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

More Details on Apple's Intel Mac

ruud said:
It does not completely eliminate them, though (which would be virtually impossible).
Also do note that one of the vulnerabilities addressed by today's security update was a buffer overflow...
Click to expand...

As you mentioned, if you look at today's OS X v10.4.1 security update, you will see that buffer overflow holes, are not a problem that only affects Intel based machines. The Execute Disable Bit does make it more difficult to execute malicious code - which is a good thing.

However nothing is perfect. The reality is, modern software and operating systems are fallible, it is just the inherent nature of complex code - which is created by fallible humans.
 
tdar said:
Except that OF will not allow windows to boot.....
Click to expand...

This is the most wrong of all statements. Apple has stated they will do little or nothing to prevent windows from running on an Mactel box. But what is less clear is whether the opposite is true.
 
It amazes me how stupid the masses are here at a Mac forum, and here I thought the majority of you were more intelligent for choosing a mac in the first place.

Just chill til an actual Intel based Mac comes out, until then, CALM THE F*** DOWN!
 
this whole BIOS thing is getting out of hand. As some have mentioned, in 2 years time Intel will have transitioned to EFI so you won't have the limitations of BIOS.

And as for Apple somehow restricting Mac OS X to their own hardware, thats laughable. One only needs to look at the Xbox market and the practice of 'chipping' the ROM to see what is possible when technically adept people put their minds to it. Or try look at overclocking forums to see the number of modified and customised BIOSs you can download.

On a personal note, I'm fricking ecstatic that Apple has gone x86. The Mac OS advantage has always been software. On hardware, its sometimes ahead (first to adopt firewire and USB and wireless networking on a major scale), but often behind (no PCI Express, no SLi type technology, no SATA 2). Maybe in a couple of years AMD won't have any capacity constraints and I can get a high end Mac with a dual core A64 with Crossfire or SLI (one can dream) but in the meantime I wouldn't mind a sonoma centrino powerbook for work.
 
64bit

One thing to note is that P4 that is in the dev boxes support 64-bit memory addressing. Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology (Intel EM64T) is an enhancement to Intel's IA-32 architecture. The enhancement allows the processor to run newly written 64-bit code and access larger amounts of memory.
 
NOoooooo!!! not a BIOS!!

I sure hope they get rid of the BIOS and use something better. Forget about Firewire Target disk mode or Firewire bootup with a BIOS (plus a lot of other features like netboot, monitor settings, etc).
 
Does all this mean Hell froze over? or do I have to wait for the KC Cheifs to win the superbowl?
 
Aaon said:
I'm curious if the new Mactel platform will support one of my favorite features, that of target disk mode. Will the various keystroke combos that can be used at boot be the same? That is to say, will I need to learn a new skillset to effectively use the mactel?
Click to expand...

No, because that is a PPC only feature... :confused:

Cripes dude... that is a system/os feature... Apple boxes will continue to work the same way.
 
On the topic of the dreaded BIOS, here's an encouraging post by Dean Reece of Apple:

We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what is going to be in the ROMs on these new machines, and what partition scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to make that information available, but we will communicate it as soon as we reasonably can. Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.

[...]

The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:
1) They don't want us to use BIOS
2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use OF
3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI

This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.

Hang in there...
- Dean
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
For info on EFI, see also:
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/2339/
http://www.tomshardware.com/business/20050524/index.html

Some support on chips now, due to be supported on all Intel chips from 2006.
 
stock Intel Heatsink

Peace said:
These are NOT stock MB's..I've built a lot of PC's and I've never seen a fan built into the MB..Look at the CPU..there's no heat sink or fan on it.

This is the current 9XX heatsink from Intel. Standard Issue.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel-925/2.shtml

Not the best article, but gives you a good pic. of the Intel heatsink.

I also believe Apple will go with EFI- Intel has been promising BIOS is dead, and EFI is the Future. I have been privy to Lots of Intel training, and EFI is not a bad thing. It has quite a bit of potential.

Just my 2 cents

PS, I agree with stoping this nonsense about Viruses.. people need to realize a virus attacks the OS, not the hardware. (although I know of a Virus that sits in BIOS and reinfects a system even after a reload of the OS, you have to flash the BIOS to kill it- BUT it only gets there through the software)
Click to expand...
 
bit density said:
Because buffer overflows and how they behave are chip specific. They are well understood by the hacker community on x86, and not nearly as well understood on PPC.

There *is* a vector as well. Mac owners tend to know other mac owners, and they all tend to use Address Book and Mail.app and Mac owners are overly trusting at this point. This provides the infection vector
Click to expand...


Huh? I know other Mac people and I don't use Address Book and the Mail.app. So I guess I don't have to worry..

Still don't see how going to intel means we are going to get alot of viruses. I guess I am missing the point here...

-Hugh
 
abluesky said:
New Intel chips, including the Pentium 4 660 - which is in the development Mac, feature the Execute Disable Bit. The Execute Disable Bit addresses buffer overflow exploits.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Which has to be turned specifically ON by the programmer of the running code, and turns out not to vanquish all exploits. But I agree it does help.
 
my question is ..

Will the new Mac OS will have XP style activation when they move to x86? Hackers will find a way to install Mac OS on a generic hardware, i hope apple won't go microsoft way..
 
Hugh said:
Huh? I know other Mac people and I don't use Address Book and the Mail.app. So I guess I don't have to worry..

Still don't see how going to intel means we are going to get alot of viruses. I guess I am missing the point here...

-Hugh
Click to expand...

Yes, not using Address book and Mail.app will help. Just like not using outlook or outlook express on windows helps.

But the usage is more than common, it is the standard on the mac. Even if you and your friends don't use it. I am just stating it will be a useful infection vector.

As to the intel stuff. It is about buffer overflows on x86 processors. but you probably did miss the point
 
bit density said:
This is the most wrong of all statements. Apple has stated they will do little or nothing to prevent windows from running on an Mactel box. But what is less clear is whether the opposite is true.
Click to expand...
All that means is that they'll design themselves the box exactly as they want it. It may not have everything that Windows XP expects (like some legacy bios stuff) - but if MS wants to make it run Apple won't do anything to prevent them.

So XP may or may not run straight out of the box on whatever Apple builds with Intel chips - since Apple won't be designing a Windows compatible box, but rather they'll be designing a Mac :)
 
bit density said:
Yes, not using Address book and Mail.app will help. Just like not using outlook or outlook express on windows helps.

But the usage is more than common, it is the standard on the mac. Even if you and your friends don't use it. I am just stating it will be a useful infection vector.

As to the intel stuff. It is about buffer overflows on x86 processors. but you probably did miss the point
Click to expand...

Yes, but as was mentioned above, buffer overflows are not unique to Intel x86 processors. Just check todays OS X Security Update. It addresses a potential buffer overflow exploit...

It is just the nature of complex code written by fallible humans.
 
There are people saying how it is "laughable" that Apple is going to attempt to make OS X only run on macs, and this is probably true. However, all Apple needs to do in order to stop 99% of all people from running OS X on non-mac computers is to make running OS X on other PCs a. expensive b. time-consuming c. inconvenient. Most people aren't hackers, or techno-savvy. Heck, most people don't play 3d games.

That is all.
 
acousticvibes said:
This Sucks This Sucks This Sucks This Sucks This Sucks This Sucks This Sucks
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. How can anyone jump to conclusions so radically. You have absolutely no idea how Apple is going to implement Intel's technology...
 
abluesky said:
Yes, but as was mentioned above, buffer overflows are not unique to Intel x86 processors. Just check todays OS X Security Update. It addresses a potential buffer overflow exploit...

It is just the nature of complex code written by fallible humans.
Click to expand...

no, but the cool thing about buffer overflows, is that they all operate the same way. The code already exists in a million different places to exploit a buffer overflow on an x86 machine. There are recipes. So when you find one, you can quickly get something up and running. This is why the buffer overflow on the xbox was exploited so quickly.

This precise knowledge is not as well developed and disseminated for the PPC platform. The recipes are not available. So you are precisely right there are buffer overflows in OSX code. The difference is, if we were on X86 I could literally write an exploit today to take advantage of it. That expertise is not available for PPC.

That is why x86 makes it more likely to get a virus. It is because it moves directly into the knowledge space of existing exploit authors, not because PPC could be exploited but it wasn't.
 
Phobophobia said:
There are people saying how it is "laughable" that Apple is going to attempt to make OS X only run on macs, and this is probably true. However, all Apple needs to do in order to stop 99% of all people from running OS X on non-mac computers is to make running OS X on other PCs a. expensive b. time-consuming c. inconvenient. Most people aren't hackers, or techno-savvy. Heck, most people don't play 3d games.

That is all.
Click to expand...
They're going to licence it to some big manufacturers for specific systems once their transition is complete.
 
bit density said:
no, but the cool thing about buffer overflows, is that they all operate the same way. The code already exists in a million different places to exploit a buffer overflow on an x86 machine. There are recipes. So when you find one, you can quickly get something up and running. This is why the buffer overflow on the xbox was exploited so quickly.

This precise knowledge is not as well developed and disseminated for the PPC platform. The recipes are not available. So you are precisely right there are buffer overflows in OSX code. The difference is, if we were on X86 I could literally write an exploit today to take advantage of it. That expertise is not available for PPC.

That is why x86 makes it more likely to get a virus. It is because it moves directly into the knowledge space of existing exploit authors, not because PPC could be exploited but it wasn't.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, but at least Intel has provided new features which allow the software / OS developer to address this.

As a side note, I am new to the Mac and I am really enjoying it.

Cheers!

:)
 
Laurent said:
They're going to licence it to some big manufacturers for specific systems once their transition is complete.
Click to expand...
That would be about the time they get a double digit market share and have the nuke MicroSoft option ready to roll out. :p

Because as soon as they do that, they nuke their own hardware sales like they did during the clone wars. :(

In any case this should be an interesting head-to-head between Longhorn and the Mac OS on esentially the same hardware. :D
 
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