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

'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...

Maybe it'll be an intel-based tablet; Never know with all these rumors about IBM->intel rumors and with the tablet prototype rumors.
 
twentyfrets said:
Maybe it'll be an intel-based tablet; Never know with all these rumors about IBM->intel rumors and with the tablet prototype rumors.
Click to expand...

lol maybe a apple pda powerd by intel


:eek:
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
Not without root or admin privileges... (That's why the sudo grace period is one gaping whole in Mac OS X security, but that's for another thread.)
Click to expand...


Root or admin privliledges have nothing to do with the CPU architecture! x86 won't run the malicious code without root or admin privledges either... It's just another chip, I wish people would get over this...

Isaac
 
isaacc7 said:
Root or admin privliledges have nothing to do with the CPU architecture! x86 won't run the malicious code without root or admin privledges either... It's just another chip, I wish people would get over this...
Click to expand...

Exactly.... and as I hint at earlier Intel/AMD CPU actually have features to help prevent viruses from using certain type of exploits (look up NX Bit).
 
animefan_1 said:
What software will this x86-based notebook run?
Click to expand...

Native version of iLife and iWork apps, native version of Tiger, native version of every other apple apps. Original PPC apps will be run throug Transitive software (they claim an 80% performance). If the chip is 30% faster (and the *book series are ALL sporting G4 processors), you probably would STILL notice a speed improvement.
 
shawnce said:
isaacc7 said:
Root or admin privliledges have nothing to do with the CPU architecture! x86 won't run the malicious code without root or admin privledges either... It's just another chip, I wish people would get over this...

Isaac
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Click to expand...
Here is what I'm talking about, this article sums up some of the differences between PPC and x86, from a security POV, and when it comes to buffer overflows, guess what:
The vulnerability exists in Microsoft's code, but the exploit depends on the rigid stack-order execution and limited page protection inherent in the x86 architecture. If Windows ran on Risc, that vulnerability would still exist, but it would be a non-issue because the exploit opportunity would be more theoretical than practical.
Click to expand...
The link to the article is from this thread which was started because the CEO of Intel took a beating in an interview:
Pressed about security by Mr. Mossberg, Mr. Otellini had a startling confession: He spends an hour a weekend removing spyware from his daughter's computer. And when further pressed about whether a mainstream computer user in search of immediate safety from security woes ought to buy Apple Computer Inc.'s Macintosh instead of a Wintel PC, he said, "If you want to fix it tomorrow, maybe you should buy something else."
Click to expand...
 
Almost 2000 messages in 24 hours about something that hasn't happened yet and nobody here knows anything about.

Over-react much?
 
Cha.. ya know what... uh no

I really dont see this happening...ever. It would be way to risky to do so, especially when apple is just starting to make leadway in the reg. consumer market with the mac mini. also why would they take the side of intel when they have been fighting the whole mhz myth for so long. to many complications.. i really dont see it happening..also since this "rumor" has been going on for 5 years now... it's more a joke than a rumor.. i'll stand corrected only if the big man himself says it, otherwise.. tell someone who cares.
 
Just out of a curiosity. Has Apple ever disappointed any one with their transitions?

Isn't a transition a way of staying on top of the fast aging technology? This has just crossed mine mind so it maybe not well thought through. :D
 
Rocket Rion said:
Almost 2000 messages in 24 hours about something that hasn't happened yet and nobody here knows anything about.

Over-react much?
Click to expand...

lol yeah its like a "end of the world" thread

maybe thats what we should call this thread hehe


just one more thing .... intel are gonna ship celeron for the mac platform :D only kiddin
 
I'd like Intel and AMD to both announce they are joining AIM (becoming the wonderfully palindromic AIMIA in the process), going PPC, scrapping x86 altogether and it's Windows that will have to recompile everything. That would be ace. :D

(yeah, I know, probably not).
 
shawnce said:
I don't have to guess... buffer overflow exploits still exist on PPC and can be used for nefarious means.
Click to expand...
I haven't said they don't exist (or that they cannot be taken advantage off, somehow, theoretically). But the PPC architecture prevents the code from buffer overflows to be executed automatically. And therein lays a BIG difference between the x86 and the PPC CPUs...
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
Here is what I'm talking about *rest snipped*
Click to expand...


Well, I'm a little leery of claims that the PPC is somehow less vulnerable a chip than the x86. A lot more crackers are trying to hack the x86/Wintel than the PPC/MacOSX.

I just read somewhere that Apple has dropped to 1.8 % of the worldwise market. That just blows.
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
I haven't said they don't exist (or that they cannot be taken advantage off, somehow, theoretically). But the PPC architecture prevents the code from buffer overflows to be executed automatically. And therein lays a BIG difference between the x86 and the PPC CPUs...
Click to expand...

NO NO NO PPC does not prevent such things!
 
tdewey said:
Well, I'm a little leery of claims that the PPC is somehow less vulnerable a chip than the x86. A lot more crackers are trying to hack the x86/Wintel than the PPC/MacOSX.

I just read somewhere that Apple has dropped to 1.8 % of the worldwise market. That just blows.
Click to expand...
Oh, we're back to that one, now... :rolleyes:
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
Not without root or admin privileges... (That's why the sudo grace period is one gaping whole in Mac OS X security, but that's for another thread.)
Click to expand...

The virus problem has really nothing to do with the used processor. Just believe it.

You really think that somebody would write an virus in assembly code, that is independant of the operating system? Do you have an idea how impressive that would be?? Such a virus probably would have to include its own OS...
 
tdewey said:
I just read somewhere that Apple has dropped to 1.8 % of the worldwise market. That just blows.
Click to expand...

Remeber though... dell only holds 5 or 7% of the worldmarket. Point is... the 95% everyone talks about are Window's using pc's. If you broke it down company by company.. apple is doing pretty well.
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
Here is what I'm talking about, this article sums up some of the differences between PPC and x86, from a security POV, and when it comes to buffer overflows, guess what:
Click to expand...
The big surprise, I suppose, is that the article's author is incorrect?

This can be verified empirically, by loading up vulnerable versions of OS X and running the published exploits for them, and realizing that the resulting root shells were produced courtesy of the code provided in the exploit programs' string data. That's not theoretical, it's actual.
 
michaellehn said:
The virus problem has really nothing to do with the used processor. Just believe it.

You really think that somebody would write an virus in assembly code, that is independant of the operating system? Do you have an idea how impressive that would be?? Such a virus probably would have to include its own OS...
Click to expand...

I don't really want to jump into the middle of this...but I wonder. If what is protecting you from a buffer exploit is something like lacking admin privileges (Mitthrawnuruodo said that the sudo grace period was a potential foil in his own argument), then does the protective factor really have anything to do with the processor? The admin privileges are an OS level thing.

Which also reminds me...if a virus or other malware hits the CPU directly, then why doesn't this cause the kernel of the OS to spook or panic, and go down instantly without allowing the code to really do its damage?
 
michaellehn said:
The virus problem has really nothing to do with the used processor. Just believe it.

You really think that somebody would write an virus in assembly code, that is independant of the operating system? Do you have an idea how impressive that would be?? Such a virus probably would have to include its own OS...
Click to expand...
No, will you please read what I've written... :rolleyes:

No the virus will be written for an OS, but may execute assembly code to exploit hardware weaknesses, to execute code, without being "bothered" by the OS.
 
iMeowbot said:
The big surprise, I suppose, is that the article's author is incorrect?

This can be verified empirically, by loading up vulnerable versions of OS X and running the published exploits for them, and realizing that the resulting root shells were produced courtesy of the code provided in the exploit programs' string data. That's not theoretical, it's actual.
Click to expand...
Then where is the Mac OS X viruses exploiting this...?
 
isaacc7 said:
Root or admin privliledges have nothing to do with the CPU architecture! x86 won't run the malicious code without root or admin privledges either... It's just another chip, I wish people would get over this...

Isaac
Click to expand...

And I don't see so much virii for x86 linux PC either...

Just my 2 cents
 
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