Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Backdrop - Distraction-free tool for classic Mac OS

Jubadub said:
For one thing (among millions of them), Windows 10 comes with a keylogger. It made its way into 8 and 8.1, as well. If you fully update Windows 7, it's also there, so under 7, one has to be careful with what updates are installed (I simply have always used an unupdated SP1 version of 7, with no problems whatsoever). This sort of stuff is part of why I also prefer PowerMacs: no processor-level backdoor, which is installed on 100% of all Intel Mac machines ever made.
Click to expand...

Please tell me more.

The only PC/Mac backdoor I was aware of was the Management Engine, but that was only added in 2008, so I've made a personal exception that the '06/'07 Intel Macs are just as great as the PowerPCs.

For the processor-level backdoor, are you talking about ME? As above mentioned, it was only instilled in 2008, so to my knowledge, the first two years of Intel Macs are safe. For that matter, as it was only added in 2008, that means the early Core and entire Pentium line is safe as well, again to my knowledge.

Jubadub said:
In practice, it can be argued none of this really matters, but I still enjoy avoiding such crap.
Click to expand...

Yeah... Until the $#!t hits the fan. Suddenly, quite a lot matters.
 
@eyoungren I was trying to see what versions I should use of Quicksilver with Tiger and Leopard and, although B54 is the latest one the website currently offers as PPC or Universal binaries, it seems B60 fixes many B54 problems for Leopard, and was also the latest Leopard-compatible version. B59 should also be the latest Tiger version. But the official website provides those two versions only as Intel binaries (or their source code from GitHub)... So I was wondering, which version do you use? B54? Or did you go through the hassle of recompiling B59/B60 from source to be PowerPC/Universal?

z970mp said:
The only PC/Mac backdoor I was aware of was the Management Engine, but that was only added in 2008, so I've made a personal exception that the '06/'07 Intel Macs are just as great as the PowerPCs.
Click to expand...
Actually, as I finished writing that post, I started asking myself if the Core Solo and Core Duo models were included. Looking it up again, although it got more tightly integrated in 2008+ with the 1st gen i3/5/7 series, it seems all mid-2006+ Intel desktops and laptops of all kinds are included. From CoreBoot's page on Intel ME: "Thus, the ME is present on all Intel desktop, mobile (laptop), and server systems since mid 2006." (Emphasis not mine.)

I'm not sure if i.e. May 2006 is early enough for the very very first MacBook (Core Duo) to be exempt from this, but maybe? Though the likes of the Core Solo 1.5GHz and Core Duo 1.66GHz Mac mini from February 2006 should indeed be safe.

What I do know is that you can theoretically remove it with CoreBoot and, preferably, LibreBoot if it's pre-2008, but in doing so, I don't think x86 Mac systems are able to boot. (If I'm mistaken on that, I'd love to know, since that'd be both helpful and educational.)
 
Jubadub said:
Actually, as I finished writing that post, I started asking myself if the Core Solo and Core Duo models were included. Looking it up again, although it got more tightly integrated in 2008+ with the 1st gen i3/5/7 series, it seems all mid-2006+ Intel desktops and laptops of all kinds are included. From CoreBoot's page on Intel ME: "Thus, the ME is present on all Intel desktop, mobile (laptop), and server systems since mid 2006." (Emphasis not mine.)

I'm not sure if i.e. May 2006 is early enough for the very very first MacBook (Core Duo) to be exempt from this, but maybe? Though the likes of the Core Solo 1.5GHz and Core Duo 1.66GHz Mac mini from February 2006 should indeed be safe.

What I do know is that you can theoretically remove it with CoreBoot and, preferably, LibreBoot if it's pre-2008, but in doing so, I don't think x86 Mac systems are able to boot. (If I'm mistaken on that, I'd love to know, since that'd be both helpful and educational.)
Click to expand...

Fascinating...

So as I understand it, MEv1 was implemented in Mid 2006 (very likely in July coinciding with the release of Core 2), and MEv2 was instated in Late 2008, again very likely in November with the release of Nehalem.

Therefore, all Intel Macs released prior to July 2006 are presumably definitively safe, which would include the first iMacs, Mac Minis, and MacBook Pros. Alternatively, we can simply look for the Core Solo and Core Duo models, as they predate the Core 2 revisions and their attached MEs.

Thank you for the info.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jubadub
Jubadub said:
@eyoungren
Actually, as I finished writing that post, I started asking myself if the Core Solo and Core Duo models were included. Looking it up again, although it got more tightly integrated in 2008+ with the 1st gen i3/5/7 series, it seems all mid-2006+ Intel desktops and laptops of all kinds are included. From CoreBoot's page on Intel ME: "Thus, the ME is present on all Intel desktop, mobile (laptop), and server systems since mid 2006."
Click to expand...

Right in the first sentence, it says ME was added in the 965 chipsets. If this is true, then 945-based systems, regardless of the CPU, are "safe".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jubadub
Amethyst1 said:
Right in the first sentence, it says ME was added in the 965 chipsets. If this is true, then 945-based systems, regardless of the CPU, are "safe".
Click to expand...

Yes, but how can we tell exactly which Macs are non-965? Could be as simple as everything June 2006 and later?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jubadub
z970mp said:
Yes, but how can we tell exactly which Macs are non-965? Could be as simple as everything June 2006 and later?
Click to expand...

Any iMac, Mac mini, MacBook, or MacBook Pro that can not access more than 3 GB of RAM is 945-based. That includes the 2006 iMacs, 2006 MBPs, pre-"Late 2007" MBs and pre-2009 MMs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: z970 and Jubadub
Raging Dufus said:
The linked article says "...the ME is present on all Intel desktop, mobile (laptop), and server systems since mid 2006." I'm not sure how that supports what you're saying.
Click to expand...

That sentence is incorrect.

The ME was introduced with 965 chipsets, which is what the first sentence in the linked paragraph states.
While desktop variants of the 965 were indeed released in mid-2006, the mobile variants were released in May 2007 (according to Wikipedia).

Thus, all Intel iMacs, MacBooks, MacBook Pros, and Mac minis shipped before May 2007 cannot be based on 965.
The mini, in particular, was never updated to 965 and was 945-based right until the 2009 Nvidia refresh.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Raging Dufus and z970
Amethyst1 said:
That sentence is incorrect.

The ME was introduced with 965 chipsets, which is what the first sentence in the linked paragraph states.
While desktop variants of the 965 were indeed released in mid-2006, the mobile variants were released in May 2007 (according to Wikipedia).

Thus, all Intel iMacs, MacBooks, MacBook Pros, and Mac minis shipped before May 2007 cannot be based on 965.
The mini, in particular, was never updated to 965 and was 945-based right until the 2009 Nvidia refresh.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks for clearing that up. Interesting stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: z970
Amethyst1 said:
That sentence is incorrect.

The ME was introduced with 965 chipsets, which is what the first sentence in the linked paragraph states.
While desktop variants of the 965 were indeed released in mid-2006, the mobile variants were released in May 2007 (according to Wikipedia).

Thus, all Intel iMacs, MacBooks, MacBook Pros, and Mac minis shipped before May 2007 cannot be based on 965.
The mini, in particular, was never updated to 965 and was 945-based right until the 2009 Nvidia refresh.
Click to expand...

Excellent.

We will have walked away from this with something in hand. :)
 
I created a new thread to continue this discussion: Management Engine and security/privacy issues on Intel-based Macs.

This is an important topic, and shouldn't be buried in a thread about something completely unrelated. The issue should be prominent for anyone searching the forum, or MR in general, in the future.

That, and @AphoticD's fine work on Backdrop deserves to be appreciated for what it is; and unfortunately we've taken this discussion way off into the weeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparty411, Amethyst1, Jubadub and 1 other person
AphoticD said:
I did do a rewrite in Cocoa that I could release as open source... it supports multiple monitors too :cool:

The original build was a very simple Realbasic project. There can’t have been more than a few lines of code in there!
Click to expand...
I'd be interested in both, since the code for Cocoa most likely can't run on MacOS 7.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AphoticD and Jubadub
Jubadub said:
For one thing (among millions of them), Windows 10 comes with a keylogger. It made its way into 8 and 8.1, as well. If you fully update Windows 7, it's also there, so under 7, one has to be careful with what updates are installed (I simply have always used an unupdated SP1 version of 7, with no problems whatsoever).
Click to expand...

Hey, could you elaborate on this again? I'm about to put Win 7 on a PIII, and especially considering the Win 7 SSE cutoff in mid-2018, I'd really like to know these things before settling in.

Where did you first hear about this update-planted keylogger in Windows 7? Around what time was this implemented in the update cycle? For that matter, was this the same case with 8.1 being later inflicted as well, and what are its details? Is there anything else at all to note?

Thanks a lot and much appreciated, buddy. :)
 
Tried Backdrop on both OS 9 and OS X and I love it! It really comes in handy when I'm using Photoshop and I don't want to be distracted by my desktop icons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AphoticD
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back