Snow Leopard to Get Cocoa Finder and ImageBoot

[kaiwai]

i think all of us should at least remember that it was microsoft that have brought us here today as far as computer technology is concern? it was not apple and their os, but microsoft that opens the door of possibilities..

Note: i am not a microsoft fanboy, i am getting a mac soon.. but i think we should all be aware how much microsoft have contributed to the computer scene.. i still appreciate my PC very much, instead of condemning their os like some other people in this forum does..

Pull you head out of your ass; heard of these wonderful things called Amiga, Atari, Amstrad, Commodore 64, Acorn, etc. etc. You really think that all of what we see is the result of Microsoft? dear god, I've seen sycophants on this website over jobs - but your revisionist computer history takes the cake.

I remember back in 1988/1989 where my mate had his crap computer (PC) whose best game was a stupid little space ship moving across the screen. Lets just say my Amiga 500 made his look like a heap-o-crap. I'm sure many others can testify to just how crap things were in the PC world back then - and the fact that nothing Microsoft did actually was original or contributed to the 'IT boom'. To some how claim, as you do, that without Microsoft it wouldn't have happened is nothing less than genuflecting in front of the statue of Bill Gates.

 

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by tongteh
i think all of us should at least remember that it was microsoft that have brought us here today as far as computer technology is concern? it was not apple and their os, but microsoft that opens the door of possibilities..

Pull you head out of your xxx; heard of these wonderful things called Amiga, Atari, Amstrad, Commodore 64, Acorn, etc. etc. You really think that all of what we see is the result of Microsoft? dear god, I've seen sycophants on this website over jobs - but your revisionist computer history takes the cake.

Is such language necessary? Not only is it rude and not helpful to your argument, but it could be grounds for a timeout or outright banning from the forum.

Anyway, I believe that in at least one aspect Tongteh is correct about the importance of Windows as to where we are today.

The early web was fragmented into islands of incompatible operating systems and browsers. (e.g. "I can't wait for a Mosaic build for Solaris that supports the new <table> tag.")

Windows was a "lingua franca" - a common system that had a critical mass of users, all using compatible software.

That critical mass was important to get business and commerce started on the web - before Windows there was little point to making a webstore that only a fraction of a fraction of the people online could use.

Today, with web standards and compatible browsers, it seems hard to realize how important it was that it wasn't until networking and browsers became common on inexpensive systems that the web took off.

 

[Quillz]

Pull you head out of your ass; heard of these wonderful things called Amiga, Atari, Amstrad, Commodore 64, Acorn, etc. etc. You really think that all of what we see is the result of Microsoft? dear god, I've seen sycophants on this website over jobs - but your revisionist computer history takes the cake.

I remember back in 1988/1989 where my mate had his crap computer (PC) whose best game was a stupid little space ship moving across the screen. Lets just say my Amiga 500 made his look like a heap-o-crap. I'm sure many others can testify to just how crap things were in the PC world back then - and the fact that nothing Microsoft did actually was original or contributed to the 'IT boom'. To some how claim, as you do, that without Microsoft it wouldn't have happened is nothing less than genuflecting in front of the statue of Bill Gates.

Congratulations... You are without a doubt the most ill-informed fanboy here.

 

[Quillz]

1. Giving up Mac OS X and the entire platform because of no firewire on a consumer machine is ridiculous, no matter how you justify it with dimensions.
2. Price? I get that. No arguments here.
3. Windows HAD innovation. They lost their way when they got to where they are. Hence the mass-exodus to Mac.
4. Having 90% market share does not mean it isn't crap. Slavery probably had 90% market share and that was crap. (Dramatic reference? Yes. But it makes a point.) Another reference: there are more Honda Accords on the road around the world, but does that make them better or more innovative then a Mercedes Maybach, BMW 7 series or Aston Martin? Not so much.
5. Hardly safer? Dude, seriously? Do you really wanna argue this point? I don't even know where to start with that? There's an entire industry making millions, if not Billions, off of poor Windows security. Can the same be said for OS X? Not so much.

Just my 2 cents.

1. How exactly is it ridiculous? The MacBook is a closed machine. By removing FireWire, that's one less thing you can do with it. There is little room for expansion, as you're stuck with what Apple gives you, including using their very closed operating system. I can get a Dell XPS for just over $1,000 that includes FireWire, twice as many USB ports, an ExpressCard slot, more RAM, a bigger hard drive and it can run any OS I want.
2. You're right, the new MacBook models are expensive.
3. Windows continues to have plenty of innovation, such as Instant Search. Microsoft invented that more than six years ago, just in time for Apple to copy it and proclaim it as the Second Coming in Tiger.
4. I would agree that market share is not necessarily a reflection of quality, but you are forgetting that in order to get the market share, you must still have a viable product. Windows is certainly not perfect, but it was "good enough" to get to where it is today.
5. Mac OS X is primarily more secure due to obscurity. There have been many critical security exploits listed over the years, and Apple has confirmed this by releasing security updates. Considering that Apple proclaims OS X to be "bulletproof," this is awfully surprising. You can be guaranteed that if Mac OS X had the market share of Windows, we'd be seeing plenty of viruses. It's not that they don't exist for Unix, it's that no one cares about Unix enough to bother.

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

...Mac OS X is primarily more secure due to obscurity. There have been many critical security exploits listed over the years, and Apple has confirmed this by releasing security updates. Considering that Apple proclaims OS X to be "bulletproof," this is awfully surprising. You can be guaranteed that if Mac OS X had the market share of Windows, we'd be seeing plenty of viruses. It's not that they don't exist for Unix, it's that no one cares about Unix enough to bother.

Such a bunch of bull. I wish people would stop using this as an argument for the "Why Macs don't have as many security vulnerabilities."

 

[RedTomato]

Flame flame, back to the dreary OS wars. Maybe it's time to close this thread.

I'll just mention in passing that the first hacker to create a serious global mac virus (there's been a couple of trivial ones) will become world-famous, especially in the hacker underground. There's thousands of hackers striving for that accolade. I'm sure one will manage it one day.

Write another Windows virus? No-one cares.

 

[subaqua]

Yeah, Yeah...but will it support Firewire???

Of course it will. Apple just released a new set of products with Firewire (the new Mac Book Pros) The only change was with one of the two models of non-pro Mac Book.

x-serve: Firewire
mac mini: Firewire
MacBook Pro: Firewire
MacBook: Firewire
MacBook (new Aluminum): No Firewire
MacPro: Firewire
IMac: Firewire

 

[sebastianlewis]

1. Mac OS X is primarily more secure due to obscurity. There have been many critical security exploits listed over the years, and Apple has confirmed this by releasing security updates. Considering that Apple proclaims OS X to be "bulletproof," this is awfully surprising. You can be guaranteed that if Mac OS X had the market share of Windows, we'd be seeing plenty of viruses. It's not that they don't exist for Unix, it's that no one cares about Unix enough to bother.

Granted no OS is bullet proof (and if a company says otherwise it's marketing rubbish), but Apple doesn't rely on security through obscurity, it doesn't work, but saying that an OS is insecure because Apple patched security holes is an incredibly stupid argument, patching security holes and flaws is how you keep it secure!

Sebastian

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Of course it will. Apple just released a new set of products with Firewire (the new Mac Book Pros) The only change was with one of the two models of non-pro Mac Book.

Xserve: Firewire 800 only
Mac mini: Firewire 400 only
MacBook Pro: Firewire 800 only
MacBook: Firewire 400 only
MacBook (new Aluminum): No Firewire
MacPro: Firewire 400 and 800
iMac: Firewire 400 and 800

Fixed for clarity. Bold added for emphasis.

 

[ATimson]

Fixed for clarity. Bold added for emphasis.

Though anything marked "800 only" can use 400 with a dongle, as they're electrically compatible. The reverse doesn't hold, though.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Though anything marked "800 only" can use 400 with a dongle, as they're electrically compatible. The reverse doesn't hold, though.

This is very true. What makes Firewire 800 even better than Firewire 400, though, is that the forthcoming Firewire 1600 and 3200 standards use the same cables as Firewire 800. This means that, in theory, if you have an older computer that supports Firewire 800 but not 1600 you can use 1600 devices on an 800 bus just fine. Same with 3200 and 800, along with 3200 and 1600.

 

[jlewis2k1]

In response to the many posts about 10.6 being just a refresh or a small update.

I personally think that the updates that we get such as 10.5.x updates. I see these as Service Packs as we do in the Windows world. Then I see that 10.x being the major updates. If we look at Windows, for the longest time they have had pretty much the same interface till XP came around. Now, of the other updates that we see are just like the normal incremental updates that we would normally see in other systems.

 

[Mal]

1. How exactly is it ridiculous? The MacBook is a closed machine. By removing FireWire, that's one less thing you can do with it. There is little room for expansion, as you're stuck with what Apple gives you, including using their very closed operating system. I can get a Dell XPS for just over $1,000 that includes FireWire, twice as many USB ports, an ExpressCard slot, more RAM, a bigger hard drive and it can run any OS I want.

The MacBook is closed? You can run any OS you want on it, and while you have a point with the number of connections, it hardly implies it's a closed system in any way.

[*]Mac OS X is primarily more secure due to obscurity. There have been many critical security exploits listed over the years, and Apple has confirmed this by releasing security updates. Considering that Apple proclaims OS X to be "bulletproof," this is awfully surprising. You can be guaranteed that if Mac OS X had the market share of Windows, we'd be seeing plenty of viruses. It's not that they don't exist for Unix, it's that no one cares about Unix enough to bother.
[/LIST]

I think it's time to put that bull to rest forever. The "security via obscurity" myth has been debunked so many times on this forum and pretty much every other forum web-wide that it just makes you look stupid for even trotting it out.

jW

 

[drsmithy]

Such a bunch of bull. I wish people would stop using this as an argument for the "Why Macs don't have as many security vulnerabilities."

True. However, it is a strong argument for why they are exploited less.

The vast majority of security "problems" in Windows (and in most OSes, for that matter) have next to nothing to do with how "secure" the OS is. They are nearly all due to PEBKAC issues.