"Lastly, does anyone see any possibility or mechanism for Apple wo be able to thwart hackers from making OS X boot on a Dell or any other PC? I have not yet heard of a convincing way to do that."
Neither have I. Which is why I think in, say, three years time, You'll be able to buy an OS X 10.6 box and install it on any retail or hand-built Intel or AMD beige-box.
If it takes up the gauntlet, things will get very interesting. Apple has never been stronger, and MS has never been weaker. Vista is a ways off, its hardware requirements are mindboggling, and average users (in my experience) are really ticked off at the spyware, malware, adware, viruses, worms, and trojan horses that plague their computers.
You make very good points, Mr. DCQ.
I too am afraid of OS-X on any old box out there; Macintosh is not the OS, and it is not the machines... it is the whole seamless shebang, a shebang that could turn very easily into a fizzle if prying fingers are allowed into the mix.
The problem with the dual-booting on the machines (and aren't there viruses that attack intel BIOSes as well?), is that it too can taint the Apple experience. Even if someone installs windows and gets their machine burned by malware; it will definitely take the bloom off the rose... or the sheen off the Apple.
Another quick question: Is intel's hardware DRM going to make it into macs?
So after reading through this thread it now seems to me that Apple will do their own thing. They haven't made any statements that would preclude this. Sure the new Macs will have some as yet unknown Intel proc in it, but really why would Apple even bother trying to build a box that worked internally like typical Wintel systems? Those system are full of legacy compromises that Apple can ignore. Completely. Some of the stuff the tech folk have discussed here is intriguing. The different cpu's, the busses, the memory controllers, EFI etc.
They can do anything they want to make it work best for their OS. Everybody else is on their own. Yes I know the dev boxes they sent out are standard stuff, but it doesn't have to remain that way.
Lastly, does anyone see any possibility or mechanism for Apple wo be able to thwart hackers from making OS X boot on a Dell or any other PC? I have not yet heard of a convincing way to do that.
In short, it seems to me that Apple has to be very, very, careful of the hand they play, and must guard its cards religiously. For it seems to me they will be entering a much larger arena with much larger stakes, and a much larger population of potential enemies.
Or for another metaphor:
Here there be monsters.
Hope springs eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Hello people!
How many times have I seen this already?
does anyone read the news?
Apple is patenting a security method for this. Even if you somehow manage to get the OS to run on another machine, you won't be able to run programs on it
It's not in effect on the developers machines yet, but by release it will be ready.
Apple is patenting a security method for this. Even if you somehow manage to get the OS to run on another machine, you won't be able to run programs on it
And if there's enough interest, it wil be cracked in 5 minutes - just like various Microsoft anti-piracy/licencing schemes, MPAA schemes, and most other copy protections, OS licence protections, protections to applications, et al.
You sound like you actually believe that a piece of software will be impossible to crack.
And if there's enough interest, it wil be cracked in 5 minutes - just like various Microsoft anti-piracy/licencing schemes, MPAA schemes, and most other copy protections, OS licence protections, protections to applications, et al.
You sound like you actually believe that a piece of software will be impossible to crack.
Yeah, I do believe that the almost required idea that all security will be cracked in five minutes by some pimply kid panting in his room is wishful thinking.
Everyone remembers the few successful cracks, but don't know about or remember the ones that weren't.
DVD security was cracked by that kid Jon.
What's forgotten is that it was only cracked because the manufacturer of the disks forgot to remove the public key from the software before pressing the disks.
It's never been cracked again.
iTunes was cracked when it first came out, fixed, cracked, fixed again, and hasn't been cracked since. There were a couple of bugs. Once they were fixed, that ended it.
It's agreed that the new hi-def disks coming out will be uncrackable, that even if somehow one disk was cracked, it would only work for that release, but that it's unlikely to happen.
Apple's patents contain well understood methods of code substitution as well as other methods combined with a hardware chip. Apple hasn't instituted the patent yet, but it has much weaker security just based on the chip. Developers say that the 10.4.3 release contains much more secure protection than earlier releases, even though it doesn't use Apple's patented methods.
Apple's patent has been looked at by security experts who have said that while it could be possible to get the OS to work on another PC, critical parts of the OS would be missing as they reside in the chip. due to the code substitution methods, which code it would be could be impossible to determine, as it would be different on each copy of the OS.
Therefore, while the OS MIGHT run, getting apps to run on it could be impossible.
Of course we'll see after it comes out, but it does look difficult.
Remember that when security is built-in from the beginning it's much more effective then when it's built on top, later.
XP's security that they recently put in doesn't work well because it's an add-on. Once you're through it, you're done.
I thought Leopard was going to be introduced with Intel Macs... now it's just an upgrade again?
Um, Leopard is an upgrade the same way Tiger, Panther and Jaguar were, with the only difference that it'll run on two architectures instead of just one.
Yes, with a virtual PC for intel mac OS X, will run at full speed windows game. Because unlike emulators, there is no need or translating a code to an another. Virtual PC already work on PC : it allow to have several Windows working in the same PC
One question I have for all of you worrying that running Windows on Macs would actually be could be the death of Apple. Won't the developers go where the market is? And if the market exists for SW running on the Mac OS, because the Mac OS has better secuirty, performance and ease of use (and people get to see that as they run the two systems simultaneoulsy on the same hardware), why would the SW companies not meet the demand? I mean here you've got one computer that in affect turns into a market for both platforms. and if it's true that much of the SW used on home computers is currently pirated PC ware, then it's not like the SW companies are loosing sales to PC owners when these consumers choose to buy the Mac SW version, but rather gaining entirely new revenue from new sales to an expanding Mac market.
One question I have for all of you worrying that running Windows on Macs would actually be could be the death of Apple. Won't the developers go where the market is? And if the market exists for SW running on the Mac OS, because the Mac OS has better secuirty, performance and ease of use (and people get to see that as they run the two systems simultaneoulsy on the same hardware), why would the SW companies not meet the demand?
MS Monopoly is the keyword.
Quote:
I mean here you've got one computer that in affect turns into a market for both platforms. and if it's true that much of the SW used on home computers is currently pirated PC ware, then it's not like the SW companies are loosing sales to PC owners when these consumers choose to buy the Mac SW version, but rather gaining entirely new revenue from new sales to an expanding Mac market.
Windows share is HUGE, Mac OS share is tiny. This is at the root of the problem. If software companies realize that most users run the Windows version of the software on their Intel Mac, because it is less expensive or because they got for free somewhat (work licenses etc.), be sure that the next day it will be no Mac version.
The memory controller is spec'd for that. It's in the docs. It's supposed to be able to work up to 3GHz full bus speed. Unless the chip doesn't work as well as it should.
Care to back that up?
(Also, the PPC970 variants, like the POWER4/5, have their nest -- which includes the processor interface -- running at a lower frequency than their core(s).)
Quote:
But that is a whole 'nother story. If they really had to, they could always put a small fan on top. The machine, as a whole, has so much airflow that it could easily accommodate that. Look how third parties put two more HD's in the case - right in the flow of the cpu's and memory. so far, there have been no reports of overheating because of it. I would think that they could take care of the memory controller, if they had to.
There's a lot more to high frequencies than power dissipation -- especially if you're talking about PCBs, not on-chip stuff.
The motherboard being EFI-only isn't going to stop Windows from being run. It may prevent Windows XP from launching natively off the hardware, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that if MacIntels are EFI-only, someone will write a compatibility box (VirtualPC-lite) that will load a BIOS on top of it, and Windows on top of that. (There are several x86 emulators that can run Windows for the PowerPC, and that sure doesn't have BIOS. And one for a MacIntel wouldn't even need to emulate the processor instructions, so would be pretty speedy.)
I seem to recall that EFI includes provisions for legacy booting.
Windows share is HUGE, Mac OS share is tiny. This is at the root of the problem. If software companies realize that most users run the Windows version of the software on their Intel Mac, because it is less expensive or because they got for free somewhat (work licenses etc.), be sure that the next day it will be no Mac version.
Well, so far Adobe and ms plan to develop their software for the Mac platform.
It is hard to see Apple wanting its Mac to just be a booting place for a windos programme. Is there not a vested interest that Apple has in keeping its hardware and software distinct? Surely there is better business sense in Cupertino than to just let things drift to being a windos box.
So it sounds like your thrust is that Apple needs to not just allow windos programmes easily work on Macs, as then cross platform developers will stop producing the Mac version. Such as ms and Adobe. Well, the closure of a Mac version of software is a vital concern, for health of the platform.
The Macintosh division will be out of a job then. Wonder what that gal Roz Ho at ms is thinking about all of this, the Mac division person/lead(if she is still the lead). She thinks that the Mac business unit 'is made up of some of microsoft's most talented thinkers and developers.'
Often the Mac version seems to work better than the windos. I would think that a lot of people would kick about the demise of the Mac version of Office. I don't use it, but many people do.
While they might change their minds, Schiller didn't just say that windows could run on these Macs, he said that Apple wouldn't do anything that would prevent it from running.
Actually, he was more subtle than that...
"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. 'That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,' he said. 'We won't do anything to preclude that.'
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. 'We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.'"
They don't preclude anyone from running Windows on the current Mac, should they want to. It doesn't mean it's easy.
I think being able to use Windows on a Mac is one of the best things they could do.
I am a PC user and a Mac user, but I spend most of my time on my PC because I like Windows and the apps I have on it. I like OS X too (maybe even more), but I don't particularly like using my Powerbook because it's so slow (1.25GHz 15" 512MB etc). I will probably sell it actually to get one of these new Macintels if (and only if) it can run Windows. Gaming is pretty important to me and I've never been a fan of emulation.
The way I see the future panning out - Windows runs fine, lots of people who wouldn't have considered a Mac in the past buy them (like myself at one stage), game development for the Mac dies off a fair bit, user base continues to grow, lots of new apps get made for the Mac, user base grows more, game developers see the untapped native OSX market and the Mac becomes a viable gaming platform. I don't think losing the games in the short term will be that harmful if the overall result is to grow the mac user base.
Comments
Originally posted by DCQ
"Lastly, does anyone see any possibility or mechanism for Apple wo be able to thwart hackers from making OS X boot on a Dell or any other PC? I have not yet heard of a convincing way to do that."
Neither have I. Which is why I think in, say, three years time, You'll be able to buy an OS X 10.6 box and install it on any retail or hand-built Intel or AMD beige-box.
If it takes up the gauntlet, things will get very interesting. Apple has never been stronger, and MS has never been weaker. Vista is a ways off, its hardware requirements are mindboggling, and average users (in my experience) are really ticked off at the spyware, malware, adware, viruses, worms, and trojan horses that plague their computers.
You make very good points, Mr. DCQ.
I too am afraid of OS-X on any old box out there; Macintosh is not the OS, and it is not the machines... it is the whole seamless shebang, a shebang that could turn very easily into a fizzle if prying fingers are allowed into the mix.
The problem with the dual-booting on the machines (and aren't there viruses that attack intel BIOSes as well?), is that it too can taint the Apple experience. Even if someone installs windows and gets their machine burned by malware; it will definitely take the bloom off the rose... or the sheen off the Apple.
Another quick question: Is intel's hardware DRM going to make it into macs?
Hope springs eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
They can do anything they want to make it work best for their OS. Everybody else is on their own. Yes I know the dev boxes they sent out are standard stuff, but it doesn't have to remain that way.
This is exciting.
Originally posted by Mandricard
Lastly, does anyone see any possibility or mechanism for Apple wo be able to thwart hackers from making OS X boot on a Dell or any other PC? I have not yet heard of a convincing way to do that.
In short, it seems to me that Apple has to be very, very, careful of the hand they play, and must guard its cards religiously. For it seems to me they will be entering a much larger arena with much larger stakes, and a much larger population of potential enemies.
Or for another metaphor:
Here there be monsters.
Hope springs eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Hello people!
How many times have I seen this already?
does anyone read the news?
Apple is patenting a security method for this. Even if you somehow manage to get the OS to run on another machine, you won't be able to run programs on it
It's not in effect on the developers machines yet, but by release it will be ready.
Originally posted by iShawn
I thought Leopard was going to be introduced with Intel Macs... now it's just an upgrade again?
We have no idea. We just like to talk.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple is patenting a security method for this. Even if you somehow manage to get the OS to run on another machine, you won't be able to run programs on it
And if there's enough interest, it wil be cracked in 5 minutes - just like various Microsoft anti-piracy/licencing schemes, MPAA schemes, and most other copy protections, OS licence protections, protections to applications, et al.
You sound like you actually believe that a piece of software will be impossible to crack.
Originally posted by melgross
We have no idea. We just like to talk.
I see, well this sounds good none the least!
Originally posted by Gene Clean
And if there's enough interest, it wil be cracked in 5 minutes - just like various Microsoft anti-piracy/licencing schemes, MPAA schemes, and most other copy protections, OS licence protections, protections to applications, et al.
You sound like you actually believe that a piece of software will be impossible to crack.
Yeah, I do believe that the almost required idea that all security will be cracked in five minutes by some pimply kid panting in his room is wishful thinking.
Everyone remembers the few successful cracks, but don't know about or remember the ones that weren't.
DVD security was cracked by that kid Jon.
What's forgotten is that it was only cracked because the manufacturer of the disks forgot to remove the public key from the software before pressing the disks.
It's never been cracked again.
iTunes was cracked when it first came out, fixed, cracked, fixed again, and hasn't been cracked since. There were a couple of bugs. Once they were fixed, that ended it.
It's agreed that the new hi-def disks coming out will be uncrackable, that even if somehow one disk was cracked, it would only work for that release, but that it's unlikely to happen.
Apple's patents contain well understood methods of code substitution as well as other methods combined with a hardware chip. Apple hasn't instituted the patent yet, but it has much weaker security just based on the chip. Developers say that the 10.4.3 release contains much more secure protection than earlier releases, even though it doesn't use Apple's patented methods.
Apple's patent has been looked at by security experts who have said that while it could be possible to get the OS to work on another PC, critical parts of the OS would be missing as they reside in the chip. due to the code substitution methods, which code it would be could be impossible to determine, as it would be different on each copy of the OS.
Therefore, while the OS MIGHT run, getting apps to run on it could be impossible.
Of course we'll see after it comes out, but it does look difficult.
Remember that when security is built-in from the beginning it's much more effective then when it's built on top, later.
XP's security that they recently put in doesn't work well because it's an add-on. Once you're through it, you're done.
Originally posted by iShawn
I thought Leopard was going to be introduced with Intel Macs... now it's just an upgrade again?
Um, Leopard is an upgrade the same way Tiger, Panther and Jaguar were, with the only difference that it'll run on two architectures instead of just one.
Originally posted by melgross
Hey sunil, I see you moved. Housing situation a problem?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yes, with a virtual PC for intel mac OS X, will run at full speed windows game. Because unlike emulators, there is no need or translating a code to an another. Virtual PC already work on PC : it allow to have several Windows working in the same PC
also vmware for linux and windoze
Originally posted by Ptrash
One question I have for all of you worrying that running Windows on Macs would actually be could be the death of Apple. Won't the developers go where the market is? And if the market exists for SW running on the Mac OS, because the Mac OS has better secuirty, performance and ease of use (and people get to see that as they run the two systems simultaneoulsy on the same hardware), why would the SW companies not meet the demand?
MS Monopoly is the keyword.
I mean here you've got one computer that in affect turns into a market for both platforms. and if it's true that much of the SW used on home computers is currently pirated PC ware, then it's not like the SW companies are loosing sales to PC owners when these consumers choose to buy the Mac SW version, but rather gaining entirely new revenue from new sales to an expanding Mac market.
Windows share is HUGE, Mac OS share is tiny. This is at the root of the problem. If software companies realize that most users run the Windows version of the software on their Intel Mac, because it is less expensive or because they got for free somewhat (work licenses etc.), be sure that the next day it will be no Mac version.
Originally posted by melgross
The memory controller is spec'd for that. It's in the docs. It's supposed to be able to work up to 3GHz full bus speed. Unless the chip doesn't work as well as it should.
Care to back that up?
(Also, the PPC970 variants, like the POWER4/5, have their nest -- which includes the processor interface -- running at a lower frequency than their core(s).)
But that is a whole 'nother story. If they really had to, they could always put a small fan on top. The machine, as a whole, has so much airflow that it could easily accommodate that. Look how third parties put two more HD's in the case - right in the flow of the cpu's and memory. so far, there have been no reports of overheating because of it. I would think that they could take care of the memory controller, if they had to.
There's a lot more to high frequencies than power dissipation -- especially if you're talking about PCBs, not on-chip stuff.
Originally posted by Booga
The motherboard being EFI-only isn't going to stop Windows from being run. It may prevent Windows XP from launching natively off the hardware, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that if MacIntels are EFI-only, someone will write a compatibility box (VirtualPC-lite) that will load a BIOS on top of it, and Windows on top of that. (There are several x86 emulators that can run Windows for the PowerPC, and that sure doesn't have BIOS. And one for a MacIntel wouldn't even need to emulate the processor instructions, so would be pretty speedy.)
I seem to recall that EFI includes provisions for legacy booting.
Originally posted by PB
MS Monopoly is the keyword.
Windows share is HUGE, Mac OS share is tiny. This is at the root of the problem. If software companies realize that most users run the Windows version of the software on their Intel Mac, because it is less expensive or because they got for free somewhat (work licenses etc.), be sure that the next day it will be no Mac version.
Well, so far Adobe and ms plan to develop their software for the Mac platform.
It is hard to see Apple wanting its Mac to just be a booting place for a windos programme. Is there not a vested interest that Apple has in keeping its hardware and software distinct? Surely there is better business sense in Cupertino than to just let things drift to being a windos box.
So it sounds like your thrust is that Apple needs to not just allow windos programmes easily work on Macs, as then cross platform developers will stop producing the Mac version. Such as ms and Adobe. Well, the closure of a Mac version of software is a vital concern, for health of the platform.
The Macintosh division will be out of a job then. Wonder what that gal Roz Ho at ms is thinking about all of this, the Mac division person/lead(if she is still the lead). She thinks that the Mac business unit 'is made up of some of microsoft's most talented thinkers and developers.'
Often the Mac version seems to work better than the windos. I would think that a lot of people would kick about the demise of the Mac version of Office. I don't use it, but many people do.
Originally posted by melgross
While they might change their minds, Schiller didn't just say that windows could run on these Macs, he said that Apple wouldn't do anything that would prevent it from running.
Actually, he was more subtle than that...
"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. 'That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,' he said. 'We won't do anything to preclude that.'
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. 'We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.'"
They don't preclude anyone from running Windows on the current Mac, should they want to. It doesn't mean it's easy.
I am a PC user and a Mac user, but I spend most of my time on my PC because I like Windows and the apps I have on it. I like OS X too (maybe even more), but I don't particularly like using my Powerbook because it's so slow (1.25GHz 15" 512MB etc). I will probably sell it actually to get one of these new Macintels if (and only if) it can run Windows. Gaming is pretty important to me and I've never been a fan of emulation.
The way I see the future panning out - Windows runs fine, lots of people who wouldn't have considered a Mac in the past buy them (like myself at one stage), game development for the Mac dies off a fair bit, user base continues to grow, lots of new apps get made for the Mac, user base grows more, game developers see the untapped native OSX market and the Mac becomes a viable gaming platform. I don't think losing the games in the short term will be that harmful if the overall result is to grow the mac user base.