireless to my broadband connection. The entire update process for OS X took 3 minutes and 58 seconds to complete. Two updates totaling ~61MB in size were downloaded and installed. Aside from OS X this Mac was also scanned for updates to 9 additional Apple applications.

On this same laptop Microsoft Update running on Windows XP SP2 and MS Office 2003 took 1 Hour 27 minutes..The two updates downloaded were ~67MB in size.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  The update process includes scanning the computer for all relevant updates, downloading any updates, and completing the installation including required reboots. Failure rate should also be considered.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  In both cases updates make changes to both operating system and several key software packages. The key question here is how often do the updates render the computer unusable and therefore unavailable.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  How easily can the average computer user complete the update process. Is the process clearly and adequately described?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  The key metrics here are the number of clicks required to complete the process, the level of user interaction required and the time required to complete the process.

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  In the last week 8 of the 10 Windows computers that I had to update experienced at least one failed update. In four of these cases, both Microsoft update itself had to be repaired. In the last four years of working on Macs I have seen exactly 1 update fail to install. This was remedied simply by clicking the “Retry” button.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Of the aforementioned 10 Windows computers, 1 of them had to be completely rebuilt from scratch to solve a Windows Update problem. This resulted in a 1.5 days of downtime. I have never seen a Mac that required a rebuild due to a failed software update.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  This factor is much harder to compare as it is largely subjective. When evaluating usability I think of walking my mother through the process. As she has owned both PCs and now a Mac I have done this more than once on both platforms. With the Mac it was a 10 minute phone conversation. The same update process for the Windows computer spanned three hours and 3 separate phone calls. Much of the time was spent explaining what Windows was asking for when certain prompts appeared and translating technical jargon.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  To run the updates mentioned above on the Mac took 5 clicks, one password and 4 minutes. The same process in Windows XP took 12 clicks and 1 Hour 27 Minutes.

The Winner

For the average computer user software updates can be an intimidating task. A high level of trust is required when allowing the update process to make changes to your computer at the level the operating system updates operate. The fear is that something will go wrong and their computer will be reduced to a useless heap of metal, plastic and silicon. Unfortunately Windows does not do much to alleviate these concerns. Compared to OS X, the Windows update process is both less efficient and more prone to confusion. To make matters worse the failure rate for Windows updates is astoundingly high resulting in the realization of the users fears. The result in many cases is that updates are not applied. In fact in the business environment installing updates without extensive testing is a huge no-no. The end result is that the Windows computers are left increasingly vulnerable to malware. Take a look at week one for details on the malware problem on the Windows platform.

Again OS X wins this one.For those keeping score:
OS X 2 Windows 0

Posted in Apple | 1 Comment »

Summer of Mac Love - Week 1 - Malware

July 8, 2008 – 9:45 pm

The first and most often cited advantage of the OS X is the absence of Malware. The Windows advocates always state that this is due to the comparatively small market share that OS X holds as compared to Windows. Half of this statement is true, unfortunately the second half is neither here nor there.

It is a fact that there are far more Windows computers in use. However this is irrelevant. The argument states that if there were more OS X computers in use there would be more viruses. This is changing the subject. It may prove true that malware attacking the Mac may increase in the future but we are discussing the best platform today, what may or may not happen in the future is extraneous to the discussion.

The Facts

None of the computer security companies (Norton, McAfee, Grisoft, etc) provide the actual number of Windows malware in existence.¹ However, according to F-Secure estimates, that number will reach 1 Million by the end of 2008. Although the number itself does not give us a number for today, it can give as idea of the scope of the problem.²

As of May 2008 there are 764 Windows viruses in the wild.³ Meaning that these 764 viruses are in active circulation. This figure is for viruses only. Meaning that spyware, which is more prevalent, is excluded.

At last count the number of Mac OS X malware in the wild totaled 5.⁴

According to SANS a Windows PC connected to Internet will be infected in less than 50 minutes. My Mac has been connected for 270,720 minutes (and counting) without infection.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  It is common for malware has been known to reconfigure settings on the computer disabling functions such as web browsing. Malware can achieve this by performing redirects on all outbound traffic. As web browsing is by far the most common use of a computer, disabling this feature definitely makes the computer less capable.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The more destructive malware has also been known to delete files such as documents or operating system files leaving these documents missing or crippling the operating system. For many users, a malware infection will require repair by a technician rendering the computer unavailable while it is under repair.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  In this case usability is not applicable as malware does not affect how the user interacts with the computer, rather it affects the outcome of this interaction.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  A sudden loss in efficiency is one of the most common symptoms of a malware infection. Malware by definition infiltrate a computer and perform tasks without the users permission. The accumulation of unauthorized tasks generated by malware can quickly consume a large portion of the available resources of the computer leaving legitimate tasks with less resources and subsequently slowing them down.

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Browser redirection is one of the most common results of a spyware infection on a Windows PC. Examples include Trojan.DLoader/LX, Zlob.Downloader, and so on. RSPlug.A will perform the same trick on a Mac. However this virus requires the user to download, extract and enter the admin password to install the virus in order to infect the Mac.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Three of the Mac viruses (PokerStealer, MacSweeper and Imunizator) will provide a method for deleting files through ssh access. Numerous malware infections (Nyxem, W32/Nopir-B, etc) on a PC will delete files. Although both systems are vulnerable, the Windows PCs have far more attack vectors than the Mac. Fewer attack vectors means that protection is far simpler for a Mac.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  In this case usability is not applicable as malware does not affect how the user interacts with the computer, rather it affects the outcome of this interaction.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  As previously stated the number of malware programs for the Windows PC is well into the hundreds of thousands. A large majority of these can be considered resource thieves as their main function. Mac OS X again has but according to Symantec it is not very prolific, in fact they cite less than 50 infections.

The Winner

Although OS X is not immune to viruses as some claim, the fact remains that there are only 5 malware programs that infect OS X. Compared to the fact that malware programs for the Windows PC number in the hundreds of thousands, the Mac is the clear numerical winner.

Obviously Anti-Malware programs for both platforms can mitigate this problem. However the key issue here is the affect on the user. Anti-Malware software on a PC requires far more resources (disk usage, CPU cycles, RAM, and etc) to scan for all of the Windows malware. Given that Mac anti-malware apps only have to look for 5 things, far less resources are consumed. Although not recommended, Mac users can get by without installing anti-virus software.

I have never installed any in the four years since I switched and I have never been infected. This saves the Mac user both money (no software costs), time (no time spent waiting for the computer to complete a scan) and repair costs.

Although malware for the Mac is likely to increase, it must be considered that Windows malware will also increase at the same time. This fact will preserve the resource advantage as the Macs will not likely catch the Windows platform in the number of malware programs. That is unless everyone gets rid of their Windows PCs and switch to the Macs all at once. Given that scenario, the Mac would eventually bypass Windows.

OS X wins this one by a long shot.

1: According the PR office at Symantec this changes too frequently for them to keep track. This seems more than a little fishy. We all know they maintain a database in the form of their virus definitions. Querying this database for a total would be trivial. I suspect that they are motivated by other reasons not to make this number public. Draw your own conclusion….

2: I use this number as it was the only one provided by any of the AV companies. A reasonable conclusion of the number of viruses in existence today can be inferred by comparing the numbers that they do provide.

3: Wildlist is monitoring group, see their website for details. 764 is likely a very conservative number considering the criteria upon which they generate the list.

4: These would be PokerStealer, Imunizator, MacSweeper, RSPlugA and Oompa-LoompA as per Integoa Mac anti-malware vendor.

Posted in Apple | 4 Comments »

Summer of Mac Love

July 7, 2008 – 9:42 pm

They came from every corner of the United States, descending upon San Francisco in never ending waves until they could be ignored no longer. Individually their voices where drowned out or simply ignored. During the Summer of Love they would be ignored no longer. As one irrepressible voice they shouted their disdain in an act of cultural and political rebellion. Their actions left a mark on a society ripe for change. Forty years later time our lives have been forever changed by the personal computer and the growth of the Internet. Just as the hippies gathered around San Francisco in a effort to better both their lives and society as a whole, a movement has been brewing across the Internet. Fed up with the shortcomings of Windows, countless thousands have gathered around the idea that there has to be a better way. The numbers don’t lie. This movement has a gathering place. That gathering place is the Mac platform. Eventually the hippies became targets of ridicule and now the Mac faithful are commonly abused. A few years ago when the first iPod came out people could not say enough good things about it. Today the natural order of things has given rise to another counter-culture who now vehemently oppose everything about Apple.

The heat of summer is once again upon us. Many of us will pass the time at back yard barbecues or lounging by the pool enjoying a cold one. I have another plan. After months of reading comments and articles floating around the net, I have developed my own heat source. I have silently stood by and read the comments of the aforementioned counter culture repeatedly expressing their hatred for all things Apple. Many of these same people talk about the superiority of Windows and Microsoft products as compared to Apple’s offerings. The discussions have all the hallmarks of fanaticism. Unsubstantiated “facts”, boisterous claims with no supporting evidence, and outright name calling are common place. There have been times when these discussions make me wonder about our (American) future as a culture. The Internet has become the mouth piece for the uneducated, lazy and just asinine. Few things get my blood boiling as fast as displays of idiocy and irrationality. My plan is to spark a discussion that ends all of this. Call it my Summer of Mac Love.

The premise is this. The Apple OS X platform is, as a matter of fact, the best personal computing platform currently available. The Windows advocates and apologists are simply wrong. My evidence is based on the following criteria:

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?

Before the flame war (meaning idiotic and irrational comment diarrhea) begins, let’s review the ground rules. Facts require observation and measurable proof. A statement by itself is not a fact unless it can backed up by empirical evidence. The comments will be moderated. I will not suppress any dissenting opinion provided that you can back up said comment with proof, that means including both empirical evidence and references. If you spot an error in my reasoning and objectively prove me to be wrong, I will happily admit my error.

Each week I will offer one element of the OS X operating system that is superior to it’s Windows counterpart. I will also provide the evidence for this assertion. There are eight weeks left in Summer, at least unofficially. For purposes of this series of articles, Summer concludes on the last day of August. So here we go, let’s get started with week one.

Posted in Apple | 2 Comments »

The Group the iPhone 3G Forgot

June 20, 2008 – 4:09 am

Any attempt to criticize a product that has not yet been released is generally foolish. The web is awash with complaints about the iPhone 3G’s camera, debates about Assisted GPS, and countless other alleged deficiencies for a product hasn’t even been released yet. I certainly don’t want to be lumped in with those who have committed this folly; and yet, I have spotted a problem. This problem is not a missing feature of the phone itself. The problem is with one of the highly touted ( and really cool ) services that the iPhone is built to use. Although it was not stated explicitly the missing service can be gleaned from reviewing the keynote, press releases and other information directly from Apple.

Apple left a large percentage of small businesses without a push services solution. Push services ( for those who missed it ) is the ability of the iPhone to synchronize calendars, contacts and email over the airwaves with intervention. For anyone who works from the field this would be a God send. You would be able to make appointments while out of the office and be sure that your secretary hasn’t booked something for the same time. Email would arrive without having to manually hit the send and receive button or wait a preset amount of time. Contacts could be updated from the office in real time. Anyone who has forgotten to sync their phone and missed an appointment would know just how valuable these features really are.

My definition of small business may differ from the mainstream. I consider small businesses to be companies owned and operated by less than 10 - 20 people. Some would label this group the Small Office/ Home Office crowd. Whatever label you choose to apply, a push email, calendar, and contact solution was not presented for this group. I work with this group on a daily basis, see the about page for details, and I can state for a fact that most of them will not be able to use the push features of the iPhone. I can think of only one that uses an Exchange server. This group consists of lawyers, realtors, independent artists and other creative industry businesses. They are by nature small businesses, but a disproportionate amount of them ( compared the MS and Apple market shares ) use Macs.

Apple’s announcement detailed the ability of the push features through Exchange and MobileMe. Exchange servers are typically used in the upper end of the SMB market as they can be quite costly to maintain. MobileMe will be used by individuals and it is a great solution for them, but the inability to use a company domain name will be a deal breaker for the aforementioned small businesses. So where does that leave this group. Apple also briefly mentioned that a new version of OS X Server named Snow Leopard will be released next year. As detailed on their website and a couple press releases this server version will provide for push services, but it is not due to be released for another year. Almost everyone of my clients now uses Google Apps as an Exchange replacement. I am holding out hope that in the near future Google will come to the rescue and provide push services. Until then you can count me as one of the outsiders looking in.

Posted in Apple | No Comments »