Following vnunet.com's article exploding the myth that Mac users are not totally invincible to viruses and hack attacks, our post bag has been full.

Mac evangelists from around the world have written in to state that MacOS is a more secure alternative to other operating systems.

Despite numerous requests for comment from Apple in both the US and the UK, the company has not yet provided a spokesman to comment on the issue.

However, our readers have more than made up for Apple's silence with their enthusiastic and well informed comments.

Readers pointed out that there are plenty of Mac viruses out there, not just the macro viruses affecting Microsoft Office installations, but AppleScript and Macintosh file infectors.

Some virus writers, such as Benny and Sandman from 29A, even specialise in malicious code for the Mac.

One reader, systems administrator Bernie Diament from London, argued that versions of MacOS prior to OSX had significantly poorer security than the latest version.

"Damn it, Kevin Chapman is right despite the fact that, in my humble opinion, Symantec is the worse antivirus [software] for the Mac I can think of," he said.

"I'm a Mac user since probably around 10 years ago and I've found OS/9 is crap. It lacks all the generic features for a 'secure' operating system, as much as Windows, but probably even worse.

"One simple example: it doesn't have 'protected memory' so, if someone finds a hole in my 'XYZ browser' and can exploit it, basically they have under control all my Ram and, therefore, basically are able to do whatever they want on my machine.

"If that's considered 'secure' then I'm a Buddhist monk living in Tibet. Apple knows this, and that's why for the 'next generation' OS they came out with OS/X, based on some very strong components such as the Mach-O kernel, which offers memory protection, together with virtually impenetrable security."

Another reader, David Frank, wrote: "Don't get me wrong. There are of course issues. Systems of that complexity do have vulnerabilities - maybe even serious ones.

"There were a handful of Cert [Computer Emergency Response Team] advisories which affected OS X, and there was more than one security update from Apple. But I've never had any problems with viruses in over 10 years using a Mac."

Marvin Price, an Apple certified technical consultant in California, said: "On the one hand this article should be commended.

"Mac users should not believe they are invulnerable and should practise safe computing just like their Windows counterparts do.

"[But] the Macintosh as a platform is safer, chiefly because it hasn't been as attractive a target as Windows machines.

"OS 9 and OS X do indeed have far fewer holes to exploit than their Windows counterparts, however this doesn't mean they don't exist. They are just harder to find."

He added that a virus writer working to exploit holes in Mac OS 9 is going to have to work much harder, and won't get the satisfaction of the swift and disastrous spread that normally accompanies serious Windows viruses.

As for Macs acting as an 'incubator' of viruses users argued that, because the platform remained unaffected and could only pass on one instance at a time, the platform is technically safer.

More evidence of Mac security is indicated in documentation from the World Wide Web Consortium.

In its security Faq, the Consortium said: "Because the Macintosh does not have a command shell, and because it does not allow remote logins, it is reasonable to expect that the Mac is inherently more secure than the other platforms.

"The safest website is a bare-bones Macintosh running a bare-bones web server."