OSX For All x86 Users - Security already cracked

[sarahsboy18]

I have been watching this thread for awhile now and the thing that boggles my mind is how incapable you (spaeschke) are of stepping outside of your own little box. You have established that Apple's solutions don't fit your needs. Good for you... I guess that makes you better that all of us.

The fact is Apple never asked for your support. You aren't their target market. I am creative director... I don't have time to put together my solutions and tweak them... I need them to work. Right off the shelf. The video solution for me was FCP and a G5... Nothing else comes close for the price... And I grew up on PC... so believe me... I tested around and I know my stuff. I am part of their target market. I upgrade regularly so I don't care about legacy support. I don't need it. Hardware from the '80s is completely useless to me... I'd rather Apple put their time into new "popularizations" than into legacy support.

Which, by the way, I'd like to see XP or even 2000 run on anything built in the '80s... Oh yeah... like they made Office backwards compatible to pre-XP.

Apple... Nor this forum... has asked for your support... We are doing just fine with the solutions that Apple has created specifically for us. It doesn't make us better... It doesn't make us worse. You will not find me on a PC forum telling people how lame running Premiere on a PC is. I could... But I know that isn't PCs strongpoint and it would be rude to the other members.

As an "IT proffesional" you should know that the first thing to do is to analyze the needs of your clients... You have yet to do that for the users of this forum.

 

[Benjamindaines]

I don't even see the blue bar go across on my iMac with Tiger

I see the blue bar on my G5

 

[macAttack]

here's my personal opinion

It wouldn't hurt apple to consider selling OSX for PC's. I think that the price tag on an apple computer is turning away many potenial switchers and, if they try OSX on their PC and like it, they might buy an apple computer.

 

[schweb]

I don't agree. What makes OS X so stable is that Apple controls the hardware as well. If you try to make OS X work just as well and support as many configurations of frankenstein-like PC machines it will be no more stable than Windows XP.

 

[sarahsboy18]

I don't agree. What makes OS X so stable is that Apple controls the hardware as well. If you try to make OS X work just as well and support as many configurations of frankenstein-like PC machines it will be no more stable than Windows XP.

I 100% Agree... btw... your rep points looking mighty healthy these days schweb

 

[macAttack]

I don't agree. What makes OS X so stable is that Apple controls the hardware as well. If you try to make OS X work just as well and support as many configurations of frankenstein-like PC machines it will be no more stable than Windows XP.

That's the reason they would buy an apple machine, to use it to its maximum.

 

[schweb]

That's the reason they would buy an apple machine, to use it to its maximum.

And in the process of that, OS X will earn a reputation as a crash prone system. Not a good tradeoff to me.

 

[schweb]

I 100% Agree... btw... your rep points looking mighty healthy these days schweb

Actually I believe all the mods took reputation point steroids today

 

[technologist]

The biggest problem I have with OS X on PCs is build quality. Every PC vendor, from Dell on down, has been pushing to cut prices. Lower prices at any cost.

A decade ago, people replaced a computer only because when was too slow to be useful. Sure, they cost $3000 or more, but they were solid, physically heavy, and rarely failed.

Nobody, not Apple or anyone, builds stuff that good anymore. They're faster and cheaper and do many more things than they used to, but they don't have the same level of longevity..

Few vendors today even try to build high-quality machines. Apple is better than most. IBM, which built some of the best laptops, wasn't able to sustain a profit and sold off that division. (Who knows what a "ThinkPad" will be like in five years.) Some smaller companies take the time and spend the cash needed to build good-quality machines, and it's possible to build a good PC by selecting your own components.

If OS X became available on any x86 box, there would be nothing insulating Apple from the market pressures. Would they make money? Maybe, but it'd have to be from selling software, not boxes. Meaning, you'd have no choice but to buy a box at Best Buy and hope for the best, or build your own "rig" from components. Which is not something many people are up to.

 

[sarahsboy18]

If OS X became available on any x86 box, there would be nothing insulating Apple from the market pressures. Would they make money? Maybe, but it'd have to be from selling software, not boxes. Meaning, you'd have no choice but to buy a box at Best Buy and hope for the best, or build your own "rig" from components. Which is not something many people are up to.

These are some excellent points... I think what keeps the Apple solution so attractive for those in the creative field is the fact that when we select an Apple solution we know we are getting the best solution that can be bought straight out of the box.

Sure you can build a faster PC... and sure you can find software that has more individual features... And sure you can do things to make your PC secure... But to get great security, good speed, great software, and STABILITY... All in one package. That is what makes it work for me. I am about productivity... And that is what Apple delivers.

I have wasted far more time looking at the MS "blue screen of death" or pulling RAM chips out and trying to reseat them on my old Toshiba... or fighting with drivers.... or dealing with software/hardware compatibility issues. I just want something to work the first time... and if it doesn't... put in the box and send it Apple and have them send me a new one that does. I think that is a pretty good representation of how Apple's market thinks. And that market is growing.

That being said... Apple would be eaten alive at this current point in time if OSX went to general x86 users. Their business model just is not designed for the general market. And the general market isn't ready for them anyways. At this point it doesn't need to be. Apple users are fairly happy... and I'm sure Jobs' salary keeps him happy.

 

[lonerider]

Well, I don't see this as being a good thing (OS X running on PCs). I'd much rather see Apple come out with an x86 chipset that isn't supported on the PC side and make OS X only drivers, rather than cheaping out and using all standard current PC tech. However, the fact that Apple is planning on the first x86 platforms being 'low end' systems suggests they are going to use mostly off the shelf hardware / chipsets etc.

It's going to be too easy for a computer salesman to tell customers that they should buy a PC with Windows because 'if you really want, you can run OS X on it too'. The buyer probably *won't* run OS X, and if they do they'll probably get an unstable hack, neither of which is good for Apple - but the argument will be fairly compelling to the average joe computer buyer.

I still think Jobs (and IBM) stepped in the poop this time.

 

[scooter]

Being critical of Apple in certain areas is not being "anti-Apple". I give Apple credit where it's due and criticize them when it's due. I think perhaps a lot of you folks have your panties in a twist because you're starting to see your special little club of navel gazers slowly eroding on you.

OMG! no matter how rude this guy may get, i peed my pants laughing at this! ( i do know some mac folks who do get their panties in a twist anytime i question the 'divineness' of their systems. it's a box with hardware and a good OS, my friends, that's all. )

it's funny to see people quoting sources and citing 'business models' and such, but the real world will probably be something totally different. OSX will be on standard PC's, whether apple releases it or not. i'm not sure how many people will run it, but people who like it's GUI will. if it is compatible with almost all 3rd party hardware and software, and it remains stable and malware free, then XP folks would have a valid reason to jump ship to a new OS.

last time i made a posting about OSX compared to XP and their respective share of the marketplace, i had a few people here tell me that since OSX is UNIX based, it wouldn't have to worry about viruses or malware/adware? no matter the user base. but according to some reply's here, OSX would become like XP with that kind of exposure to the real world.

so i guess i'm a bit confused.

 

[technologist]

last time i made a posting about OSX compared to XP and their respective share of the marketplace, i had a few people here tell me that since OSX is UNIX based, it wouldn't have to worry about viruses or malware/adware? no matter the user base. but according to some reply's here, OSX would become like XP with that kind of exposure to the real world.

so i guess i'm a bit confused.

Let me try to explain it to you.

OS X is a Unix OS with the root account disabled. It's difficult to mess up a Unix system without root privileges. And OS X remains functional event to users who don't have Admin accounts.

Windows, on the other hand, is virtually unusable unless you give everyone Administrator accounts. Which means, everyone on the system has the power to screw up a Windows box.

Does that make OS X virus proof? No. Nothing is foolproof. But it is significantly more difficult to write a virus for OS X. It also limits the amount of damage that a trojan (much easier) could cause. Windows' security failures are a result of design as much as popularity.

 

[scooter]

Let me try to explain it to you.

OS X is a Unix OS with the root account disabled. It's difficult to mess up a Unix system without root privileges. And OS X remains functional event to users who don't have Admin accounts.

Windows, on the other hand, is virtually unusable unless you give everyone Administrator accounts. Which means, everyone on the system has the power to screw up a Windows box.

Does that make OS X virus proof? No. Nothing is foolproof. But it is significantly more difficult to write a virus for OS X. It also limits the amount of damage that a trojan (much easier) could cause. Windows' security failures are a result of design as much as popularity.

thanks! that makes more sense now.

anyone using my PC does not have admin privilages, not even my wife. :black: they seem to have no problems for what they are using it for. (surfing, word processing and a few games)

 

[timswim78]

The fact is Apple never asked for your support. You aren't their target market. I am creative director... I don't have time to put together my solutions and tweak them... I need them to work. Right off the shelf. The video solution for me was FCP and a G5... Nothing else comes close for the price... And I grew up on PC... so believe me... I tested around and I know my stuff. I am part of their target market. I upgrade regularly so I don't care about legacy support. I don't need it. Hardware from the '80s is completely useless to me... I'd rather Apple put their time into new "popularizations" than into legacy support.

Which, by the way, I'd like to see XP or even 2000 run on anything built in the '80s... Oh yeah... like they made Office backwards compatible to pre-XP.

I agree, the Apple platform blows PC's out of the water in terms of video editing.

If you are looking to get some useful life out of old hardware, you can look into Linux. There are distributions that will run on an old 386 and do some very useful things such as run a firewall, fileserver, or etc. Some distributions, such as Vector Linux, will run a full GUI OS on really old hardware. (For example, I have Vector Linux running with a GUI on an old Pentium 200 at a good speed).

I don't agree with your comment about Office not being backwards compatible. With the exception of Access databases, you can open, save, and work with an office file just fine in 97/2000/XP/2003. I do it all of the time at work.

 

[Cloudane]

(Regarding selling OSX for the PC)

And in the process of that, OS X will earn a reputation as a crash prone system. Not a good tradeoff to me.

Exactly. Look at Windows... win95 was a crash prone system and it's *still* suffering from that reputation even now, 10 years down the line. This is despite the fact that XP is an extremely stable system, as was 2000. Heck, even 98SE was reasonably stable.

Okay it hasn't actually hurt Microsoft's market share a huge amount, but without that reputation one would question whether Linux and Apple would be quite as popular as they're becoming today.

The absolute last thing Apple should want to do is risk creating that kind of reputation.


As it stands it's an ideal situation. People with the appropriate knowledge and hardware are able to hack a version of Tiger onto generic hardware, but it's not easy (I've done it, it's not too bad but it's no walk in the park for Joe Luser), it's not supported and it's not legal. So only a select handful of people will do it, and most of them just out of curiosity or because they've been thinking about a Mac but won't buy one until they've tried and subsequently fallen in love with the OS. And people with that kind of knowledge will *expect* it to be unstable and clunky while they're trying it out on their PCs.

Apple, if they have any sense, will turn a blind eye to that happening and let their reputation and hype build up through it.

 

[PowerBookG4]

I don't even see the blue bar go across on my iMac with Tiger

I do on my 1.5ghz powerbook..that looked close to the speed my powerbook does it at.

 

[macAttack]

from what i've heard tho, OSX won't run too bad on a PC, in some cases its even faster on a pc than mac

 

[schweb]

from what i've heard tho, OSX won't run too bad on a PC, in some cases its even faster on a pc than mac

And where have you heard this from? I'd like to see the details...

 

[iLEFTOVERCRACK]

i think ive heard this too but i could be and probably am wrong