What bugs me is that no one, not even these supposed Microsoft techies, pointed out that Macs do of course run Windows, and in fact are better at it than those $499 PCs!
If Apple would highlight this one-world approach of their hardware more aggressively, they would eventually crush Microsoft. ...
Wouldn't that equate to advertising FOR Microsoft?... To run Windows on a Mac, you have to BUY a copy of the OS from M$. How is that going to "Crush" Microsoft ???
Wouldn't that equate to advertising FOR Microsoft?... To run Windows on a Mac, you have to BUY a copy of the OS from M$. How is that going to "Crush" Microsoft ???
While it would be the expensive non-OEM sales for MS, which could many times more than what they get for each PC sale, that would only work for the short term for MS. The long term would probably have people not using Windows at all and thus moving completely into Apple's camp.
As for crushing MS, that just isn't going to happen with Apple's current success rate. Even if Apple becomes the largest PC vendor in the world, they will only be selling OS X to 20% of the PC users. That leaves about 80% for MS. If that were to happen, MS would probably still sell the dominate office suite for the Mac platform, unless OOo or iWork gets more feature rich and accepted in general.
What bugs me is that no one, not even these supposed Microsoft techies, pointed out that Macs do of course run Windows, and in fact are better at it than those $499 PCs!
Macs ARE PC's. Does a mac run windows better? Better to say that higher end hardware runs it better. The higher the specs the better things run. It has absolutely nothing to do with a it being a mac. One would expect that the more expensive the machine the faster the parts and the faster your OS and apps run. However you can still buy/build PC's with higher end specs that macs for less money. If speed is your concern.
Whenever I think of Msft, I'm always reminded of overweight, very-out-of-shape Steve Balmer leaping and prancing across a stage shouting "Developers! Developers! Developers!" in front a roomful of bewildered developers then saturating his cloths with fat-man's sweat. I ask myself "Do I want to buy software from this man?" The answer invariably is No.
Like I said in a previous post it's faster and more stable than leopard on the same machine. But apple has acknowledged there are issues with leopard and are addressing performance and stability with snow leopard.
Both companies have their faults.
64bit Vista and Leopard running on the SAME machine and Leopard being slower? What kind of machine would that be exactly?
I am running Vista and 10.5 on my 2.4ghz MBP (4gb RAM) & Mac Pro 8*2.8ghz (8gb RAM) and am seeing nothing of the sort. Bootcamp? Fusion?
Besides Vista being slower, that software truly annoys me! It is incredibly intrusive, constantly trying to interact with me through endless dialogs and messages when I am just trying to get things done.
The elegance of OS X is that you forget about it being there. Things just work and you can focus on your work.
LOL, MS should just accept that people will forever call Vista as the failed OS eventhough its getting better ( a little too late if you ask me) and should just focus on Windows 7.
Macs ARE PC's. Does a mac run windows better? Better to say that higher end hardware runs it better. The higher the specs the better things run. It has absolutely nothing to do with a it being a mac. One would expect that the more expensive the machine the faster the parts and the faster your OS and apps run. However you can still buy/build PC's with higher end specs that macs for less money. If speed is your concern.
you're on a roll today man! whats the matter? your xbox still updating?
of course you do have a point or two, but it sounds to me like you're not the average casual computer user. some people will NEVER be informed enough to make an informed decision. those people are not going to understand that they can customise their computers the way you do. they go to the store, buy the cheapest thing Mr. Pushy Salesguy is ramming down their throat and then pay they local MS shop hundreds of bucks over the life of that machine to 'fix it'.
a whole eco-system of MS Certified Technicians® depends on that.
there is a reason why you can't install Leopard on old machines. they're not powerful enough to make it a good experience. the difference between OSX and Vista is that Apple seems to have no problem making the decision to cut some people loose, whereas MS seems to lower the bar with (possible misleading) stickers and promotions.
the resulting backlash is probably deserved. it would have been in their interest to state the system requirements properly and not give in to pressure by intel to lowball them. however - the same under-informed shoppers don't understand that they've been had by a consortium of vendors. they see their computer underperform, especially after having their expectations raised by MS marketing, and when it doesn't deliver... the face of that computer is Vista.
then the finger-pointing starts: 'it's the drivers! blame the graphics vendors! it's intel's fault!' they probably all had part in creating that problem. from a consumer perspective, apple is the better choice - if you're the seller of the 'whole widget', you are the only one to blame when it's not up to snuff, so it's in their interest to build a better computer... of course that costs a bit more.
...and that's exactly why there is no way apple will get into the low budget commodity POS computer. if you want to build your own... all the power to you. but if you can do that, you already know how to make osx run on it...
I don't have Vista 32 and 64 on the same machine, but I do use Vista 32bit on a similarly spec'd machine and x64 is noticably faster and more stable.
I also don't worry about viruses, never get them. But just for the hell of it I downloaded a file with a known virus and purposefully let it past UAC(otherwise it wouldn't infect the system) on Vista 32bit and I could never quite get rid of it. So I reformatted.
I did the same thing on Vista x64 and it wouldn't even install the virus. It just couldn't even run. Even letting it past UAC the virus would not operate.
First, Vista x64 vs. Leopard: I'm unsurprised that x64 wins, since it's a 64-bit kernel (= considerably faster processing, especially when doing things like decompression...) While Leopard uses a 64 bit kernel, it relies on 32 bit I/O, which significantly cripples it (as described in AppleInsider, back in October). I suspect that Snow Leopard (which will lack G4/G5 support, and thus offer a fully 64-bit environment) will kick Vx64 around the block, in the same way that Leopard (32) kicks Vista (32).
This is essentially the result of Apple maintaining a single, backward-hardware-compatible OS (which ends with Leopard), while Windows bifurcated into "best hardware" and "older hardware" versions...
As for the virus thing-- that's equally unsurprising. Vista (32) uses a version of the venerable Win32 API set (which first faced the world in NT 3.1, but got wide usage in Win95)-- virtually every Windows virus is written to run on that system. Vista x64 is a completely different kernel, with a completely different API set-- to the point that you cannot run a 32-bit application on the 64-bit kernel; instead, when you want to run a 32-bit application on Vx64, you run it in an emulator (comparable to running Parallels on OS X, actually). So, 32-bit viruses can no more infect your 64-bit OS than could a Windows (32 bit) virus running on my Parallels session infect my Leopard OS...
Vx64 very, very small install base, and so virus-writers haven't bothered to port to it, yet. I rather expect that, if Vx64 ever catches on, that'll change. Some people argue that the same is true of OS X, but there are underlying security issues with Vista, that OS X doesn't have, that make it much easier to write a virus for Vista than for OS X...
Microsoft's Vista Marketing team was pretty much about as competent as those who wrote the OS. The initial get a Mac ads were pretty arrogant and left Apple open to its own weaknesses. Microsoft played right into Apple's hands, culminating with those bizarre ads with Seinfeld and Gates. Then finally they come out with the I'm a PC/Life without walls that anyone with a brain should have thought up a couple years back.
True, but ONLY through an emulator (or "virtual machine", which is what Microsoft tends to call their emulators-- see also the NTDVM ("NT DOS Virtual Machine") that runs the cmd shell in Windows NT 4 and later, aka Windows 2000 and XP).
As for UAC vs. viruses, there are a few documented workarounds for UAC (mostly exploiting ActiveX to install malware which disables UAC). These have been patched pretty aggressively by Microsoft's Security Updates...
But I'm reminded most of all of a recent review of UAC, which noted "Windows Vista, with UAC, is fairly well protected against malware. However, the kind of people who run Windows without antivirus protection and never get into trouble are not the type of people who even need UAC to begin with." (http://www.extremetech.com/)
Archer, it sounds like you're that kind of people. In the side of life when I run Windows, so am I... But then, I'm a professional (who chooses to use Mac OS X whenever possible, instead).
64bit Vista and Leopard running on the SAME machine and Leopard being slower? What kind of machine would that be exactly?
The hardware specs aren't the issue, Wolfman-- Archer noted that he's comparing Vista x64 to Leopard. It's very unlikely that you've ever seen x64 (it has an incredibly small install base, due to it's high cost and limited compatibility with legacy hardware).
What'll be interesting will be the comparison between x64 and Snow Leopard-- Microsoft definitely beat Apple to producing a fully-64-bit kernel/API set, at least in part because Apple chose not to drop support for pre-Intel processors, nor to sell multiple versions of Leopard (for Intel and for G*). Apple's doubtless going to work very hard to ensure that Snow Leopard outperforms x64 on identical hardware.
You know, interestingly, Apple also sells multiple copies of Mac OS, although in this case it is to a MUCH lesser degree and distributed in a MUCH more sensible fashion. Very telling, since essentially both companies have the same problem and their solutions say a lot about them. Consider these two examples:
On my 12" PB G4 with 32MB Nvidia Graphics card, the menu bar is the non-transparent one (the other option is not available) and when I add widgets to Dashboard, I don't get the ripple effect. This is similar to the difference in aero graphics between Vista basic and professional.
Macbooks and computers with the new touchpads run different versions that have multitouch capabilities built-in.
Again, look at the difference in how the companies have burdened the consumer with choosing between these things.
You are correct, different Macs utilize the OS differently, but everything is built into a single copy of the operating system. There is no Leopard Basic, Leopard Premium, Leopard Business, and Leopard Ultimate BS, it's just Leopard. When you go to buy a shelf copy of the OS, there is only one copy, right? It will install on any Mac, but the way that specific model handles the OS will be different.
You are correct, different Macs utilize the OS differently, but everything is built into a single copy of the operating system. There is no Leopard Basic, Leopard Premium, Leopard Business, and Leopard Ultimate BS, it's just Leopard. When you go to buy a shelf copy of the OS, there is only one copy, right? It will install on any Mac, but the way that specific model handles the OS will be different.
No, Leopard will NOT install on just any Mac, look at the system requirements.
No, Leopard will NOT install on just any Mac, look at the system requirements.
You're correct, I over-generalized, I should have said many G4 and all G5 and Intel Macs, but I was trying to make a point that Apple distributes one version of its operating system instead of 4+ and not really concerning myself with the specs of the OS. Thank you for pointing out my error.
When I was shopping for a replacement computer in August after having a XP eMachine, I was underwhelmed by the poor performance of the Vista machines I have looked at. I tried several of these machines and I mean I was NOT looking at $500.00 machines but raised my bar to the $1,000-1,500 machines and I was flat out annoyed by the constant badgering the program was doing. I mean how many times does it have to ask me if I REALLY want to download a simple file from my employer? Oh course I have not mentioned that the 2 of the computers at the reseller froze up when I started a word document. Really impressive NOT. For me the new machine was no improvement of XP and was what I considered a downgrade
I download the same file from my employer on a Mac and it allowed it and ran it perfectly without the constant badgering. After deciding on base iMac and have the smooth easy going nature of this computer and the quick easy transitions from one program to the next I am happy with what I got and feel it was the best purchase I ever made.
Now if I could ever get my employer to consider dropping Dell and going Apple I would be very happy. I realize that Apple is not perfect but they are MILES ahead of a PC.
You don't need one. I have NEVER been infected in my life. And with UAC on I don't believe it's possible for any virus to actually install and run.
However there are keyloggers and trojans for OSX. In the laptop challenge it was OSX that was hacked a full day before Vista and Ubuntu.
One event isn't a proper statistic, especially this one with its history of a Mac only hack event. The other systems where only added that year, and the Mac hack was already prepared for; so which system is hacked sooner or later is totally arbitrary (did they prepare for a Windows and Ubuntu hack, what known hacks for all three systems where available at that time?).
The fact is all systems can be hacked into, the only thing that counts is if this is a real risk in day to day use of the operating system.
For Mac OS X no viruses, Trojans and sofware keyloggers exist 'in the wild', this means that there is no report of one or more people having a computer that is infected; a demonstration in 'principle' is in this respect not a real thread.
The most important factor for system security is how fast security risks are discovered and how fast they are patched (for all users of the operating system).
And this is where Mac OS X really excels.
This is due to several reasons:
1.) The OS X 'kernel' and supporting environment is really BSD Unix, so any problems detected by the open source community (this includes the Linux community as well, because there is a large software overlap) will be relevant to OS X as well.
2.) The base of OS X (darwin) is open source, so anyone can discover problems in it.
3.) Apple itself takes every measure possible to detect and prevent security problems, code quality and code setup (clean API's etc.) and inherent security in design contributes to this in a large part.
4.) A lot of other application code (like webkit etc.) is also open source, so the software commutity can also detect problems in it.
5.) OS X has an automatic update system, to install the patches needed to fix the security problems.
No other operating system has all these advantages at the same time. Linux, Free BSD and all distributions of it, have of course the advantage of many people looking at the open source code, but they lack in a large part the commercial push of a corporation like Apple to also look at these security issues in a coherent and systematic way. And updating the systems to patch the bugs is mostly the responsibility of the end user, and is not automatic at all (this means that most of the installed systems will fall behind in applied patches, and will be insecure as a result(*)).
Windows has no open source parts, so finding bugs can only be done by Microsoft.
So Mac OS X has the best of both words, and is as a result, in day to day use the most secure platform. It will also stay the most secure platform until another platform adopts the same rules.
J.
(*) Some people complain that Apple lags in open source patches too, but if you take OS X's automatic update mechanism into account, updates will generally be executed sooner than a Linux or Free BSD system with patches available but not applied.
On the same machine, Leopard and Vista x64, Vista is noticably more responive than Leopard. I get better framerates and more vibrant colors in WoW and extracting large files is faster in Vista. Extracting the same files in Leopard results in a slowdown of the entire system.
Performance for games differs on both platforms, largely due to a different implementation and/or different optimizations of the same game. So you might be testing a DirectX9 implementations versus OpenGL. And in any case a different optimization of the game.
So, this is not a valid argument when you compare Max OS X to Windows Vista. Complain to Blizzard about the performance on Mac.
One event isn't a proper statistic, especially this one with its history of a Mac only hack event. The other systems where only added that year, and the Mac hack was already prepared for; so which system is hacked sooner or later is totally arbitrary (did they prepare for a Windows and Ubuntu hack, what known hacks for all three systems where available at that time?).
The fact is all systems can be hacked into, the only thing that counts is if this is a real risk in day to day use of the operating system.
For Mac OS X no viruses, Trojans and sofware keyloggers exist 'in the wild', this means that there is no report of one or more people having a computer that is infected; a demonstration in 'principle' is in this respect not a real thread.
The most important factor for system security is how fast security risks are discovered and how fast they are patched (for all users of the operating system).
And this is where Mac OS X really excels.
This is due to several reasons:
1.) The OS X 'kernel' and supporting environment is really BSD Unix, so any problems detected by the open source community (this includes the Linux community as well, because there is a large software overlap) will be relevant to OS X as well.
2.) The base of OS X (darwin) is open source, so anyone can discover problems in it.
3.) Apple itself takes every measure possible to detect and prevent security problems, code quality and code setup (clean API's etc.) and inherent security in design contributes to this in a large part.
4.) A lot of other application code (like webkit etc.) is also open source, so the software commutity can also detect problems in it.
5.) OS X has an automatic update system, to install the patches needed to fix the security problems.
No other operating system has all these advantages at the same time. Linux, Free BSD and all distributions of it, have of course the advantage of many people looking at the open source code, but they lack in a large part the commercial push of a corporation like Apple to also look at these security issues in a coherent and systematic way. And updating the systems to patch the bugs is mostly the responsibility of the end user, and is not automatic at all (this means that most of the installed systems will fall behind in applied patches, and will be insecure as a result(*)).
Windows has no open source parts, so finding bugs can only be done by Microsoft.
So Mac OS X has the best of both words, and is as a result, in day to day use the most secure platform. It will also stay the most secure platform until another platform adopts the same rules.
J.
(*) Some people complain that Apple lags in open source patches too, but if you take OS X's automatic update mechanism into account, updates will generally be executed sooner than a Linux or Free BSD system with patches available but not applied.
The hacking event was planned to be a 3 day event. On the first day they could only remote into the systems. Each was with the default software and all patches available at the time had been applied. None of the machines could be hacked. On day 2 the hackers were given physical access to the machines and OSX was hacked in a couple of minutes simply by navigating to a website. Yes the website was prepared in advance. And even if it wasn't it could still have been created that day. The Ubuntu and Vista laptops were not hacked that day.(and apple was very slow to fix this security exploit)
On day 3 the hackers were allowed to install 3rd party software on the laptops and the Vista machine was hacked that day through an Adobe app.(this exploit existed on any OS that adobe runs on)
You should tell those who's passwords are being collected that there are no keyloggers out there. Those on the WoW forums playing on macs who have had their accounts hacked by a keylogger would be happy to know it was all in their head.
"2.) The base of OS X (darwin) is open source, so anyone can discover problems in it"
And that is why it's not as secure as you think. You would have to believe that those finding problems are being done to secure the OS and not hack it. And then you have to assume that those problems are being reported to apple and that apple is acting immediately to resolve such issues. In fact apple is rather slow with such updates. Most end up in a point release somewhere down the line. There have been studies done to see who responds to threats faster and issues the necessary patches. And Microsoft has been shown to have a faster response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjnjn
Performance for games differs on both platforms, largely due to a different implementation and/or different optimizations of the same game. So you might be testing a DirectX9 implementations versus OpenGL. And in any case a different optimization of the game.
So, this is not a valid argument when you compare Max OS X to Windows Vista. Complain to Blizzard about the performance on Mac.
It is most certainly a valid arguement. Sure the mac client uses OpenGL and the windows client uses DX9. It's still the same game and a better experience is had on windows than on OSX. And it's not just WoW here. All games I have tested with native mac clients perform better in Windows. Sure, maybe it's an OpenGL thing but that's all you have to work with on OSX. Apple can and has contributed to OpenGL. Maybe there are optimizations they can do OSX, in the drivers, but still, a better experience when game is had on windows.
The hacking event was planned to be a 3 day event. On the first day they could only remote into the systems. Each was with the default software and all patches available at the time had been applied. None of the machines could be hacked. On day 2 the hackers were given physical access to the machines and OSX was hacked in a couple of minutes simply by navigating to a website. Yes the website was prepared in advance. And even if it wasn't it could still have been created that day. The Ubuntu and Vista laptops were not hacked that day.(and apple was very slow to fix this security exploit)
On day 3 the hackers were allowed to install 3rd party software on the laptops and the Vista machine was hacked that day through an Adobe app.(this exploit existed on any OS that adobe runs on)
And? I read all about this, but this doesn't take my point away. Namely that the event is arbitrary, and irrelevant with respect to viruses/exploits 'in the wild'.
Quote:
You should tell those who's passwords are being collected that there are no keyloggers out there. Those on the WoW forums playing on macs who have had their accounts hacked by a keylogger would be happy to know it was all in their head.
Could be. Maybe the exploit has to do with WoW networking or servers. Maybe its the application itself. It's probable that Blizzard has to solve this problem.
Quote:
"2.) The base of OS X (darwin) is open source, so anyone can discover problems in it"
And that is why it's not as secure as you think. You would have to believe that those finding problems are being done to secure the OS and not hack it. And then you have to assume that those problems are being reported to apple and that apple is acting immediately to resolve such issues. In fact apple is rather slow with such updates. Most end up in a point release somewhere down the line. There have been studies done to see who responds to threats faster and issues the necessary patches. And Microsoft has been shown to have a faster response.
So you agree on the other 4 points?
Regarding this one: actually the Darwin kernel is a Mach kernel and has a very simple and limited set of primitives (this was one of the reasons Mach was created). This means that there is little chance exploits are found in this layer. The other layers are BSD based and will be checked by the larger open source community (and Apple).
If you believe that open source and the community behind it is actually bad for security of operating system software that uses it, a reality check is needed. More specific: the BSD developers are obsessed with security and are constantly searching code for hidden problems, open source applications like Apache etc. run on most of the large servers and must be secure, Linux runs on most large servers also.
Apple is sometimes slow with patches (as I mentioned) but statistics showing Apple responds faster or Microsoft responds faster are mostly nonsense. The statistics are mostly arbitrary (for example: do we account for all library software of one OS and not of the other, which code is a library? etc.).
So, to repeat my argument: Mac OS X is inherently more secure because it has the open source community and Apple to check the sources and create the fixes, and it has a sound software update mechanism to apply it.
Quote:
It is most certainly a valid arguement. Sure the mac client uses OpenGL and the windows client uses DX9. It's still the same game and a better experience is had on windows than on OSX. And it's not just WoW here. All games I have tested with native mac clients perform better in Windows. Sure, maybe it's an OpenGL thing but that's all you have to work with on OSX. Apple can and has contributed to OpenGL. Maybe there are optimizations they can do OSX, in the drivers, but still, a better experience when game is had on windows.
It is simply a question of focus. The games will perform better on Mac when the game developers put more effort in it.
Comments
What bugs me is that no one, not even these supposed Microsoft techies, pointed out that Macs do of course run Windows, and in fact are better at it than those $499 PCs!
If Apple would highlight this one-world approach of their hardware more aggressively, they would eventually crush Microsoft. ...
Wouldn't that equate to advertising FOR Microsoft?... To run Windows on a Mac, you have to BUY a copy of the OS from M$. How is that going to "Crush" Microsoft ???
Wouldn't that equate to advertising FOR Microsoft?... To run Windows on a Mac, you have to BUY a copy of the OS from M$. How is that going to "Crush" Microsoft ???
While it would be the expensive non-OEM sales for MS, which could many times more than what they get for each PC sale, that would only work for the short term for MS. The long term would probably have people not using Windows at all and thus moving completely into Apple's camp.
As for crushing MS, that just isn't going to happen with Apple's current success rate. Even if Apple becomes the largest PC vendor in the world, they will only be selling OS X to 20% of the PC users. That leaves about 80% for MS. If that were to happen, MS would probably still sell the dominate office suite for the Mac platform, unless OOo or iWork gets more feature rich and accepted in general.
What bugs me is that no one, not even these supposed Microsoft techies, pointed out that Macs do of course run Windows, and in fact are better at it than those $499 PCs!
Macs ARE PC's. Does a mac run windows better? Better to say that higher end hardware runs it better. The higher the specs the better things run. It has absolutely nothing to do with a it being a mac. One would expect that the more expensive the machine the faster the parts and the faster your OS and apps run. However you can still buy/build PC's with higher end specs that macs for less money. If speed is your concern.
Creating my screencasts about how to do stuff on OS X ! ; )
Google "ScreenFlow"
Like I said in a previous post it's faster and more stable than leopard on the same machine. But apple has acknowledged there are issues with leopard and are addressing performance and stability with snow leopard.
Both companies have their faults.
64bit Vista and Leopard running on the SAME machine and Leopard being slower? What kind of machine would that be exactly?
I am running Vista and 10.5 on my 2.4ghz MBP (4gb RAM) & Mac Pro 8*2.8ghz (8gb RAM) and am seeing nothing of the sort. Bootcamp? Fusion?
Besides Vista being slower, that software truly annoys me! It is incredibly intrusive, constantly trying to interact with me through endless dialogs and messages when I am just trying to get things done.
The elegance of OS X is that you forget about it being there. Things just work and you can focus on your work.
Macs ARE PC's. Does a mac run windows better? Better to say that higher end hardware runs it better. The higher the specs the better things run. It has absolutely nothing to do with a it being a mac. One would expect that the more expensive the machine the faster the parts and the faster your OS and apps run. However you can still buy/build PC's with higher end specs that macs for less money. If speed is your concern.
you're on a roll today man! whats the matter? your xbox still updating?
of course you do have a point or two, but it sounds to me like you're not the average casual computer user. some people will NEVER be informed enough to make an informed decision. those people are not going to understand that they can customise their computers the way you do. they go to the store, buy the cheapest thing Mr. Pushy Salesguy is ramming down their throat and then pay they local MS shop hundreds of bucks over the life of that machine to 'fix it'.
a whole eco-system of MS Certified Technicians® depends on that.
there is a reason why you can't install Leopard on old machines. they're not powerful enough to make it a good experience. the difference between OSX and Vista is that Apple seems to have no problem making the decision to cut some people loose, whereas MS seems to lower the bar with (possible misleading) stickers and promotions.
the resulting backlash is probably deserved. it would have been in their interest to state the system requirements properly and not give in to pressure by intel to lowball them. however - the same under-informed shoppers don't understand that they've been had by a consortium of vendors. they see their computer underperform, especially after having their expectations raised by MS marketing, and when it doesn't deliver... the face of that computer is Vista.
then the finger-pointing starts: 'it's the drivers! blame the graphics vendors! it's intel's fault!' they probably all had part in creating that problem. from a consumer perspective, apple is the better choice - if you're the seller of the 'whole widget', you are the only one to blame when it's not up to snuff, so it's in their interest to build a better computer... of course that costs a bit more.
...and that's exactly why there is no way apple will get into the low budget commodity POS computer. if you want to build your own... all the power to you. but if you can do that, you already know how to make osx run on it...
I don't have Vista 32 and 64 on the same machine, but I do use Vista 32bit on a similarly spec'd machine and x64 is noticably faster and more stable.
I also don't worry about viruses, never get them. But just for the hell of it I downloaded a file with a known virus and purposefully let it past UAC(otherwise it wouldn't infect the system) on Vista 32bit and I could never quite get rid of it. So I reformatted.
I did the same thing on Vista x64 and it wouldn't even install the virus. It just couldn't even run. Even letting it past UAC the virus would not operate.
First, Vista x64 vs. Leopard: I'm unsurprised that x64 wins, since it's a 64-bit kernel (= considerably faster processing, especially when doing things like decompression...) While Leopard uses a 64 bit kernel, it relies on 32 bit I/O, which significantly cripples it (as described in AppleInsider, back in October). I suspect that Snow Leopard (which will lack G4/G5 support, and thus offer a fully 64-bit environment) will kick Vx64 around the block, in the same way that Leopard (32) kicks Vista (32).
This is essentially the result of Apple maintaining a single, backward-hardware-compatible OS (which ends with Leopard), while Windows bifurcated into "best hardware" and "older hardware" versions...
As for the virus thing-- that's equally unsurprising. Vista (32) uses a version of the venerable Win32 API set (which first faced the world in NT 3.1, but got wide usage in Win95)-- virtually every Windows virus is written to run on that system. Vista x64 is a completely different kernel, with a completely different API set-- to the point that you cannot run a 32-bit application on the 64-bit kernel; instead, when you want to run a 32-bit application on Vx64, you run it in an emulator (comparable to running Parallels on OS X, actually). So, 32-bit viruses can no more infect your 64-bit OS than could a Windows (32 bit) virus running on my Parallels session infect my Leopard OS...
Vx64 very, very small install base, and so virus-writers haven't bothered to port to it, yet. I rather expect that, if Vx64 ever catches on, that'll change. Some people argue that the same is true of OS X, but there are underlying security issues with Vista, that OS X doesn't have, that make it much easier to write a virus for Vista than for OS X...
32bit programs can run just fine in a 64bit OS.
True, but ONLY through an emulator (or "virtual machine", which is what Microsoft tends to call their emulators-- see also the NTDVM ("NT DOS Virtual Machine") that runs the cmd shell in Windows NT 4 and later, aka Windows 2000 and XP).
As for UAC vs. viruses, there are a few documented workarounds for UAC (mostly exploiting ActiveX to install malware which disables UAC). These have been patched pretty aggressively by Microsoft's Security Updates...
But I'm reminded most of all of a recent review of UAC, which noted "Windows Vista, with UAC, is fairly well protected against malware. However, the kind of people who run Windows without antivirus protection and never get into trouble are not the type of people who even need UAC to begin with." (http://www.extremetech.com/)
Archer, it sounds like you're that kind of people. In the side of life when I run Windows, so am I... But then, I'm a professional (who chooses to use Mac OS X whenever possible, instead).
64bit Vista and Leopard running on the SAME machine and Leopard being slower? What kind of machine would that be exactly?
The hardware specs aren't the issue, Wolfman-- Archer noted that he's comparing Vista x64 to Leopard. It's very unlikely that you've ever seen x64 (it has an incredibly small install base, due to it's high cost and limited compatibility with legacy hardware).
What'll be interesting will be the comparison between x64 and Snow Leopard-- Microsoft definitely beat Apple to producing a fully-64-bit kernel/API set, at least in part because Apple chose not to drop support for pre-Intel processors, nor to sell multiple versions of Leopard (for Intel and for G*). Apple's doubtless going to work very hard to ensure that Snow Leopard outperforms x64 on identical hardware.
You know, interestingly, Apple also sells multiple copies of Mac OS, although in this case it is to a MUCH lesser degree and distributed in a MUCH more sensible fashion. Very telling, since essentially both companies have the same problem and their solutions say a lot about them. Consider these two examples:
On my 12" PB G4 with 32MB Nvidia Graphics card, the menu bar is the non-transparent one (the other option is not available) and when I add widgets to Dashboard, I don't get the ripple effect. This is similar to the difference in aero graphics between Vista basic and professional.
Macbooks and computers with the new touchpads run different versions that have multitouch capabilities built-in.
Again, look at the difference in how the companies have burdened the consumer with choosing between these things.
You are correct, different Macs utilize the OS differently, but everything is built into a single copy of the operating system. There is no Leopard Basic, Leopard Premium, Leopard Business, and Leopard Ultimate BS, it's just Leopard. When you go to buy a shelf copy of the OS, there is only one copy, right? It will install on any Mac, but the way that specific model handles the OS will be different.
You are correct, different Macs utilize the OS differently, but everything is built into a single copy of the operating system. There is no Leopard Basic, Leopard Premium, Leopard Business, and Leopard Ultimate BS, it's just Leopard. When you go to buy a shelf copy of the OS, there is only one copy, right? It will install on any Mac, but the way that specific model handles the OS will be different.
No, Leopard will NOT install on just any Mac, look at the system requirements.
No, Leopard will NOT install on just any Mac, look at the system requirements.
You're correct, I over-generalized, I should have said many G4 and all G5 and Intel Macs, but I was trying to make a point that Apple distributes one version of its operating system instead of 4+ and not really concerning myself with the specs of the OS. Thank you for pointing out my error.
I download the same file from my employer on a Mac and it allowed it and ran it perfectly without the constant badgering. After deciding on base iMac and have the smooth easy going nature of this computer and the quick easy transitions from one program to the next I am happy with what I got and feel it was the best purchase I ever made.
Now if I could ever get my employer to consider dropping Dell and going Apple I would be very happy. I realize that Apple is not perfect but they are MILES ahead of a PC.
You don't need one. I have NEVER been infected in my life. And with UAC on I don't believe it's possible for any virus to actually install and run.
However there are keyloggers and trojans for OSX. In the laptop challenge it was OSX that was hacked a full day before Vista and Ubuntu.
One event isn't a proper statistic, especially this one with its history of a Mac only hack event. The other systems where only added that year, and the Mac hack was already prepared for; so which system is hacked sooner or later is totally arbitrary (did they prepare for a Windows and Ubuntu hack, what known hacks for all three systems where available at that time?).
The fact is all systems can be hacked into, the only thing that counts is if this is a real risk in day to day use of the operating system.
For Mac OS X no viruses, Trojans and sofware keyloggers exist 'in the wild', this means that there is no report of one or more people having a computer that is infected; a demonstration in 'principle' is in this respect not a real thread.
The most important factor for system security is how fast security risks are discovered and how fast they are patched (for all users of the operating system).
And this is where Mac OS X really excels.
This is due to several reasons:
1.) The OS X 'kernel' and supporting environment is really BSD Unix, so any problems detected by the open source community (this includes the Linux community as well, because there is a large software overlap) will be relevant to OS X as well.
2.) The base of OS X (darwin) is open source, so anyone can discover problems in it.
3.) Apple itself takes every measure possible to detect and prevent security problems, code quality and code setup (clean API's etc.) and inherent security in design contributes to this in a large part.
4.) A lot of other application code (like webkit etc.) is also open source, so the software commutity can also detect problems in it.
5.) OS X has an automatic update system, to install the patches needed to fix the security problems.
No other operating system has all these advantages at the same time. Linux, Free BSD and all distributions of it, have of course the advantage of many people looking at the open source code, but they lack in a large part the commercial push of a corporation like Apple to also look at these security issues in a coherent and systematic way. And updating the systems to patch the bugs is mostly the responsibility of the end user, and is not automatic at all (this means that most of the installed systems will fall behind in applied patches, and will be insecure as a result(*)).
Windows has no open source parts, so finding bugs can only be done by Microsoft.
So Mac OS X has the best of both words, and is as a result, in day to day use the most secure platform. It will also stay the most secure platform until another platform adopts the same rules.
J.
(*) Some people complain that Apple lags in open source patches too, but if you take OS X's automatic update mechanism into account, updates will generally be executed sooner than a Linux or Free BSD system with patches available but not applied.
On the same machine, Leopard and Vista x64, Vista is noticably more responive than Leopard. I get better framerates and more vibrant colors in WoW and extracting large files is faster in Vista. Extracting the same files in Leopard results in a slowdown of the entire system.
Performance for games differs on both platforms, largely due to a different implementation and/or different optimizations of the same game. So you might be testing a DirectX9 implementations versus OpenGL. And in any case a different optimization of the game.
So, this is not a valid argument when you compare Max OS X to Windows Vista. Complain to Blizzard about the performance on Mac.
One event isn't a proper statistic, especially this one with its history of a Mac only hack event. The other systems where only added that year, and the Mac hack was already prepared for; so which system is hacked sooner or later is totally arbitrary (did they prepare for a Windows and Ubuntu hack, what known hacks for all three systems where available at that time?).
The fact is all systems can be hacked into, the only thing that counts is if this is a real risk in day to day use of the operating system.
For Mac OS X no viruses, Trojans and sofware keyloggers exist 'in the wild', this means that there is no report of one or more people having a computer that is infected; a demonstration in 'principle' is in this respect not a real thread.
The most important factor for system security is how fast security risks are discovered and how fast they are patched (for all users of the operating system).
And this is where Mac OS X really excels.
This is due to several reasons:
1.) The OS X 'kernel' and supporting environment is really BSD Unix, so any problems detected by the open source community (this includes the Linux community as well, because there is a large software overlap) will be relevant to OS X as well.
2.) The base of OS X (darwin) is open source, so anyone can discover problems in it.
3.) Apple itself takes every measure possible to detect and prevent security problems, code quality and code setup (clean API's etc.) and inherent security in design contributes to this in a large part.
4.) A lot of other application code (like webkit etc.) is also open source, so the software commutity can also detect problems in it.
5.) OS X has an automatic update system, to install the patches needed to fix the security problems.
No other operating system has all these advantages at the same time. Linux, Free BSD and all distributions of it, have of course the advantage of many people looking at the open source code, but they lack in a large part the commercial push of a corporation like Apple to also look at these security issues in a coherent and systematic way. And updating the systems to patch the bugs is mostly the responsibility of the end user, and is not automatic at all (this means that most of the installed systems will fall behind in applied patches, and will be insecure as a result(*)).
Windows has no open source parts, so finding bugs can only be done by Microsoft.
So Mac OS X has the best of both words, and is as a result, in day to day use the most secure platform. It will also stay the most secure platform until another platform adopts the same rules.
J.
(*) Some people complain that Apple lags in open source patches too, but if you take OS X's automatic update mechanism into account, updates will generally be executed sooner than a Linux or Free BSD system with patches available but not applied.
The hacking event was planned to be a 3 day event. On the first day they could only remote into the systems. Each was with the default software and all patches available at the time had been applied. None of the machines could be hacked. On day 2 the hackers were given physical access to the machines and OSX was hacked in a couple of minutes simply by navigating to a website. Yes the website was prepared in advance. And even if it wasn't it could still have been created that day. The Ubuntu and Vista laptops were not hacked that day.(and apple was very slow to fix this security exploit)
On day 3 the hackers were allowed to install 3rd party software on the laptops and the Vista machine was hacked that day through an Adobe app.(this exploit existed on any OS that adobe runs on)
You should tell those who's passwords are being collected that there are no keyloggers out there. Those on the WoW forums playing on macs who have had their accounts hacked by a keylogger would be happy to know it was all in their head.
"2.) The base of OS X (darwin) is open source, so anyone can discover problems in it"
And that is why it's not as secure as you think. You would have to believe that those finding problems are being done to secure the OS and not hack it. And then you have to assume that those problems are being reported to apple and that apple is acting immediately to resolve such issues. In fact apple is rather slow with such updates. Most end up in a point release somewhere down the line. There have been studies done to see who responds to threats faster and issues the necessary patches. And Microsoft has been shown to have a faster response.
Performance for games differs on both platforms, largely due to a different implementation and/or different optimizations of the same game. So you might be testing a DirectX9 implementations versus OpenGL. And in any case a different optimization of the game.
So, this is not a valid argument when you compare Max OS X to Windows Vista. Complain to Blizzard about the performance on Mac.
It is most certainly a valid arguement. Sure the mac client uses OpenGL and the windows client uses DX9. It's still the same game and a better experience is had on windows than on OSX. And it's not just WoW here. All games I have tested with native mac clients perform better in Windows. Sure, maybe it's an OpenGL thing but that's all you have to work with on OSX. Apple can and has contributed to OpenGL. Maybe there are optimizations they can do OSX, in the drivers, but still, a better experience when game is had on windows.
The hacking event was planned to be a 3 day event. On the first day they could only remote into the systems. Each was with the default software and all patches available at the time had been applied. None of the machines could be hacked. On day 2 the hackers were given physical access to the machines and OSX was hacked in a couple of minutes simply by navigating to a website. Yes the website was prepared in advance. And even if it wasn't it could still have been created that day. The Ubuntu and Vista laptops were not hacked that day.(and apple was very slow to fix this security exploit)
On day 3 the hackers were allowed to install 3rd party software on the laptops and the Vista machine was hacked that day through an Adobe app.(this exploit existed on any OS that adobe runs on)
And? I read all about this, but this doesn't take my point away. Namely that the event is arbitrary, and irrelevant with respect to viruses/exploits 'in the wild'.
You should tell those who's passwords are being collected that there are no keyloggers out there. Those on the WoW forums playing on macs who have had their accounts hacked by a keylogger would be happy to know it was all in their head.
Could be. Maybe the exploit has to do with WoW networking or servers. Maybe its the application itself. It's probable that Blizzard has to solve this problem.
"2.) The base of OS X (darwin) is open source, so anyone can discover problems in it"
And that is why it's not as secure as you think. You would have to believe that those finding problems are being done to secure the OS and not hack it. And then you have to assume that those problems are being reported to apple and that apple is acting immediately to resolve such issues. In fact apple is rather slow with such updates. Most end up in a point release somewhere down the line. There have been studies done to see who responds to threats faster and issues the necessary patches. And Microsoft has been shown to have a faster response.
So you agree on the other 4 points?
Regarding this one: actually the Darwin kernel is a Mach kernel and has a very simple and limited set of primitives (this was one of the reasons Mach was created). This means that there is little chance exploits are found in this layer. The other layers are BSD based and will be checked by the larger open source community (and Apple).
If you believe that open source and the community behind it is actually bad for security of operating system software that uses it, a reality check is needed. More specific: the BSD developers are obsessed with security and are constantly searching code for hidden problems, open source applications like Apache etc. run on most of the large servers and must be secure, Linux runs on most large servers also.
Apple is sometimes slow with patches (as I mentioned) but statistics showing Apple responds faster or Microsoft responds faster are mostly nonsense. The statistics are mostly arbitrary (for example: do we account for all library software of one OS and not of the other, which code is a library? etc.).
So, to repeat my argument: Mac OS X is inherently more secure because it has the open source community and Apple to check the sources and create the fixes, and it has a sound software update mechanism to apply it.
It is most certainly a valid arguement. Sure the mac client uses OpenGL and the windows client uses DX9. It's still the same game and a better experience is had on windows than on OSX. And it's not just WoW here. All games I have tested with native mac clients perform better in Windows. Sure, maybe it's an OpenGL thing but that's all you have to work with on OSX. Apple can and has contributed to OpenGL. Maybe there are optimizations they can do OSX, in the drivers, but still, a better experience when game is had on windows.
It is simply a question of focus. The games will perform better on Mac when the game developers put more effort in it.
But this isn't an operating system issue.