It all started for me back in 1989. I bought some software from a local computer shop in Edison, New Jersey known as Egghead Software. The possibility of a virus didn’t occur to me. That was a problem others confronted; it rarely happened on Macs. But things went bad real fast, and I soon realized that, yes, my brand new Mac IIcx system, which, with laser printer and display, cost me more than a fully decked out Mac Pro in 2015, had been infected so badly that I had to erase the drive and restore all my apps.

How did it happen? Well, evidently one of the apps I bought, which came from Fifth Generation Systems, a well-known publisher, had somehow been infected, perhaps during the production process. In passing, that company was sold to a well-known security software publisher, Symantec, in 1993. And you can bet that I installed anti-virus software on my Mac then and there.

Unfortunately, such apps don’t always get along with a Mac or a PC. The active scanning feature, which constantly monitors your system for possibly suspicious activities, plus any new files you download or install, usually put a severe drag on your computer’s performance. In those days, apps could take as much as twice as long to launch. Even with far more powerful processors, and loads more RAM, security software continues to consume too many resources.

Is the tradeoff worth it? On a Windows PC, yes it is. Compared to the Mac, well over a million viruses are listed on the Windows platform, though most of these are not widely circulated. Thank goodness! On a Mac, malware has been rare since OS X arrived with its secure Unix underpinnings. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems from time to time. Most these days manifest themselves as a Trojan Horse, meaning they pretend to do something good while deploying an evil payload. They don’t just show up either. You receive an email with an enticing offer, or visit a site where you are promised useful information. Either way, by clicking to launch the infected payload, you might find yourself in trouble.

How bad is it on the Mac? Well back in 2012, the Flashback virus, infecting Java, may have impacted several hundred thousand Mac users according to one estimate. But even if that estimate was overly optimistic, it was allowed to do its thing for far too long before Apple got around to overhauling the Java delivery mechanism. Meantime, security publishers quickly patched their virus definitions to handle the situation.

So does that mean you should install a security app on your Mac? I have been hit or miss about it because of the performance hit. But now one of the major security software companies, Bitdefender, promises that their latest version of Antivirus for Mac is not intrusive and that it barely slows down the system. They’ve even posted a chart showing a performance impact in the low single digits, which definitely shouldn’t be noticeable.

This is particularly important as the number of potential Mac malware outbreaks appears to be on the rise. I won’t say the sky is falling, but if you want to get the extra ounce of protection, you’ll be far more comforted knowing that the app isn’t going to have a negative impact on how your Mac operates.

The folks at Bitdefender, who recently began advertising on my radio show, tell me that they also scored 100% detection in Mac and Windows malware from AV-TEST, which evaluates the efficacy of security software. That’s good to know, since other Mac security apps didn’t score quite as well.

Now I don’t want to go out on the limb and evaluate an untested product, and I rarely observe review guides. Instead, I downloaded Bitdefender Antivirus for Mac, a quick download, and a quick install. No restart required. I entered the product serial number, and promptly forgot about it until, this past weekend, I got a Bitdefender prompt about one of my emails being infected by a Trojan Horse. Bit defender was doing its thing in the background without impacting how my Mac worked in any way. My late 2009 iMac, recently outfitted with an SSD, continued to run normally.

So, yes, Bitdefender’s claim of being nonintrusive appears to be right on.

What’s particularly attractive about the app is its minimalist interface. There aren’t a whole lot of options, the most significant one being whether to turn off active scanning. You can also add web protection using browser extensions for such apps as Safari, Firefox and Google Chrome. As with most antivirus apps, Bitdefender updates its definitions in the background as needed.

Bitdefender’s bill of materials includes protection from viruses, spyware, Trojan Horses, key loggers, worms and adware. That appears to cover the full range.

To get your attention, the folks at Bitfender are engaging in a new social-network-oriented ad campaign. All you have to do to enter is take a selfie of you hugging your Mac, post it on Face-book, Instagram or Twitter and give it the hashtag #hugamac.” I’m serious folks. That hashtag will get you entered in a contest where you can win a MacBook Air. You can also sign up at Bitdefender’s site to receive a free six-month license for Antivirus for Mac. If you like the app, it’s $59.99 for a one-year license that supports up to three Macx. An additional $20 adds PC coverage.

You can find out more about the “#hugamac” campaign from the company’s special promotional page. There’s nothing to lose for a few minute’s effort with your iPhone, and once you install the app using that free trial and try it for a while, you might even like it.

As you know, I’ve been skeptical of the need for security software on your Mac. While I’m in favor of an extra ounce of protection, the speed and stability hit of most of these apps has been a matter of serious concern. But the folks at Bitdefender appear to have broken through with a Mac solution that you won’t be aware of — until you need it.

When I first got online, I didn’t pay much thought to whether the server was a Mac, a PC, or a dedicated Linux server. The main reason was that, in those days, Mac web servers were few and far between, and thus not very cost effective. At a time when I could only manage a few dollars a month to have my site hosted, I looked for hosts who had low prices with the promise of high performance.

I never once considered a Windows server, although they are still widely used. In large part, Linux owns the web. You see, Linux servers are plentiful, cheap, speedy, reliable and not subject to much in the way of malware. They are also predictable, and though management isn’t always as easy as I’d like, my sites rarely go offline.

Now some manage web services with the command line, just as you can do in OS X. While I have some level of command line experience, I am mostly a dabbler in such things. Of course, I’m quite good at copying and pasting an appropriate command, and that largely keeps me out of trouble. For day-to-day use on my Linux servers, I mostly use cPanel, which is published by a Houston-based company and powers sites run by some of the largest — and smallest — web hosts. It has a fairly decent graphical interface, and if you stay in your comfort zone, you can manage your sites without much difficulty.

Continue Reading…

Just the other day, I read a report that Apple had added some more hard drive options to the Mac mini, including a 2TB Fusion Drive. You can even have Apple install a 1TB solid state drive if you’re ready and willing to waste an extra $800 on a computer that starts at $499. If you throw everything in there, including 16GB RAM, the total comes to $2,199. That’s just $300 less than the entry-level 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display.

Now I happen to be a fan of the Mac mini. I think it’s just a great computer for regular people who are ready to give up on Windows and want something relatively inexpensive, but pretty fast and reliable. Of course, it works best if they already have a mouse and display around that they can hook up to their new box. Otherwise, there are loads of cheap peripherals around that’ll suit.

The Mac mini arrived in 2005 only weeks after Apple said they’d never enter the cheap PC arena. That statement was made at one of the quarterly conference calls with financial analysts in response to a question about a low-cost Mac.

At $499, the first version may have seemed cheap for a Mac, but not so cheap compared to some of those PCs you buy at a discount store. When Apple switched to Intel, the Mac mini went to $599 for the basic model, and stayed there until this past fall, when a slightly updated version appeared for the original $499 price.

But Apple has taken a hit-and-miss approach to allowing you to upgrade a Mac mini. The first model couldn’t be disassembled without a putty knife or a similar implement. In later design revisions, Apple made it simple to remove the bottom cover to add or replace RAM. Installing a new drive was rather more difficult, but still possible. More than likely, most people who’d buy a Mac mini, other than those setting them up in a datacenter, would only care about RAM upgrades anyway unless the hard drive failed.

In the process of knocking $100 off the purchase price for the late 2014 model, Apple decided you didn’t need to change RAM, so it was soldered onto the logic board, same as most MacBooks. The quad-core processor options were dropped in place of dual-core. Well, that might be adequate for people who don’t run apps that tax multiple cores, but otherwise it’s no longer a pocket rocket.

But my biggest problem with the new design is removing the ability to change RAM. Maybe that makes some sense on a MacBook Air or MacBook Pro with Retina display, where everything has to be teeny tiny to make them as small and light as possible. Maybe it saves a few dollars to discard those RAM slots and removable covers, but it’s a matter of a few dollars at most. Cleary the decision, unfortunate as it is, was very much about design.

It seems to make less sense on the 21.5-inch iMac, since it’s still large enough to contain RAM upgrade parts without seriously detracting from the form factor.

I am not disputing the fact that replacing parts on an iPhone or iPad isn’t terribly user friendly, though there are plenty of online instructions as to how, and which tools to use. Some do it successfully, others make do with a trip to an Apple Store or another dealer, so they are off the hook if something goes wrong. So it makes sense for these to be closed box designs.

But I wonder to what degree Apple’s designers consider the question of upgrading and servicing a piece of hardware during the design process. Certainly Apple is famous for creating exclusive and highly sophisticated assembly/fabrication schemes. The manufactured product is almost always slim, light and smooth, without cracks or seams. But that also means that taking it apart is not a priority, although Apple service people do it all the time.

So other than a legacy MacBook Pro, the 27-inch iMac and the Mac Pro, Apple’s products do not have user serviceable parts. It’s all the responsibility of a service technician, or the power user who is willing to take a chance with a voided warranty.

In the scheme of things, I realize you don’t expect your TV set or refrigerator to be user serviceable, although they are usually not all that hard to take apart. You just want to use them, and expect them to be as trouble free as possible. If repairs are needed, you call in an expert to handle the chore. Both, then, are appliances, and you don’t expect to perform any upgrades. Well, there are some Samsung TV sets with user-serviceable electronics to keep them up to date, but that’s a rarity.

Could Apple do better? With Macs, yes. I understand the choices about mobile gear, with expensive tiny parts that are easily damaged. Yes, there are Android phones that allow you to remove the battery, but are they as solid and reliable?

Now I’m just coming off a particularly irritating upgrade process, where I replaced the hard drive of my late 2009 iMac with a 1TB SSD. As readers recall from my articles and radio commentaries on the subject, it starts with using suction cups to pry the front glass from the chassis. On newer iMacs, the price of having a thinner case forces you to separate adhesive tape to pull off the front glass. I wouldn’t even think of trying that sort of upgrade.

Do I really have to continue?