Somebody may have mentioned this already but the main reason macs are immune to viruses is that they don't run .exe (windows compiled applications) and a virus is generally compiled for windows. If wine can run the programs for windows it can run viruses. This means that macs would be succeptible to viruses. However most viruses and worms out today rely on the security exploits within windows or its applications. It is entirely possible though that a Mac running WINE could end up with a virus. If a virus wanted to delete everything in your Documents folder and access all of your email addresses it could through WINE. I love the concept of WINE, but I'll be safe and wait for a Windows Native Install for Mac.yellow said:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WINE for Intel Macs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Les Kern said:
Just because YOU don't need to run Windows odoesn't mean WE don't need it. I have two applications I need to run: a form editor/filler program and a study guide program that is mandatory for me to advance at work. I run both under VPX but that's painfully slow. WINE would be great for hose uses...other than that it's OS X all the time.
Arcus
macrumors 6502a
Les Kern said:
Umm..there are some apps that people need that *gasp* dont have a Mac equal. OMG!!
And just because YOU cant keep a Windows machine from heading south doesnt mean the whole world is crazy. I love Macs just as much as the next guy , but I also love computers as a whole. All OS's have thier problems. Want proof? Look around here at all of the questions and problems that crop up.
Want an example? Windows users laugh wehn I explain that I have to repair my permissions once in a while. Repair permissions? Why? Cant it just record the current state and NOT change them? Why do they randomly seem to crap out. Good question aye?
Wine is very good but has limited applactions
Wine already runs on Solaris, and BSD. It's portable. Preview versions of Wine on Mac OX are available today
If it works the same on Darwin as on the other systems it will run a short list of Windows Apps flawleessly at native speeds and in some small cases even faster than native speed. There will a another list on Windows apps that run but with some flaws.
The big thing about Wine is that you don't need a copy of MS Windows and you don't need an emulation layer. The best way to think of Wine is that it extends Mac OSX to allow it to run Windows Apps. All the other methods of running Windows use some form of vitualization. BUt vitualization, when it works enable ALL windows apps to run, Wine lets a short list of Windows apps run. But if all you need are MS Office and the Adobe suite Wine works.
Wine has another use: It allows a developer to recompile a WIndows App on a UNIX platform without making much or any code change. THis allows developers to quickly move their code to UNIX based systems such Linux, Solaris or Mac OSX.
This might be of use to a game developer
Wine already runs on Solaris, and BSD. It's portable. Preview versions of Wine on Mac OX are available today
If it works the same on Darwin as on the other systems it will run a short list of Windows Apps flawleessly at native speeds and in some small cases even faster than native speed. There will a another list on Windows apps that run but with some flaws.
The big thing about Wine is that you don't need a copy of MS Windows and you don't need an emulation layer. The best way to think of Wine is that it extends Mac OSX to allow it to run Windows Apps. All the other methods of running Windows use some form of vitualization. BUt vitualization, when it works enable ALL windows apps to run, Wine lets a short list of Windows apps run. But if all you need are MS Office and the Adobe suite Wine works.
Wine has another use: It allows a developer to recompile a WIndows App on a UNIX platform without making much or any code change. THis allows developers to quickly move their code to UNIX based systems such Linux, Solaris or Mac OSX.
This might be of use to a game developer
slffl
macrumors 65816
SiliconAddict said:
Give me a break. 'Elitist'? Sounds like you've been listening to Rush and Hanity too much.
And I think the thread with those screenshots is hilarious. The guy has screenshots of WinZip running (why?) and people are asking him if he can get Google Earth to run (OMG!)
Les Kern said:
Please do the world a favor and shut up. You don't want to run Windows apps, good for you, don't. It's that simple, don't do it. Some of us want to run some Windows apps, some of us need to for our jobs. Yes believe it or not some people actually use computers to make money. Those of us who want Windows apps will try things like Wine, VMWare, dual-booting. Those of you who don't want to, don't, but kindly keep your opinion to your self, no one cares what you think.
displaced
macrumors 65816
cgc said:
Absolutely.
Personally, I'm looking forward to a Mac version of Virtual PC which behaves the same way as VPC on the PC. Basically, it just creates a virtual machine within the existing OS (without emulation, which the PPC VPC has had to do). That way, I could have a stable Windows installation running from a disk image inside a virtual machine at (close to) native speed.
The only programs I need Windows for is Visual Studio 2005, SQL Server Developer Edition, and Access. These already run fine under VPC on my PC, so assuming OS X would allow such a virtual machine to run, I'd be happy.
I'd love to be able to give up my Windows work laptop for a MBP. Every time I work on a presentation, or a tech-specs sheet, or a promo flyer, I yearn for Keynote, Pages and Omnigraffle. However, because my Mac's my home machine, it'd mean that I'd have to give up my free time to work on projects for my job. They don't pay me enough for that 🙂
Running software within virtual machines is something I do regularly. I have a set of standard Win98, Win2000 and WinXP virtual machines which I use for compatibility testing with the software I develop. The idea is, you save the image in a 'fresh' state. Then, you start up an image, do your testing or whatever, then re-set the virtual machine back to the fresh state. It's a great way to work, and I'd love to be able to have a sandboxed, always-clean Windows system ready to go right inside OS X.
As for viruses, malware, etc... you'd have exactly the same situation as you do with VPC on the PC at the moment. What's running in the VM stays in the VM. If you need access to data outside the VM, copy that data into the VM to work on. Don't share your host OS's drives with the guest OS (which, on VPC isn't set up by default).
Arcus said:
I don't get this repair permissions thing.
As far as I understand, it is a hold over from Mac OS Classic. Is it even relevant these days?
Certainly I doubt that many Mac OS X users ever repair permissions, and their systems keep on running.
I reckon it is a placebo function.
Why is there always some idiot...
Why is there always some idiot who has to post this reply to every article that has to do with the ability to run Windows and/or Windows apps on Macs?
Is it really that friggin' hard to read the replies from people who *need* to run a specific Windows only app for work?
Les Kern said:
Why is there always some idiot who has to post this reply to every article that has to do with the ability to run Windows and/or Windows apps on Macs?
Is it really that friggin' hard to read the replies from people who *need* to run a specific Windows only app for work?
Yeah, I've never had to repair permissions on any Mac running in our shop. I don't get that part.
Hattig said:
Not at all; Classic doesn't even have file permissions. It's very much an OS X thing. Actually, it's a Unix thing.
Now that's completely true...I never bother. I think an early version of OS X had actual problems with file permissions getting messed up, and a number of people still have it in their heads that "repair permissions" magically fixes everything. It almost never does, of course.
--Eric
ScottB said:
good point. But imo, what makes mac less virus is mainly because the hacker can't afford a mac (but they should at least get a mini 😀 )
Once again, regarding viruses, I'd rather not install an API on my computer that is known to be vulnerable to attack. Relying on the structure of your directory tree to keep you safe seems like folly.
OSX's immunity from viruses is not just from obscurity. It's also because the way it's build is less vulnerable. Allowing non-OSX code to run (especially code that is so well known for exploits) may reduce the security of the OS.
I understand that many viruses use vulnerabilities in the windows code to create mischief, but all it takes is one .exe file with malicious code to wipe out my entire hard drive. No thanks, I'll pass. If I'm running any windows code on my computer it'll be in a sandbox.
Once again, I'm not trying to spread FUD. Except maybe the U part. Because there IS uncertainty. Can anyone here say with absolute confidence that there is no way windows code could be manipulated to damage an OSX system running WINE?
If you create the opening, someone will come and take advantage.
OSX's immunity from viruses is not just from obscurity. It's also because the way it's build is less vulnerable. Allowing non-OSX code to run (especially code that is so well known for exploits) may reduce the security of the OS.
I understand that many viruses use vulnerabilities in the windows code to create mischief, but all it takes is one .exe file with malicious code to wipe out my entire hard drive. No thanks, I'll pass. If I'm running any windows code on my computer it'll be in a sandbox.
Once again, I'm not trying to spread FUD. Except maybe the U part. Because there IS uncertainty. Can anyone here say with absolute confidence that there is no way windows code could be manipulated to damage an OSX system running WINE?
If you create the opening, someone will come and take advantage.
yellow
Moderator emeritus
Hattig said:
Nothing to do with OS9, as there were no permissions involved.
Repairing Permissions is comparing a BOM from the receipt of the installed app with that of the current UNIX permissions. If anything is amiss, the permissions are changed (repaired). It's all about the developer determining the optimal permissions for use/security.
The mistake most users get into is overusing it. Most people don't realize that it never decends into the /User hierarchy, so any problems one has in that realm are not solved by "repairing permissions". Otherwise, it does seem to be a magic bullet that people use in troubleshooting.
SiliconAddict said:
feel the same here. Ex. I made some chart program to faciliate my research due to the knowledge I have and tools avariable in windows. But I don't have time to re-learn everything in mac. To be able to get paid regularly, I have to work on windows(visualization,analyse), linux(simulation) and mac(my laptop) at same time. I wish I could know more to stay at one side, but well I already got IBS 😱
I went the VPC route.
The sad fact is that I sell a service and have to demo it - and it's a Win only app and uses an Access data file. Since I work in a very small company whose customers are all on Win the only way I could get a Mac version is to pay the programmer out of my pocket to do it - about $15,000. VPC & 2000 Pro is a lot cheaper.
I also use a piece of medical equipment (an autopap) and the only way to obtain the graphs & stats is with a Win app. The company won't put out a Mc version as they are too busy supporting all versions of Win, back to 3.1!
I'm also preparing a Provisional Patent Application (not in the software world) and could not find a Mac version of software to help with the process. As soon as it's filed the software will be uninstalled.
VPC has handled the job very well - if a bit slow - and I'll stay in this isolated environment for Windows apps that I have to use. No dual boot or Wine for me as I don't want the hassles. I'm a salesman and the best rule of thumb for salesmen is to stay away from computers (unless it's a Mac) and follow the KISS principle when entering the Win world.
And, yes, if VPC was not available I wouldn't have been able to "switch" when I did.
The sad fact is that I sell a service and have to demo it - and it's a Win only app and uses an Access data file. Since I work in a very small company whose customers are all on Win the only way I could get a Mac version is to pay the programmer out of my pocket to do it - about $15,000. VPC & 2000 Pro is a lot cheaper.
I also use a piece of medical equipment (an autopap) and the only way to obtain the graphs & stats is with a Win app. The company won't put out a Mc version as they are too busy supporting all versions of Win, back to 3.1!
I'm also preparing a Provisional Patent Application (not in the software world) and could not find a Mac version of software to help with the process. As soon as it's filed the software will be uninstalled.
VPC has handled the job very well - if a bit slow - and I'll stay in this isolated environment for Windows apps that I have to use. No dual boot or Wine for me as I don't want the hassles. I'm a salesman and the best rule of thumb for salesmen is to stay away from computers (unless it's a Mac) and follow the KISS principle when entering the Win world.
And, yes, if VPC was not available I wouldn't have been able to "switch" when I did.
maxp1 said:
Sorry but you are sadly mistaken. It's not the windows API that causes windows users the problems that we have seen reported. Does Windows have bugs...yes does Microsoft work to fix them...much more than any other vendor I'd say. The time to fix from report is getting smaller and smaller...much more so than any other OS provider at this point.
The biggest problem in the Windows world is that users do not take advantage of the fixes that are provided. Windows update and Automatic update are designed to try to overcome this.
"OSX's immunity from viruses" does largely come from the fact that it is a less than 5% solution. Why would a virus maker care about hitting OSX systems...the damage would be so small as to not even cause any notice, which is after all why they do this evil stuff.
By the way Apple does put out security fixes.....
While I have a Mac and love it, I also have several PC's. I tend to run my windows software on Windows and my Mac software on my Mac...That's why I have both. But it should not be so hard to understand that some would find important the chance to run some Windows apps on OSX or to even dual boot to Windows from time to time.
nagromme
macrumors G5
That's my understanding. You can still run Repair Permissions and see things change once in a blue moon, but are those things actually problems? Repair Permissions, like manual pre-binding, is something that could help early OS X issues a few years ago, but today Mac users don't really have to even know those things exist. Maybe it could be useful in some cases to troubleshoot a problem, but it's NOT required maintenance.Eric5h5 said:
supremedesigner
macrumors 65816
SimTower
AMEN TO THAT! SIMTOWER are the best game! Only if they ever make more... 😕 😱 😀 🙁
macluvrOSx said:
AMEN TO THAT! SIMTOWER are the best game! Only if they ever make more... 😕 😱 😀 🙁
nagromme
macrumors G5
The truth about viruses and WINE seems to lie at neither extreme (so often the case in life). WINE won't make your Mac a magnet for Windows viruses and is likely not to be a big issue in that way. But it's not 100% a non-issue either. There's some potential for damage.
The Mac's smaller market presence is a good thing for security. Obviously. And unless you predict that Macs will SURPASS Windows any time soon, then it's a great reason to expect that Macs will STAY more secure than Windows. (And that Apple won't charge us for a service to solve their own OS's problems, like Microsoft is about to do with OneCare 😀 )
But to say that's the main reason would be to turn a blind eye to some basic facts. There are real, technical reasons why Windows is less secure and OS X is more secure--by design. Just as there are historical reasons for the complexity of Windows' code--and of the varied array of hardware it must run on--that makes patching those holes more difficult for Microsoft than for Apple. That's why now we're STILL finding gaping holes (WMF exploit) that have existed for years and remain even in the latest versions of Windows--including Vista.
And beyond the "number of holes" there's also the question of how easily those holes can be exploited, and how much damage can be done once entry is gained. OS X appears to be far more likely to limit those two factors. Look at the nature of OS X "vulnerabilities" (not viruses, because there are none) and you will most often see a very specific set of factors that have to come together before an intrusion can occur. Not like recent Windows problems where simply viewing a web page is enough to get a virus. Windows has more serious holes that are more easily exploited. And no open-source community to help, like Apple has.
"Security by obscurity" isn't a myth at all in a sense: it's a real factor and it's a good thing. Windows has more machines to target, and more machines to allow effective spreading of a virus. But that's NOT the whole reason our Macs are more secure. That's where it becomes myth. It's just ONE factor in our favor.
And absolutely Macs ARE a target for crackers. A BIG one, an ATTRACTIVE one, and a PROFITABLE one, and they have been for a long time:
* OS X has been around for years, now--and it's partly based on technologies and OS's (BSD, NeXT) familiar to tech afficianados for even longer.
* Crackers of a certain type have sought challenges and prestige for years.
* Macs have been worth extra points in cracking contests for years.
* Apple and Macs and iPods have ever-increasing mindshare. They are "on the radar" of computer users like never before.
* Certain vocal users of other platforms have long felt jealousy toward Macs, and would love to take them down a peg. More so now than ever before, with the Mac platform finally starting to be seen as the success that it is.
* Some high-profile specific targets, like universities, media companies, scientific research labs, and the US Army, use Mac OS X. Zombie harvesting for profit may be the most common reason to write a virus, but not the only one. Invading privacy is another, and causing damage and downtime is too (like the recent Kama Sutra worm).
* Then throw in the specific challenges and prizes that have been offered from time to time for the first real-world, succesful Mac OS X virus.
The incentives ARE there, in a big way. AS BIG an incentive as Windows? Overall, no, I'd never claim that--but still an incentive, and in certain ways (prestige for instance) the incentive is higher for OS X than for Windows.
And what makes people assume crackers would have no interest in any target BUT the biggest? They have MORE interest in Windows, but plenty of interest in other platforms too--UNIXes included. Honda Accords, last I heard, are the MOST common target of theft. That doesn't make them the ONLY target.
There are a LOT of unethical programmers in the world... some with a desire to do more than be a "script kiddie." Some who don't share your assumption that no target but THE biggest is of any interest. Some who just want to take Apple down a peg. And some who would love to take down (or infiltrate) the high-profile Mac targets out there.
So it's a certainty that at least SOME people have been trying to make OS X viruses--for quite some time. They've never managed it yet. I believe they WILL.
Then we'll have one virus instead of zero... and I'll still be safer than a Windows user 🙂
True on both counts. Every OS has bugs and patches. And while some don't need any Windows apps, some do.tdar said:
That myth is often repeated, and I used to believe it myself. It didn't bother me, since the result was good regardless 🙂 But it IS a myth.tdar said:
The Mac's smaller market presence is a good thing for security. Obviously. And unless you predict that Macs will SURPASS Windows any time soon, then it's a great reason to expect that Macs will STAY more secure than Windows. (And that Apple won't charge us for a service to solve their own OS's problems, like Microsoft is about to do with OneCare 😀 )
But to say that's the main reason would be to turn a blind eye to some basic facts. There are real, technical reasons why Windows is less secure and OS X is more secure--by design. Just as there are historical reasons for the complexity of Windows' code--and of the varied array of hardware it must run on--that makes patching those holes more difficult for Microsoft than for Apple. That's why now we're STILL finding gaping holes (WMF exploit) that have existed for years and remain even in the latest versions of Windows--including Vista.
And beyond the "number of holes" there's also the question of how easily those holes can be exploited, and how much damage can be done once entry is gained. OS X appears to be far more likely to limit those two factors. Look at the nature of OS X "vulnerabilities" (not viruses, because there are none) and you will most often see a very specific set of factors that have to come together before an intrusion can occur. Not like recent Windows problems where simply viewing a web page is enough to get a virus. Windows has more serious holes that are more easily exploited. And no open-source community to help, like Apple has.
"Security by obscurity" isn't a myth at all in a sense: it's a real factor and it's a good thing. Windows has more machines to target, and more machines to allow effective spreading of a virus. But that's NOT the whole reason our Macs are more secure. That's where it becomes myth. It's just ONE factor in our favor.
And absolutely Macs ARE a target for crackers. A BIG one, an ATTRACTIVE one, and a PROFITABLE one, and they have been for a long time:
* OS X has been around for years, now--and it's partly based on technologies and OS's (BSD, NeXT) familiar to tech afficianados for even longer.
* Crackers of a certain type have sought challenges and prestige for years.
* Macs have been worth extra points in cracking contests for years.
* Apple and Macs and iPods have ever-increasing mindshare. They are "on the radar" of computer users like never before.
* Certain vocal users of other platforms have long felt jealousy toward Macs, and would love to take them down a peg. More so now than ever before, with the Mac platform finally starting to be seen as the success that it is.
* Some high-profile specific targets, like universities, media companies, scientific research labs, and the US Army, use Mac OS X. Zombie harvesting for profit may be the most common reason to write a virus, but not the only one. Invading privacy is another, and causing damage and downtime is too (like the recent Kama Sutra worm).
* Then throw in the specific challenges and prizes that have been offered from time to time for the first real-world, succesful Mac OS X virus.
The incentives ARE there, in a big way. AS BIG an incentive as Windows? Overall, no, I'd never claim that--but still an incentive, and in certain ways (prestige for instance) the incentive is higher for OS X than for Windows.
And what makes people assume crackers would have no interest in any target BUT the biggest? They have MORE interest in Windows, but plenty of interest in other platforms too--UNIXes included. Honda Accords, last I heard, are the MOST common target of theft. That doesn't make them the ONLY target.
There are a LOT of unethical programmers in the world... some with a desire to do more than be a "script kiddie." Some who don't share your assumption that no target but THE biggest is of any interest. Some who just want to take Apple down a peg. And some who would love to take down (or infiltrate) the high-profile Mac targets out there.
So it's a certainty that at least SOME people have been trying to make OS X viruses--for quite some time. They've never managed it yet. I believe they WILL.
Then we'll have one virus instead of zero... and I'll still be safer than a Windows user 🙂
gnasher729
Suspended
nagromme said:
I bet there has been more damage done on Macs running MacOS X by antivirus software than by viruses. So yes, you are right. We need antivirus protection. We need it more than virus protection. Protect us from Symantec, Norton and all the rest.