Once upon a time, Mac users could brag they were much safer from malicious electronic attacks. After all, in the days before Google (GOOG), when Microsoft (MSFT) was the only uber-player in town, Windows was the perpetual malware target. Phishers, however, aren't discriminating; they're just looking for an account to plunge. So, both Apple (AAPL) and Microsoft users are threatened. Virus writers do tend to focus on the Windows operating system, which owns 90% of the OS market, but phishers are platform independent.

Phishing involves attempts to get a user to reveal information about their accounts. Once the soon-to-be victim clicks that link or fills out a form, the "transaction" is complete -- no operating system interaction necessary. As a result, there really isn't any advantage to using a Mac over a PC.

Amazon, Inc. (AMZN) is in the clouds. So are Google, Inc. (GOOG), EMC (EMC) and Cisco (CSCO). Now, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) is joining them, having announced on Tuesday its new Windows Azure cloud computing system. The new product will be released on January 1, 2010 -- a new solution for a new year.

Azure will deliver an online platform for the software development set to build their own mousetraps and provide plenty of storage space for users. Testing began a year ago, and full live version will be celebrated next year. For the first month, Azure will be free. The charges start in February.

Businesses do not see a turnaround in 2010. Even with public figures talking up the economy (and who can blame them, it's practically in their job description) businesses are not listening. If consumers aren't spending, why should businesses?

For example, Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) said the year will close strong, although it still will be down compared to 2008. This end-of-the-year optimism is being driven by a once-in-five-year change in the Windows operating system -- something that should have created booming demand, not a modest uptick.

Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT), a company in the same competitive league as Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL), Google, INc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO), and International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM), posted its Q4 earnings release after the bell on Thursday. As I was writing this paragraph, shares of the software giant were trading down over 6% in the after-hours session. Looks like the market was disappointed.

To be certain, the results weren't great (of course, no one was expecting them to recall the company's growth story of yesteryear, I'm confident about that, let me tell you). Sales were down 17%. Operating income on a dollar basis dropped 30%. And, on a reported basis, Microsoft's per-share profit, calculated out to be 34 cents, declined 26%. On an adjusted basis, adding back 4 cents for a few items, earnings came in at 38 cents per share. According to my earnings preview, that beat estimates by two pennies.

Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), which already has most of the money in the world, seems intent on grabbing Microsoft's (NASDAQ: MSFT) pile by elbowing its way into the operating system business.

Last year Google introduced its own web browser, Chrome, and a platform for smart phones, Android. Now the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports that by the end of next year it will roll out an operating system to compete with Windows.

Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) blamed its crummy numbers on something you may never have heard of -- netbooks. Why should you care? Because netbooks -- $200 to $500 stripped down laptops designed for web surfing -- are growing faster than any market I know of -- 11 million were sold in 2008 and 22 million are likely to fly of the shelf in 2009.

Netbooks are making Microsoft's valuable Windows franchise vulnerable after two decades of dominance. That's because if Microsoft is used to selling Windows to a desktop or laptop maker for $300 or $400 a copy, it is not going to make much headway with a netbook maker who is selling the entire device for $300. The netbook phenomenon will force Microsoft to either come up with a much less expensive operating system or continue to see its Windows revenue -- which fell for the first time in history in the last quarter of 2008 -- shrink.

So the Wall Street Journal and a few blogs reported that Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) said Tuesday it has filed a suit against Psystar Corp., a Florida-based company that makes and sells computers that run Leopard, Apple's Macintosh operating system software. The suit was filed July 3.

Apple seems to think that Psystar is infringing its copyrighted computers as Psystar's $600 Open Computer "violates an Apple policy that forbids people from installing Apple's Macintosh software on anything other than an Apple-labeled device."

But according to AppleInsider, "A representative for the company, identified only as Robert [argues] that the Mac OS X end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, stands in violation of antitrust laws." Rodolfo Pedraza, Psystar co-founder said in the past to the Journal that his company pays for every copy of the software it sells.

I understand what Apple is so worried about. If anyone remembers the IBM Clones of the 80s, they also remember that very quickly IBM has lost the leadership role in the market for IBM PC compatibles by 1990. It wasn't the end for International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM) as it derived a considerable income stream from license fees. But Macs are not just hardware, they're software too, and we all know what operating system has dominated those PCs. Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) Windows has become the global leader.

So other than the fact that Apple has different rules on what can run on its computers, iPods and iPhones, including the strict iTunes/iPod relationship, seem strenuous to the extreme and definitely borderline violating some consumer protection laws, it's also possible Apple may be missing on a great opportunity here. The Journal mentions that No. 2 computer maker Dell Inc. (NASDAQ: DELL) is interested in making such Apple OS capable computers, meaning Apple see sales increase ten fold and capitalize on licensing fees as well as software sales.

Then again, knowing Jobs' strict attention to details, his Alpha personality and controlling nature, I'd say that's likely never to happen.

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and check out other Battle of the Brands posts.

Going by ad campaigns alone, you would think that every person -- or, at least every cool person -- had abandoned their Windows PCs and hoisted themselves onto the Macintosh bandwagon. Not so. The truth is that PCs far outnumber Macs in the market. The big-business worlds of finance, law, medicine use predominantly PC, while the areas of video production, web design and art use Mac. These computers do most of the same things (play games and DVDs, word-process, create web pages, store and play music) but they are completely different operating systems. Even though Apple computers now include the Intel processor that makes it possible to use Windows-only applications, it can still be hard to compare products.

But what about the companies themselves? What does the Apple brand signify that the Dell brand does not? And vice versa.

Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL): Providing innovative products and a user-friendly interface, Apple has turned the whole computer thing into a fashion accessory. For someone who used Dell products for years and then switched to Mac, the difference is like night and day. A Mac is so easy to use. With a clean interface, a near-universal compatibility with external products and tools, these computers are a beautiful breeze. And now that Macs include Intel processors, one can switch back and forth between a Windows interface and a Mac interface, making previous incompatibilities (software, games, etc.) now perfectly compatible. And when it comes to customer service (see below) Apple really socks the house.

Although AOL has chosen to withdraw continuing development of the Netscape Navigator browser, you'll be able to continue using it indefinitely. Honestly though, who would want to?

Netscape doesn't have much in the way of loyalists in the realm of content suppliers, and web users seem not to care much what browser they use as long as the utility is fast, accurate and simple. I myself switched from Netscape to Firefox during the last year because Navigator was giving me image handling problems and Mozilla Firefox proved to be easier, faster and less burdensome.

Since 1994, Netscape has been a leading-edge web utility. However in recent years, competition from Mozilla Firefox has relentlessly scooped away market share from Netscape and a strong and victorious competitive battle has been waged in the interest of Internet Explorer by Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT). Although Netscape proved to be a strong web utility, in the last few years it lacked any significant improvements in user friendliness. I think that situation is in part due to Microsoft's reluctance to make the Windows operating system play nice with Netscape Navigator. We may take pause to wonder if Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX) ever properly applied pressure on Microsoft over the situation ... probably not.

In the big picture, no one is going to miss Netscape Navigator. Yes, some few loyalists might whine for a while and some people with fully loaded hard drives might find their machines maxed out by the downloading of a new browser and the system changes associated with that, but in the end it's all good if it makes the browsing experience faster and easier for the end user. Besides, it might force the sale of some new computers, yes?

Perhaps AOL should just spin off Netscape, take a bit of cash for it and write the rest off. That might be easiest in the long run. When given the fact that AOL will apparently be relegating Netscape to second-tier status, do you really think it'll ever get better?

Stick a fork in it gang, it's done.

CNN had a story yesterday showing gains in Apple Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) market share in operating systems. The recent gains in market share must be hard for Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) to ignore. It also has to make life harder for Linux and other O/S makers.

The data released yesterday, showed that the MacIntel systems had a 4.01% share in December and the Mac OS share was 3.28%, making it a combined 7.3% share in December. While the data shows that Microsoft still dominates with a 91.8% market share, it also shows that it has lost ground for seven of the last eleven months. What is interesting is that out of this 91.8% market share for various Windows O/S sales is that 76.97% is still windows XP and only 10.43% is for Windows Vista.

CNN's story covers a survey from Net Applications that uses a sample of visitors to some 40,000 websites operated by its clients rather than a total number of computer systems sold. So there is still some room for interpretation here.

Linux was shown as having a 0.63% market share. While that is up 10.5% from the previous 0.57% readings, it shows that Mac truly is the envy of Linux creators. It is also interesting that, at least according to this survey, much of the Windows sales might still be going into Windows XP rather than Windows Vista.

Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) released the first public service pack for its Windows Vista computer operating system Wednesday amid a lack of fanfare by the tech media. Well, from what I saw, anyway. Microsoft's "service pack" is generally regarded as a collection of bug fixes that address certain problems within the software itself, although Microsoft as always downplayed that angle, maintaining that a service pack is more akin to adding new and exciting features more than anything else.

Why is this significant? Windows Vista, which the world's largest software company hopes will continue turning its cash-flow machine for many years to come, still needs major acceptance from large businesses and non-consumer segments. Windows Vista has not sold at retail at near the level Microsoft had hoped, although almost every new PC comes with at least the "Basic" version of the operating system.

One of the wonderful things about the Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) Mac and its operating system was that, because so few people used them, they were not an attractive target for hackers. Apple used that fact to market itself as an alternative to Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) Windows, which is constantly fending off bugs.

All of that is changing now that computer users actually buy Macs and use Apple's new OS. The FT quotes Patrik Runald, an F-Secure security researcher, as remarking: "Over the past two years, we had found one or two pieces of malware targeting Macs. Since October, we've found 100-150 variants."

Now Apple will have to spend a lot of programmer time working on hacks the same way that Microsoft does.

The Apple hacking army is lead by a group called the "Zlob gang." It appears that they are very good at getting consumers to download software for things like watching video. All the person really gets is a virus.

It is a shame that the Mac is so successful. Now Apple will have to spend endless hours in a chess game with hackers.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

New information out of IDC research suggests that the Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) Mac accounted for 6.3% of all PC sales in Q3, up from 5.7% in the same quarter a year ago. This would move the company into third place in the U.S. market.

Steve Jobs intends to do what he can to keep Mac sales growing faster than the PC industry as a whole. According to The New York Times, "on Friday, Apple will start selling the new Leopard version of its OS X operating system, which has a range of features that in some cases match those in Windows Vista and in others surpass them." To keep adding features to the OS, Apple plans to upgrade it every eighteen months or so for several years.

But, upgrades will not be enough to continue to push for more market share. Apple is getting some Mac sales because of the public's purchasing of iPods and iPhone. Still, it is difficult to see business and enterprise customers supporting a new OS along with Windows which not only dominates the PC market but rules the server market as well.

Among consumers, the share battle may get more hard-fought. Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) and other big PC companies are going to need to defend their sales with better product and aggressive pricing. Apple has to face new competition in the U.S. markets from Asia operation Lenovo and Acer.

Apple is about to find that getting more share is tough against entrenched competition.

Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) likes to make the most complex thing you'll ever do into the most simplest task. Much of the planet knows how easy it is to use Google's market-leading search engine, but the talent and technology to make that possible would be mind-boggling to many of us.

If you've used a cellphone in the last year, you're probably aware of how complex that category has become. In standard fashion, cellphone makers and wireless carriers both are cramming more features into wireless phones these days as a way to recruit more customers. Long gone are the old differentiators like coverage area and minute packages, and in are MP3 players, streaming video and amazingly complex user interfaces for even the most basic of cellphones. Google wants to change that, and apparently it won't bother with yet another handset that would just get lost in the fray.

No, Google's simplistic approach, as it always has been, may be in the software that powers these devices instead of making the hardware itself. Right now, Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) makes the Windows Mobile operating system for advanced wireless phones, but it's laden with overkill for most of us. Yes, we all want email and multimedia applications on our phones, but we can do without the complexity current solutions have to offer. If Google were to license or give away its mobile operating system technology to manufacturers and have a say in the design itself beyond the software -- and support the effort using in-phone advertising of some sort -- the world of cellphones could change for the better. If we thought the Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) iPhone was "revolutionary,'" then maybe the 'gPhone' could be one step beyond that.

This post is part of our Money Face-Offs feature. Let us know who you think comes out ahead in this head-to-head match-up, and check out our other Money Face-Off posts.

The technology stories of the 1980s have a lot to do with the dawn of the PC era. IBM was about to license its personal computer technology to the open market (leading to the rising popularity of Microsoft) and Apple's computers were a hit-or-miss proposition with consumers as el-cheapo PCs made their entrance and became the dominant force in many homes and offices. Remember 1,200-bps modems and bulletin boards, folks?

Microsoft's arguably illegal tactics made it flourish in the 1990s under CEO and company cofounder William H. Gates, and the debate continues to this day whether the Windows 3.0 and Windows 95 operating systems were in part copies of Apple's MacIntosh operating system. Suggested viewing: Pirates of Silicon Valley.

Apple seemed dead in the water in the mid '90s, and Microsoft was growing by leaps and bounds. Bill Gates became the richest person in the world on paper (which would last more than a decade), and Steve Jobs came back in 1997 to try and resurrect a floundering Apple that had not done much in terms of innovation or growth under then-CEO Gil Amelio. Gates seemed on top of the world; Jobs, not so much.