Mac OS X

Neo said:
It's dual-core on 32bits for Mac with Intel.


I found and I think it's silly.

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2005-10-10/#4588
Click to expand...

Nope, remember nothing is shipping for the Mac. This is only a developer test....It's not even 2006 or 2007, just yet. 64 bit is actually faster than 32 bit, depending on what applications you use that is optimized for 64 bit. Mac OS X are running on the CURRENT prototype Mac, for testing purposes, nothing fancy, yet.
 
starrygaze said:
See new Window Vista is not release until next year but beta for developers only got first virus surprisely.
According to Apple, there are "close to 16 million Mac OS X users" in the world and there are still zero (0) viruses. Zero. According to CNET, the Windows Vista Beta was released "to about 10,000 testers" at the time the first Windows Vista virus arrived.

Those who surf the Web using a Mac tend to be better educated and make more money than their PC-using counterparts, according to a report from Nielsen/NetRatings. - CNET News.

Using Wildstrom's "logic:" Virus writers are motivated by profit, so they attack those who surf the Web using Windows because they tend to be less educated and make less money than their Mac-using counterparts. If profit is the motivator, wouldn't it make more sense to try to steal from those with the most money? Or perhaps, it's too hard and they can't get into Mac OS X user's machines at all?

Using common sense, there should be a least one virus in the over 5 years since Mac OS X was released, shouldn't there? But, there is not one Mac OS X virus. Where is it? The reason why has so much more to do with inherent security than anything else, that to continue to try to equate "security via obscurity" (for an OS that, by the way, isn't "obscure") with the inherent security built into Mac OS X, is ridiculous. The New York Times' David Pogue once tried the Mac OS X "security via obscurity" myth on for size. It didn't fit. Pogue thought about it and quickly recanted. (Read Pogue's simple explanation why Mac OS X much more secure than Windows XP here.)

People who propagate the "Mac OS X is secure because it's obscure" myth are either not thinking the issue through completely or are Microsoft apologists. Apple Mac OS X is vastly better than Windows at protecting its users from malicious attacks. Mac OS X is so much better, in fact, that it's literally a joke to write lines like, "still, all operating systems have vulnerabilities, including OS X. Like Microsoft, Apple issues a monthly set of security patches to plug the holes." Those words suggest that Wildstrom thinks Mac OS X would be as prone to viruses, spyware, adware, etc. as Windows, if only it had "90%-plus of the market." (Windows doesn't have "90%-plus of the market," by the way.) Mac OS X would not be as vulnerable to viruses, worms, spyware, etc. as Windows if it had Windows' installed base. Not even close.

Windows was not designed for open networks like the Internet. Microsoft could never say no to backwards compatibility and now have an OS in the hands of millions of interconnected people that wasn't designed to be secure when interconnected. Microsoft has been promising better security for years with each successive Windows packaging change. If you think Windows Vista is going to magically fix the problems, we've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn for you on sale at eBay now.

Note to all of you "security via obscruity" types: please stop insulting Apple Mac OS X's (and NeXT's and decades of Unix's) brilliant operating system designers while simultaneously trying to cover for Microsoft's ineptness. The reason that Mac OS X users surf the Web with impunity is because of the secure way Mac OS X is designed, not because it's "obscure." What kind product that 16 million people use daily is "obscure?" Your argument is as flawed as Windows. 16 million people use Mac OS X daily and it's never had one single virus in over 5 years. Let's get serious. Mac OS X not secure because it's obscure, it's just better.
Click to expand...


Well maybe that's because Macs are small potatoes compared to Windows and Windows are designed for small to large businesses as well as Linux. A lot of hackers like to exploit and create damage to anything that generate profits. I rarely see big business places using Macs as any kind of servers or anything, except for video editing and computer graphics. That's because that's what Macs are really designed for, not designed to do business. That's what IBM is for and a lot of companies made IBM PC clones and Windows eventually made its way on these IBM machines as well as the clones. A lot of hackers don't care about Macs cuz like I said, probably because Macs are small potatoes and they don't want to waste their time hacking into someone's computer and find some porn, computer graphic pictures or games. They want to break into computers that contain private, exclusive data that the world, except for the user, shouldn't see. Linux is an open source operating system and hackers love to manipulate data so they take advantage of the open source window and try to insert some kind of malicious code in the OS so it will run whatever the hacker has designed it to.

As for "16 million users" using Macs, I'm not quite surprised because Windows are designed for business use, Macs are designed for home use because a lot of people around the world are computer illiterate and they don't know how to use a computer, let alone Windows. That's why Mac came into the picture, to help ease the worry and the agony of using a computer because Apple has made it simple and easy for a dumbfounded user to use and be happy.

Any one of you who don't like the previous version of Windows, including the XP and the upcoming Windows Vista, here's a simple solution: Don't use Windows based computers, stick to the Macs so you don't have to complain. I'm not using a Mac at all so you don't see me complaining :D
 
PyrollisAhFiros said:
I'm not using a Mac at all so you don't see me complaining :D
Click to expand...
So what was the rest of your post about? If you do not use a Mac, dismissing it as unimportant in a thread ABOUT it seems to be a complaint to me.

I was ready to write up a long rebuttal. But I don't feel the need after realizing one thing. An argument was given stating that a system being 'small potatoes' has no relevance on security. That was ignored. The 'small potatoes' argument was repeated. Interesting.

Just to be VERY clear.... Numbers do not make security. A consumer or business computer doesn't make a difference to security. Being smart about security makes security. Linux and Apple are both follow standard security practices. Windows does not. Thus any excuses for the 60,000+ windows viruses and spyware is just that, excuses.
 
I think that you missed it in the news. Some universities, many U.S. Government, and NASA have Apple Xservers because of hackers, very stable, and perhaps it is flexible for them to work with.

Maybe, you are jealous of Apple. I don't blame you for that.

Actually, Apple's Xserver is more expensive than an IBM server. IT companies are starting to use that Xservers, and it takes time for the them to buy them. It is nothing wrong with Apple and IBM system. They have the same concept - connecting them and run on the network or they can be run on Unix and (Linix - I think). I have nothing to against Apple and IBM, but they can be pain the ass because of money. PyrollisAhFiros, no worries and be cool yourself - okay? I forgot about Apple's iPod - it is so unbelievable popular. :dj:

Here is example of Apple's Xserver: http://www.apple.com/xserve
 
starrygaze said:
See new Window Vista is not release until next year but beta for developers only got first virus surprisely.
According to Apple, there are "close to 16 million Mac OS X users" in the world and there are still zero (0) viruses. Zero. According to CNET, the Windows Vista Beta was released "to about 10,000 testers" at the time the first Windows Vista virus arrived.

Those who surf the Web using a Mac tend to be better educated and make more money than their PC-using counterparts, according to a report from Nielsen/NetRatings. - CNET News.

Using Wildstrom's "logic:" Virus writers are motivated by profit, so they attack those who surf the Web using Windows because they tend to be less educated and make less money than their Mac-using counterparts. If profit is the motivator, wouldn't it make more sense to try to steal from those with the most money? Or perhaps, it's too hard and they can't get into Mac OS X user's machines at all?

Using common sense, there should be a least one virus in the over 5 years since Mac OS X was released, shouldn't there? But, there is not one Mac OS X virus. Where is it? The reason why has so much more to do with inherent security than anything else, that to continue to try to equate "security via obscurity" (for an OS that, by the way, isn't "obscure") with the inherent security built into Mac OS X, is ridiculous. The New York Times' David Pogue once tried the Mac OS X "security via obscurity" myth on for size. It didn't fit. Pogue thought about it and quickly recanted. (Read Pogue's simple explanation why Mac OS X much more secure than Windows XP here.)

People who propagate the "Mac OS X is secure because it's obscure" myth are either not thinking the issue through completely or are Microsoft apologists. Apple Mac OS X is vastly better than Windows at protecting its users from malicious attacks. Mac OS X is so much better, in fact, that it's literally a joke to write lines like, "still, all operating systems have vulnerabilities, including OS X. Like Microsoft, Apple issues a monthly set of security patches to plug the holes." Those words suggest that Wildstrom thinks Mac OS X would be as prone to viruses, spyware, adware, etc. as Windows, if only it had "90%-plus of the market." (Windows doesn't have "90%-plus of the market," by the way.) Mac OS X would not be as vulnerable to viruses, worms, spyware, etc. as Windows if it had Windows' installed base. Not even close.

Windows was not designed for open networks like the Internet. Microsoft could never say no to backwards compatibility and now have an OS in the hands of millions of interconnected people that wasn't designed to be secure when interconnected. Microsoft has been promising better security for years with each successive Windows packaging change. If you think Windows Vista is going to magically fix the problems, we've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn for you on sale at eBay now.

Note to all of you "security via obscruity" types: please stop insulting Apple Mac OS X's (and NeXT's and decades of Unix's) brilliant operating system designers while simultaneously trying to cover for Microsoft's ineptness. The reason that Mac OS X users surf the Web with impunity is because of the secure way Mac OS X is designed, not because it's "obscure." What kind product that 16 million people use daily is "obscure?" Your argument is as flawed as Windows. 16 million people use Mac OS X daily and it's never had one single virus in over 5 years. Let's get serious. Mac OS X not secure because it's obscure, it's just better.
Click to expand...


Get fact please. Mac OS X have virus before. It's happen few years ago.

http://irish.typepad.com/irisheyes/2004/04/mac_mp3_virus.html
 
sequoias said:
Nope, remember nothing is shipping for the Mac. This is only a developer test....It's not even 2006 or 2007, just yet. 64 bit is actually faster than 32 bit, depending on what applications you use that is optimized for 64 bit. Mac OS X are running on the CURRENT prototype Mac, for testing purposes, nothing fancy, yet.
Click to expand...

Proof? Link?
 
webexplorer said:
I think that you missed it in the news. Some universities, many U.S. Government, and NASA have Apple Xservers because of hackers, very stable, and perhaps it is flexible for them to work with.

Maybe, you are jealous of Apple. I don't blame you for that.

Actually, Apple's Xserver is more expensive than an IBM server. IT companies are starting to use that Xservers, and it takes time for the them to buy them. It is nothing wrong with Apple and IBM system. They have the same concept - connecting them and run on the network or they can be run on Unix and (Linix - I think). I have nothing to against Apple and IBM, but they can be pain the ass because of money. PyrollisAhFiros, no worries and be cool yourself - okay? I forgot about Apple's iPod - it is so unbelievable popular. :dj:

Here is example of Apple's Xserver: http://www.apple.com/xserve
Click to expand...


You miss that point.

Almost 90% of world who use Windows. That's why hacker like to pick #1 target of M$ and dont give a damn about Mac and Linux. Mac and Linux user THINK they are safe but nope. Mac and Linux can have hacker and virus.
Plus hacker dont want to lost their internet if they make virus for Unix. Well it's happen long time ago. :rofl:
http://www.cybersoft.com/whitepapers/papers/print/networks_print.html

Few month ago, my friend told me he got pop-up on his Mac. I just like BS!! He said it's real. I just like damn!


But you are right Mac and Linux are very stable than M$.
 
Neo said:
Proof? Link?
Click to expand...

I don't have to prove you with the link, think about it.. those are all the facts I read off the web and from my friends that know more. :)

64 bit has a 64 bit wide path...which lets data to excute faster than the 32 bit wide path, similar concept to driving on a 2x2(4) lane freeway vs a 4x4(8) lane highway.

Games today are not optimized to run on 64 bit probably because of the video card isn't supported for 64 bit and the application itself.

The application Mathemetica for Mac OS X written for 64 bit is faster than the 32 bit version.
 
Last edited:
Let's say that we have one processor with a 64-bit in our computer, that will make the CPU much faster than a dual processor with 32-bit.

I am not quite sure if we use the dual processor with 64-bit that would make 2 times faster than the one processor with 64-bit. I am not sure if it is a tricky for us to think of this design.

I was at MacWorld Expo in Boston a couple of years ago. There was a company that used to sell a computer with 6 processors in it. I think the company was Umax. The price was awful, and probably, the company went bankrupt.
 
sequoias said:
I don't have to prove you with the link, think about it.. those are all the facts I read off the web and from my friends that know more. :)

64 bit has a 64 bit wide path...which lets data to excute faster than the 32 bit wide path, similar concept to driving on a 2x2(4) lane freeway vs a 4x4(8) lane highway.

Games today are not optimized to run on 64 bit probably because of the video card isn't supported for 64 bit and the application itself.

The application Mathemetica for Mac OS X written for 64 bit is faster than the 32 bit version.
Click to expand...

Like I post here already
http://alldeaf.com/showpost.php?p=396692&postcount=15

Video card isn't supported for 64bit? How hell we have video card 256bit for now?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814127155
New video card already have 512bit. Welcome to 2005.


application already have 64bit
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/DevelopWithAMD/0,,30_2252_875_10543,00.html


Let me make clear for you

Hardware 32bit 64bit
RAM 1GB 1GB


Both speed are ALMOST SAME.

So here again

Hardware 32bit 64bit
RAM 4GB 10GB

Now 64bit beat 32bit because 32bit's max to 4GB.


That's why Universities, U.S. Government and NASA as webexplorer said need 64bit for add more ram and hdd in future and dont need to replace whole computer system.

I believe NASA need more than 1TB of ram for server.
 
I guess I'm wrong. The new g5 with dual core processor has max ram of 16 gb.

Neo you should go work for computer related job because you seem way too smart with computers.

Webexplorer it doesn't mean a 64 bit is twice as fast as a 32 bit. It just few secs to few minutes faster than 32 bit. I need to look for real world tests for 32 bit application vs 64 bit application.

The biggest advantage to 64 bit is bigger memory(ram) and bigger hdd support.
 
Neo said:
Get fact please. Mac OS X have virus before. It's happen few years ago.

http://irish.typepad.com/irisheyes/2004/04/mac_mp3_virus.html
Click to expand...
That thing was a 'trojan', not a virus. (They differ. A trojan is a means of tricking people.. a virus is a destructive agent. That thing just went 'ha! I fooled ya!'). It was also a 'proof of concept'.. meaning that it was a way to show it COULD be done, but did not actually do anything. It was called mp3Concept for a reason.
linky

In fact, a noted mac developer offered a $500 bounty to anybody who could prove their mac was infected by a virus. He kept his money.

Again security through obscurity .. false.

If 10% of computers are macs, then you would think that at least 1% of viruses hit macs. 600,000+ windows viruses for 80% (not 90) of the market would mean that ONE mac virus would be .001 of the total viruses. You would think that .001 percent of hackers would bother for 10% of the market?

You are saying that NO ONE wants to bother with macs. Sure, and nobody will bother with deafies cause we are .01 percent of the population.

I'm not saying that macs are more secure or less virus prone. Its simply that an unlocked house is easier to break into than a locked house. Security by design is the important factor.

For example, the first time you start up a program on the mac, your computer will WARN you that its a new program.. and asks if you would like to open it. This was applied after that 'proof of concept' trojan, and renders it useless. Apple was proactive enough to step up and close the security hole BEFORE it became a real life problem. And they did it in a user friendly manner.
Windows? well....
 
sequoias said:
I guess I'm wrong. The new g5 with dual core processor has max ram of 16 gb.

Neo you should go work for computer related job because you seem way too smart with computers.

Webexplorer it doesn't mean a 64 bit is twice as fast as a 32 bit. It just few secs to few minutes faster than 32 bit. I need to look for real world tests for 32 bit application vs 64 bit application.

The biggest advantage to 64 bit is bigger memory(ram) and bigger hdd support.
Click to expand...

Nah, That's cool and I like to correct someone's error and get fact.
I want to work as IT but I am not ready because I still work on my english skill first. Right now I work for Canon as tech line coordinator for repair DSLR.
 
Neo said:
Nah, That's cool and I like to correct someone's error and get fact.
I want to work as IT but I am not ready because I still work on my english skill first. Right now I work for Canon as tech line coordinator for repair DSLR.
Click to expand...

Nice job you got.
 
bree said:
So what was the rest of your post about? If you do not use a Mac, dismissing it as unimportant in a thread ABOUT it seems to be a complaint to me.

I was ready to write up a long rebuttal. But I don't feel the need after realizing one thing. An argument was given stating that a system being 'small potatoes' has no relevance on security. That was ignored. The 'small potatoes' argument was repeated. Interesting.

Just to be VERY clear.... Numbers do not make security. A consumer or business computer doesn't make a difference to security. Being smart about security makes security. Linux and Apple are both follow standard security practices. Windows does not. Thus any excuses for the 60,000+ windows viruses and spyware is just that, excuses.
Click to expand...

A comment like yours clearly states that you are angry with my post. I was simply expressing my opinion along with what I have read and heard from many other sources in the past. I can't provide one right now as I do not recall which source that discussed issues, unlike Neo, who could back his statements with sources.

Installing a computer with Linux or Mac does not shield a computer from being hacked 100 percent. All you have to do is unplug that computer from the Internet and it will be protected 100% guaranteed unless you have some friends who are not really your friends and will do some damage to your computer like putting in a bootable disk and install some viruses on your computer, then you be fcked. Yes, it takes a smart person or a smart team to design security issues but it doesn't mean it can't be penetrable. It CAN be penetrable but it takes a certain amount of time or someone who don't have a life with a huge obsession on how to break into a Mac. It's because Windows is currently the leading platform for the business' choice thus the lure for hackers to break into mainframes and exploit data.

I think I have heard about the contest for 500 dollars for anyone who could break into a Mac. Well no offense, but 500 dollars is what I would consider petty change. I would not spend a huge amount of time studying Macs and how their security work for 500 dollars. If it's for 1 million dollars, tax-free, then I'm game. It shows that he is afraid to lose a lot of money probably due to the potential fact that it CAN be penetrable so he is willing to lose 500 dollars to anyone who can break in a Mac. At my college, there's this teacher that teach system administration and networking and he ran this kind of contest to see who can break into his computer within the quarter and whoever can, will earn an "A" automatically for that class, no matter if you fail any tests or fked up on many labs, you will get an "A" for breaking into his computer. When I left school, I believe his computer is still untouched and I do not know what happened to it today. My point in this is that it does take a smart person to design their computer in a way hackers can not gain acccess to. For the "16 million" Mac users, like I said, probably use Mac to design websites, look at porn, play video games, do spreadsheets and some more simple tasks. Does these kind of tasks appeal an aspiring hacker to break into someone computer? Only if he/she have the time and patience to do so, then probably yes, but an aspiring hacker is always after something big like breaking into FBI, CIA and many more and most of these business and government use IBM or any PC clone servers utilizing Windows Server 2003 or Linux RedHat Enterprise Edition. They know that if they can break into these servers, they will gain fame and glory by the hacker community by recording their activities as well as seeing them on T.V. when they have been caught breaking into the servers.

Anyways, to those who thought I was insulting Macs, then I guess my apologies if you got the wrong idea, but I was simply restating what I have read and what I have heard as well as expressing my opinion so if you don't accept my "criticism" on Macs, then I don't know what to say but lighten up I guess. :D
 
webexplorer said:
I think that you missed it in the news. Some universities, many U.S. Government, and NASA have Apple Xservers because of hackers, very stable, and perhaps it is flexible for them to work with.

Maybe, you are jealous of Apple. I don't blame you for that.

Actually, Apple's Xserver is more expensive than an IBM server. IT companies are starting to use that Xservers, and it takes time for the them to buy them. It is nothing wrong with Apple and IBM system. They have the same concept - connecting them and run on the network or they can be run on Unix and (Linix - I think). I have nothing to against Apple and IBM, but they can be pain the ass because of money. PyrollisAhFiros, no worries and be cool yourself - okay? I forgot about Apple's iPod - it is so unbelievable popular. :dj:

Here is example of Apple's Xserver: http://www.apple.com/xserve
Click to expand...
no XServe were not expensive than PC Servers apparently you forgot about Va. Tech which had a thousand G5 at low cost and the fastest that time around.

Keep in mind, they had G5 when G5 came out then later new XServe G5 came out then they upgraded (replaced their G5) to XServes.

check out their site;
http://www.tcf.vt.edu/

This url show video of their G5 that time before upgrade to XServe last year
http://www.apple.com/hardware/video/virginiatech/

Apple Profile on Va Tech running XServe G5
http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/vatech2/

You have to remember that Apple products has lowest TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) That's one of many reason that Va Tech decided to go with Apple's G5 Products.

Ranking seventh in the Top 500 list of the world’s most powerful computer systems, System X was built at a fifth of the cost of the second-least expensive system in the top 10.
Click to expand...
 
PyrollisAhFiros said:
A comment like yours clearly states that you are angry with my post. I was simply expressing my opinion along with what I have read and heard from many other sources in the past. I can't provide one right now as I do not recall which source that discussed issues, unlike Neo, who could back his statements with sources.
Click to expand...
Thats the problem. You repeated what you 'knew', which was a known myth about security. (Security through obscurity.) This falsehood is rather consistently repeated, and thus very annoying. Even when you disclaim what you say, you are still repeating an insulting argument.
<snipped more security through obscurity argument. >
I think I have heard about the contest for 500 dollars for anyone who could break into a Mac.
Click to expand...
I didn't say break into, but proving the mac was infected by a virus. You just argued about something that didn't exist. Here is the link to the bounty. The post is entitled 'put up or shut up'. It was basically saying that if you can show a mac was infected by a virus, you get $500. For doing nothing but having a screenshot of a mac with a virus. (note that the contest did NOT allow creating a virus) For a windows user, that would be easy money. For a mac user, that was money nobody saw.
Anyways, to those who thought I was insulting Macs, then I guess my apologies if you got the wrong idea, but I was simply restating what I have read and what I have heard as well as expressing my opinion so if you don't accept my "criticism" on Macs, then I don't know what to say but lighten up I guess. :D
Click to expand...
I'll apologize for my apparent shortness. It seems rude to me when people state or argue things that are disparaging on their face, without knowing actual information about the subject. If there is more care taken with a statement, there would not be such a response.
 
Back
Top