javajedi
Oct 8, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
Why is the PC faster? It is the OS, not the processor. Windblows uses .dll's Dynamic link libraries. They allow programs to load 2.only what is needed (GUI, and primary API's) and then load pieces of the program as the user uses it. Macs on the other hand load all of the program into memory because, Mac's don't use dll files. So. It takes longer to load a program on a Mac, however once loaded the program will actually perform faster.
As far as Macs being slower at everything. Dude, you obviously have not put a PowerBook up against a PC based notebook recentlly have you? See we sell IBM and Apple. We recently put my 667 up against a 2.0GHZ IBM laptop. The 667 was faster at everything in photoshop than the PC, encoded MP3's faster, and the only it did slower was render HTML. Now you say how much faster? Doesn't matter. If it was .1 seconds faster, it still shows the superiority of the PPC design.
Sure OS X is a 25 year old architecture. My reference is to the flaws of the X86 vs the PPC architecture. If you would like to discuss the flaws in Windows compared to OSX. Well, arn would have to make a dedicated topic for us to discuss it.
Macs run slower than winblows machines. So what. Would you really like to run winblows fast? That would be cool. Sure my machine goes 2.8GHZ, but it crashes once a day. I have never crashed X. Not even when it was a PB. Oh, and btw. I am an MCP, and Apple certified, so yes, I do know what I am talking about.
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
.jpg "tattoo gallery, tattoo")
paul4339
Apr 28, 03:26 PM
...
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
If I were to speculate, I would guess that linking to the iTunes PC/Mac software is merely a transitional state (a launch pad to tap into the their existing iPod customer base)
I believe that they will eventually try sever the link from the PC/Mac iTunes client software and have all devices link over the internet back to Apple iTunes service. That is Home Base will not be your PC but rather Apple's servers, this will create more reliance/stickiness to Apple.
Where your media is stored is still up in the air (cloud?)... Cloud makes sense from a profit perspective because it creates the most stickiness, but obviously it may not appeal to many consumers.
What's certain is the trend to move to an OS where the user does not directly interact with the underlying OS. They need to access their files, media, but that can be through an application versus meddling with the underlying OS file system directly... meaning that things are trending (for the avg user) towards more of an iOS and less of an OSX.
P.
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
If I were to speculate, I would guess that linking to the iTunes PC/Mac software is merely a transitional state (a launch pad to tap into the their existing iPod customer base)
I believe that they will eventually try sever the link from the PC/Mac iTunes client software and have all devices link over the internet back to Apple iTunes service. That is Home Base will not be your PC but rather Apple's servers, this will create more reliance/stickiness to Apple.
Where your media is stored is still up in the air (cloud?)... Cloud makes sense from a profit perspective because it creates the most stickiness, but obviously it may not appeal to many consumers.
What's certain is the trend to move to an OS where the user does not directly interact with the underlying OS. They need to access their files, media, but that can be through an application versus meddling with the underlying OS file system directly... meaning that things are trending (for the avg user) towards more of an iOS and less of an OSX.
P.
AP_piano295
Apr 22, 11:15 PM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
econgeek
Apr 12, 10:40 PM
All video is native, it sounds like. It ingests, and as it ingests it makes a working copy that you edit with. On output it works with the original. I think they have eliminated (effectively) the distinction between "edit format" and "capture format".
It sounds like some of the features of motion are built in.
Live Type and other parts of the suite seem to be built in, from what I can gather.
It sounds like some of the features of motion are built in.
Live Type and other parts of the suite seem to be built in, from what I can gather.
THX1139
Jul 13, 02:40 AM
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.
I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:41 PM
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
boncellis
Jul 12, 10:50 AM
...So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.
As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.
What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.
As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.
What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 03:46 PM
You won't see a Clovertown Mac Pro until after Adobe announces the ship date for CS3. The reasons are simple -- a) most would-be Mac Pro purchasers are holding off until the native version of Creative Suite; and b) marketing-wise changing from a dual dual 3 GHz high end to a dual quad 2.66 GHz high end would be seen as a downgrade.
There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.
There's a whole lot more in this world than CS3 and thousands of buyers who will gladly jump onto the 8-core bandwagon even if CS3 never arrives. Every decent 3D graphics package out there will benefit from having 8 cores as will many simulation and visualizations softwares, scientific applications, video applications. Honestly, the only application in CS3 that really needs multi-core support is Photoshop and like any individual piece of software, it's just that, a piece... A tool used along with several others to complete a task. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain by adding 8-core CPU options to their configuration page. And they will do so as soon as the processors are sufficeintly available to meet their perceived demand.
MarkCollette
Sep 12, 08:31 PM
I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size.
To be fair, these videos are encoded using H.264, which is a newer and more efficient codec, bitrate wise, than MPEG2 which is used in DVDs.
EDIT: Plus I think these are 640x480 progressive scan, whereas DVDs are interlaced. Sure, that'll take more space, but it will also give it better quality.
To be fair, these videos are encoded using H.264, which is a newer and more efficient codec, bitrate wise, than MPEG2 which is used in DVDs.
EDIT: Plus I think these are 640x480 progressive scan, whereas DVDs are interlaced. Sure, that'll take more space, but it will also give it better quality.
wkhahn
Sep 20, 11:01 AM
You might have a point here but at that price point I suspect a 30GB HD and no PVR use. The HD could be used for caching and PPV/rental movies though.
I was going to ask why not a PRV, but realized it myself. While apple does not prevent you from loading music you have aquired through other means onto your iPod, they don't help you either. They don't help you buy CD's because its too broad an experience to simplfy. Same with the PVR. How a customer aquires content from a provider varies too much for apple to engineer an simple solution. But they can provide their own simple content delivery solution.
Next, they need to provide an NAS for all your media either from the store, ripped from disc or created yourself. Move the media off the computer.
I was going to ask why not a PRV, but realized it myself. While apple does not prevent you from loading music you have aquired through other means onto your iPod, they don't help you either. They don't help you buy CD's because its too broad an experience to simplfy. Same with the PVR. How a customer aquires content from a provider varies too much for apple to engineer an simple solution. But they can provide their own simple content delivery solution.
Next, they need to provide an NAS for all your media either from the store, ripped from disc or created yourself. Move the media off the computer.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 06:10 PM
What is a "devout atheist"? :confused:
They genuflect without warning, something like an epileptic. :rolleyes:
They genuflect without warning, something like an epileptic. :rolleyes:
macidiot
Jul 12, 05:24 PM
Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?
I don't really care if he uses xp. I've loaded boot camp on my mbp. If xp better suits your needs, go for it.
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.
I don't really care if he uses xp. I've loaded boot camp on my mbp. If xp better suits your needs, go for it.
The point was that pretty much everything he said was bogus and flame bait. Sadly, I took the bait.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
Multimedia
Jul 13, 06:10 AM
I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.Adobe made a strategic decision to go Universal with the CS3 Suite next year and meanwhile not to divert work to Universalize the CS2 Suite. If you need Adobe stuff all the time, just get a G5 Quad and you will be happy as a clam. It's still going to be the second fastest Mac after Mac Pros are out. :)
pianodude123
Sep 26, 05:57 PM
And the wait for 8 Core Mac Pros and Merom MacBook Pros/MaBook is on ;)
Waiting for speed bumps means no one buys a dang thing :cool:
at least the educated do not....
Well...it's amazing that now every dual core computer is obsolete, and every single core computer is like an Apple II compared to this.
Waiting for speed bumps means no one buys a dang thing :cool:
at least the educated do not....
Well...it's amazing that now every dual core computer is obsolete, and every single core computer is like an Apple II compared to this.
Chris here
Sep 29, 07:23 AM
No.
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
Oh. Great. Cool answer.
gravytrain84
Mar 18, 01:31 AM
I knew this was coming sooner or later....:mad:
sinsin07
Apr 9, 07:43 AM
Apple should be courting game developers, not their execs. These execs usually don't know much games other than to milk franchises until they're useless while the gameplay suffers.
Tattoo Of Me Now
Reach9
Apr 20, 08:36 PM
Oh great another Android vs. iOS argument.
C'mon fanboys, let people have their own opinion. But then again, it's "mac"rumors, so i think talking at the CNET forums or any other general big tech site would be ideal.
From my experience, an Android phone is a better smartphone than the iPhone. But the iPhone has a much better ecosystem, and is less fragmented and such.
But i'd take a better smartphone anytime. I'm willing to wait and give Apple a chance with iOS 5, who knows? Maybe they'll retake the crown as a better smartphone in my eyes? Then i won't be even thinking about Android!
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone 3G until the 3G network was well diverse around America, and the world. There are a lot of major countries internationally who don't even have LTE networks ready, so i think any expectations of an LTE should be from a 2012 iPhone.
C'mon fanboys, let people have their own opinion. But then again, it's "mac"rumors, so i think talking at the CNET forums or any other general big tech site would be ideal.
From my experience, an Android phone is a better smartphone than the iPhone. But the iPhone has a much better ecosystem, and is less fragmented and such.
But i'd take a better smartphone anytime. I'm willing to wait and give Apple a chance with iOS 5, who knows? Maybe they'll retake the crown as a better smartphone in my eyes? Then i won't be even thinking about Android!
Apple didn't want to release the iPhone 3G until the 3G network was well diverse around America, and the world. There are a lot of major countries internationally who don't even have LTE networks ready, so i think any expectations of an LTE should be from a 2012 iPhone.
MacCoaster
Oct 9, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Dude, I am a microsoft certified professional and spend all day dealing with PC problems. I have worked on the slowest ones and the fastest ones. The dual power macs fly! On top of that they do not run winblows. PC's suck because of the OS period. My mind will never be changed on that because I have almost 2 decades of dealing with Microsoft's crap!
Then use FreeBSD on the PC. FreeBSD ****in' flies. PCs don't suck. A particular OS does.
Dude, I am a microsoft certified professional and spend all day dealing with PC problems. I have worked on the slowest ones and the fastest ones. The dual power macs fly! On top of that they do not run winblows. PC's suck because of the OS period. My mind will never be changed on that because I have almost 2 decades of dealing with Microsoft's crap!
Then use FreeBSD on the PC. FreeBSD ****in' flies. PCs don't suck. A particular OS does.
100Teraflops
Apr 5, 05:53 PM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Sounds like a personal problem. :D
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
+1 Good one! Actually, I did not use keyboard shortcuts exclusively until I switched to The Mac, but they are different.
Sounds like a personal problem. :D
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
+1 Good one! Actually, I did not use keyboard shortcuts exclusively until I switched to The Mac, but they are different.
everettmarshall
Apr 13, 08:38 AM
Not having seen FCPX first hand I will completely withhold judgement on the app until I do.
But I will make the observation that it seems for some, the price point is what makes this app "less" pro. The fact that more people can get it and call themselves video or film editors when they are no more an editor than someone who buys a tool set at Lowe's is a mechanic.
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
But I will make the observation that it seems for some, the price point is what makes this app "less" pro. The fact that more people can get it and call themselves video or film editors when they are no more an editor than someone who buys a tool set at Lowe's is a mechanic.
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
GGJstudios
May 2, 03:41 PM
What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
It can't achieve privilege escalation without the user entering their admin password. That means it can't damage your Mac OS X installation.
ie, not viruses. ClamAV's original intent was Linux e-mail servers and while it may have morphed into more, it's existence is not the proof of Mac viruses.
I only mentioned that because some are under the mistaken impression that ClamXav only detects Windows malware.
It can't achieve privilege escalation without the user entering their admin password. That means it can't damage your Mac OS X installation.
ie, not viruses. ClamAV's original intent was Linux e-mail servers and while it may have morphed into more, it's existence is not the proof of Mac viruses.
I only mentioned that because some are under the mistaken impression that ClamXav only detects Windows malware.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 01:44 PM
If it weren't a generous attitude I would call it naive. People following the Jewish or the Christian faith to a tee can be just as threatening to everyone's freedom and all-around democracy p just look at your own doorstep. It takes a secular Jew, Christian or even Islamist (of which there are more than you would think) to fit that bill.
I've explained somewhere else why there can never be an Islamic reformation unless they go against the teachings of the qur'an, which would be blasphemy because it's the literal word of god etc etc etc.
Truly secular islamists/moderates are extremists in the eyes of the major Islamic schools...
Christianity has been neutered thanks to the reformation and the enlightenment. We don't have anything more to fear from it ever gaining ascendancy again but please do correct me if I'm wrong.
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
Wouldn't you consider the Orthodox Church to be fundamentalist? I thought fundamental meant basic... The Orthodox Church predates the Catholic Church...
I've explained somewhere else why there can never be an Islamic reformation unless they go against the teachings of the qur'an, which would be blasphemy because it's the literal word of god etc etc etc.
Truly secular islamists/moderates are extremists in the eyes of the major Islamic schools...
Christianity has been neutered thanks to the reformation and the enlightenment. We don't have anything more to fear from it ever gaining ascendancy again but please do correct me if I'm wrong.
And you then go on to explain how this doesn't exist in a church which is neither fundamentalist nor Protestant. I'm still at odds as to what point you are trying to make?
Wouldn't you consider the Orthodox Church to be fundamentalist? I thought fundamental meant basic... The Orthodox Church predates the Catholic Church...
No comments:
Post a Comment