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

OS X x86 FAQ

twoodcc said:
yeah i've read that quite a few people have gotten OSx86 to work on several different machines, including AMD 64. it seems that most of the programs work as well. some even say that OSx86 runs faster than a real mac. what do ya'll think about this? i personally think it's good for apple. i'm thinking of trying it out on my pc.
Click to expand...
steve has consistently stated that you will not be allowed to run osx on a non-mac PC. while people have been doing it with the developer builds, i imagine that the final products will have much tougher implementations of these restrictions.

unless apple wants to be like M$ and just license their OS, which they aren't going to do, i don't think it would be good for apple to allow any PC to install/run OSX. in fact, i think the opposite. intel macs will be able to run both OSX and windows natively, so people will switch to the mac hardware more readily...my 2 cents.
 
kugino said:
steve has consistently stated that you will not be allowed to run osx on a non-mac PC. while people have been doing it with the developer builds, i imagine that the final products will have much tougher implementations of these restrictions.

unless apple wants to be like M$ and just license their OS, which they aren't going to do, i don't think it would be good for apple to allow any PC to install/run OSX. in fact, i think the opposite. intel macs will be able to run both OSX and windows natively, so people will switch to the mac hardware more readily...my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

but look at the price. more people would be able to use OSX, and see what it's like, and then they might like it enough to buy a mac. i'm not against macs at all, but since i can't afford a new one, this, to me, is the next best thing
 
A lot of what people bitch about with PCs usually comes down to saving money.. If you spent 60% of what a good mac costs on a PC you would easily have a machine of similar standard when it comes to components and fans/casing etc.. You cant really compare things which are so diverse in price.

Also im curious about the reason why macs arent riddled with viruses like PCs. It would seem silly to assume its because of the lack of admin rights on user accounts.. There are potentially still holes in an OS which could be exploited that dont require admin rights in order to do so..

I would assume its more likely due to the fact that Macs arent as common as PCs and therefore getting a virus on a Mac isnt going to inflict half the damage that one will on a PC.. Viruses are made to propagate and cause chaos so its obvious a virus writer will go after PCs since they are everywhere.

Finally, i think its highway robbery if Apple continue to charge such high prices for the x86 macs.. It will be nice to get a machine that can run both XP and OS X but if the hardware is essentially the exact same (with the exception of a small hardware idenitifer to verify its made for Apple) its a rude ask to double or triple the price..

I say continue to build hardware and bundle it with the OS at a less inflated price, but also sell the OS to run on any old PC.. Of course that wont happen!
 
Bulb said:
Also im curious about the reason why macs arent riddled with viruses like PCs. It would seem silly to assume its because of the lack of admin rights on user accounts.. There are potentially still holes in an OS which could be exploited that dont require admin rights in order to do so..
Click to expand...
Actually its more to do with the fact that there is no equivalent of Outlook Express's massive security hole of running programs attached to emails, and many other huge security holes inherent in how Windows software and OS works.

As for the argument that Mac's don't have viruses because they're less popular, what a crock of s***. Smug virus free Apple users are ripe for being knocked down a peg, do you seriously believe that if it were just as easy to write a virus for Mac as Windows, that some guy wouldn't have done it by now. Numbers has nothing to do with it, Amiga's in the late 80s and early 90s were rife with Viruses, and that was without any internet connections and a far smaller install base than the Mac has today.
 
Im not trying to knock anybody down a peg, i have no allegiance to either platform, im just looking at what i think is common sense..

Yes i do believe that the lower percentage of users would be a large factor in why viruses arent as common on Macs.. Im not saying it's the only reason but i think it would be a very large factor. If you want to cause disruption its obvious you target the largest demographic, that's where it will be most effective.

Amiga may have had less users than macs today, but how many people actually owned a computer back then ? A hell of a lot less.. The targets for these things is market share not physical numbers.. They are smart enough to realise the same effort that goes into finding a vunerability and writing a virus on mac that affected 10 thousand could be directed towards a PC and potentially hit 10 million..

The Outlook hole you mention ?? Are you saying that simply attaching a .exe file is the vunerability ? That's actually a freedom which can be exploited when an end users isnt smart enough to realise the danger.. If my memory is right im pretty sure a new install of XP wont allow .exe files to be opened from outlook express, it requires the user to search out the option in preferences and physically change it.. Not after being warned of the dangers also..

I would wage a heavy bet that if OS X were licensed to run on any PC hardware and the user base expanded enough there would be far more viruses..
 
Sorry, but the argument that there are no viruses for Mac because of install base is incredibly contrived. There are enough Macs out there that there should be at least a few viruses, can you name one?

I said it before, Mac Users are ripe for a killing when it comes to Viruses, they're conceited about their OS's security and living under a false sense of security as to their immunity to viruses. What potential virus author wouldn't want to take advantage of that? Can you imagine the imfamy of being the first virus author to take down the Mac. Thats what these guys live for.

And yet, no viruses as yet. The reason for this is that there are no obvious ways for virus delivery and spread. In fact the "proof of concept" viruses that I've read about on the Mac rely on an incredibly in-obvious set of user actions in order to make them work.

I'm not saying that Macs don't have security flaws, just that you have to accept that there are reasons other than install base size that the proliferation of viruses is non-existant. Because an install base of ~5% of the computers in the world is still large enough to be interesting.

You're also forgetting that the pre-OSX Mac had many viruses.
 
The virus writers that wouldnt want to take advantage of the user base on macs are the ones that want to create an atomic bomb and not a bee sting. In other words 99% of them. If you could write a virus in 5 minutes than yes i can imagine your point may make sense but the amount of time and effort which goes into it is a lot greater.. Imagine someone asked you to do a huge amount of work and said youd get a million bucks if its a success.. Then the next day someone comes along and say hey i need you to do the same work but you are only gonna get 10 grand at best.. Of course you wouldnt be half as interested and youd go back to the million option.

"The reason for this is that there are no obvious ways for virus delivery and spread."

Do you honestly believe that Bill Gates with all his money and legions of ass kissing coders somehow cant find an elusive twist in an OS that prevents a virus happening and Jobs has been able to find this ? That is total fantasy land. Again, this gets back to size, you got millions of people running PC's that have millions more options and millions of people writing little shareware programs, and with that comes millions more problems and hackers and millions more everything. Its just the way it is.. If there were 10 people on this earth chances are we wouldnt go to war at all, but given there are 10 billion its a lot harder to manage.

The other thing which may not be obvious here is, the biggest majority of computers playing important roles are doing so on microsoft products, therefore of greater appeal when you seek to do damage.. If apple had 5% of the market but all of that share controlled credit card transactions then yes the target would be far more worthy for a virus writer. But the majority of them are in auido/video and graphics or home users which at best might shut down a few studios for a day or two and thats it.. Pretty weak by damage standards for a hacker.

As i said, i have no allegiance to any system.. My argument isnt a knee jerk emotion thing like so many pc / mac arguments seem to be. This **** turns into a game of football half the time, but I couldnt care less which system is best. I bag pcs just as much when i see things i dont think make sense about them.
 
Will [my favorite freeware/shareware app] still be available for PPC once Apple switches over to Intel?

Do you think freeware/shareware apps will be provided as universal binaries and if so for how long?
 
Crusty said:
Do you think freeware/shareware apps will be provided as universal binaries and if so for how long?
Click to expand...
A few already have them. One problem for hobbyist freeware writers will be a lack of hardware. It won't have made sense for them to spend $1000 on a transition kit, and they may not have the spare cash to keep old and new Macs around. They'll be able to build fat programs but might have to rely on users to do the testing, so it will depend on an active user base to keep some programs alive.
 
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