Apple's Switch to Intel Could Allow OS X Exploits

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jan 27, 2006.

  1. MacBytes macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003
  2. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem


    Feb 19, 2005
    I never understood the worry. Exploits are software and the intel chip is a piece of hardware. Why would anything else change?
  3. kiwi-in-uk macrumors 6502a

    Sep 22, 2004
    It will be interesting to see whether all the FUD being generated by those with vested interests is justified by a successful attack on an Intel-based Mac. The same people have been squawking for years about OS X on Power PC. Granted there have been some vulnerabilities reported, but none have been exploited successfully "in the wild".
  4. truz macrumors 6502a


    Jan 1, 2006
    sure hope this don't happen. intel and apple better keep things tight. but.. if something major happens this could be a huge part for amd to step in and secure things on an amd chip ;) lets hope we dont have to downgrade to ppc later on.
  5. greatdevourer macrumors 68000

    Aug 5, 2005
  6. wtmcgee macrumors regular

    May 21, 2003
    yawn ... more FUD.

    Macs might be more vulnerable if it gains marketshare, but not because it uses the same chip architecture as windows-based PCs. By that logic, Linux should have as many viruses as Windows, right?
  7. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Aug 2, 2004
    Why does the article keep referring to Motorola's PowerPC? Motorola has been out of that game for a while... and PowerPC was mainly IBM's domain anyways. Motorola (and Apple) moved to the architecture, but it was founded by IBM.

    It is sad when people write articles like these. The move in and of itself to Intel is not going to make any difference. To date I have never seen a wide spread security issue that had anything to do with a hardware platform, it was always the operating system that represented the foundation of any exploits.
  8. someguy macrumors 68020


    Dec 4, 2005
    Still here.
    Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I can't figure it out... what the hell is FUD? :eek:
  9. redAPPLE macrumors 68030


    May 7, 2002
    2 Much Infinite Loops
    it means Fear Uncertainty & Doubt.
  10. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus


    Jan 9, 2004
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

    It's just an expression...if someone spreads FUD, then they try to use gloom and doom scenarios with little likelihood of actually obtaining, to make people who are relatively ignorant people form highly emotionally charged pictures of the danger of something (in this case, Apple's future).
  11. someguy macrumors 68020


    Dec 4, 2005
    Still here.
    I see, well in that case, I agree with everyone who described this article as such. :rolleyes:
  12. Eric5h5 macrumors 68020

    Dec 9, 2004
    This article was definitely clueless and misinformed. The idea of security problems on x86 and not PPC does have some basis in reality...a basis that wasn't even touched on in the article, however. Namely, it has something to do with memory being marked as executable or not, which x86 didn't differentiate. So you could have a pointer at any old spot in memory and execute whatever was there, whereas that was never possible on PPC. However, my understanding is that's not even true on x86 any more.

  13. jhu macrumors 6502a


    Apr 4, 2004
    there is the nx-bit on amd64 processors and functionally equivalent xd-bit on some newer intel x86 processors.
  14. wasimyaqoob macrumors 6502a

    Dec 23, 2005
    London, England.
    Why change to Intel anyway? - their awful, AMD make much better cpu's but then again PowerPC are the way forward :)
  15. killmoms macrumors 68040


    Jun 23, 2003
    Washington, DC
    AMD still can't compete in the field Apple's currently most interested in—mobile chips. Like it or not, Core Duo is way better than anything AMD has out in the same power-consumption range. And when Intel's whole lineup finally ditches NetBurst and brings in the Merom/Conroe architecture... well, things will likely be neck and neck again. Besides, AMD doesn't have the volume capacity to deliver in the big-time.

    PowerPC is dead, sorry. Apple was the last big PPC customer in non-embedded systems. In the consumer market, PPC is gone. Get over it.
  16. Analog Kid macrumors 68040

    Analog Kid

    Mar 4, 2003
    Wow... I read all three pages of that article looking for information. Never found any. Symantec thinks Mac users should start buying their product, and IBM thinks x86 is less secure than their PPC-- no news there. Everybody's still hung up on popularity as the reason Macs aren't exploited and all of these arguments hinge on x86 being popular.

    There are differences between the architectures but, aside from the weak CISC vs RISC argument, there was nothing in this article that explains why x86 is fundamentally more vulnerable.

    Mostly it just makes me shrug and wonder why the technical press can't hire technical journalists...
  17. galleyhannon macrumors newbie

    Oct 7, 2005
    This just in: Apple's Switch to Intel Could Allow for the End of the World
    ... well, it could. That would make just as insightful an article.
  18. jhu macrumors 6502a


    Apr 4, 2004
    the article is just a tad short on details and a bit too general. ppc and x86 also use silicon. that should be a good reason why they'll be exploitable.
  19. shadowfax macrumors 603


    Sep 6, 2002
    Houston, TX
    I thought that was kinda funny, because the way I understand it, RISC and CISC are differentiations more from the 1990s--that both the POWER and x86 architectures have evolved since then so that neither of them is really RISC or CISC. and in ANY case, I've never heard of a multi-platform virus written for x86 in assembly.

    What an idiotic article. FUD indeed.
  20. jhu macrumors 6502a


    Apr 4, 2004
    i'm still puzzled as to why people still cling to the terms "cisc" and "risc" when modern processors aren't even close to either one of them.
  21. macdong macrumors 6502


    Mar 25, 2003
    Seattle, WA
    i doubt the author had any idea about what he was talking about, nor did the people he interviewed (or perhaps he only took the words of those he agreed with? :confused: )

Share This Page