Mac OS X: Is it true that MacOS is Virus Free?...
Motorola and IBM, actually
by Krioni - 2/26/08 8:43 PM In reply to: "before Apple left Motorola for Intel." by mrmacfixit
Apple, IBM, and Motorola formed a technology-sharing group (sometimes referred to as AIM) in the 1990's to make PPC. The earliest were mostly made by IBM: the 601 series. Motorola also made PPC chips, though. The G4 series were mostly made by Motorola. The G5 was IBM's - Motorola was having trouble improving the G4. Eventually, IBM delayed in improving the G5.
Steve Jobs promised 3.0 GHz "in one year" on June 23, 2003. You may remember that didn't happen. IBM had a lot of trouble increasing clock speed. See http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/495/opinion/
Eventually, Apple decide that Intel's _future_ roadmap looked better than what IBM and Motorola planned. When Apple switched, the G5's were arguably faster (especially for large media files). The problem was that Apple had to look down the road to the future. Neither IBM nor Motorola were very focused on building high-end chips for desktop computers. Motorola had other, more pressing concerns (laying off employees, it seems), and IBM was moving away more and more from the desktop computer business (selling it completely, actually).
Anyway, Apple had been keeping its options open by secretly maintaining for years a fairly up-to-date version of Mac OS X that ran on Intel chips. They were able to make the transition across their entire product line in about a year. It was even smoother than the 68k to PPC transition (I remember that - went fairly well, too, although some growing pains with bus errors crashing early PPC machines).
Anyway, It was both Motorola and IBM that Apple left behind. It seemed strange at the time, but they made a good choice. As someone else has pointed out (without really backing it up), the RISC architecture of PPC has some theoretical benefits, but there is theory and there is application. Theoretical chips aren't very useful when you've got a big project due. You need an actual functioning computer (with chips that weren't last improved 5 years ago) to get it done on time.
I admitted the logically-coherent part of his argument
by Krioni - 2/26/08 4:12 PM In reply to: Neither of you are completely wrong by santuccieActually, I admitted that it made a difference - I just pointed out that the processor architecture doesn't get you past the first (and largest) hurdle: exploiting a vulnerability. It certainly increase the number of people with familiarity of what to do once you've gotten that far.
I notice that Porch-a-Geese still hasn't learned the nuances of the meaning of the "prone," despite my generous offer of a dictionary definition.
I also notice that he sticks to theory about chip architecture speed. He doesn't clarify whether he is saying that a 3.0 GHz G5 PPC is faster than a dual-processor quad-core Intel chip running at 3.6 GHz, or what. He sounds more like he is expounding a fervent belief than explaining the reasons for a sound technical comparison. In fact, my (very basic) understanding is that Intel's current lien of processors are not pure CISC chips. Perhaps if Porch-a-Geese actually has superior knowledge he would be willing to explain the difference using some other than bare assertion to defend his opinions.
I think he denies that viruses can be written in Visual Basic, although his difficulty in communicating effectively makes it unclear. The "no and no" part confused me a bit.
He also seems unfamiliar with Google searches to find basic information, seeming to think I was referring to an actual human being named "George."
In summation, Porch-a-Geese may be right on some of what he says (I even admitted that it may make it easier to finish a virus), but it's hard to tell since he doesn't back up anything he says. Maybe I missed something, and everyone knows automatically that Porch-a-Geese's conclusory assertions of reality should be accepted without question. Perhaps I didn't realize his word was infallible.
If I'm wrong, and Porch-a-Geese is right, I'd like him to explain why, or at least point to some external source of trust-worthy information. I don't accept him as the anonymous expert on kernel and virus design. I've admitted I'm not, but that doesn't make him one.
Oh, and santuccie: I admit that much of what you say is correct, especially since you back up your opinions with verifiable facts. I disagree on a few things about interest for malware. One, the ratio is certainly not 1/30 for machines in use by actual people. The number of Windows machines that are not available to hackers (in private networks off the Internet, cash registers, in manufacturing plants, etc.) is higher than Macs - go figure. Also, Apple's installed based is higher than their sales market share because Macs generally remain in use for longer periods of time. The ratio of "interesting targets for criminals" is probably closer to somewhere between 1/10 to 1/20 - still a significant difference, I admit. Especially so when you consider the number of Windows machines used in financial institutions. Then again, one can hope those places have better security procedures in place than your average home user. Macs are in a much better position as far as installed-base in those less-defended home environments than they are in the corporate world.
Also, despite the difference in financial incentive, there is the more "old school" aspect of notoriety. The first person to release a real and dangerous virus or worm for Mac OS X would certainly be widely covered in the press. Look at all the media attention given to basic Trojan Horses and proof-of-concept viruses/worms in the past few years.
Anyway, my conversation with you has been more informative and positive than the terse and unsupported assertions by Porch-a-Geese.
Cool
by santuccie - 2/26/08 4:38 PM In reply to: I admitted the logically-coherent part of his argument by KrioniThank you also for a mature and informative discussion. Kudos!
Well, that was fun but it's just about run out
by mrmacfixit - 2/27/08 2:36 AM
In reply to: Is it true that MacOS is Virus Free?... by lukmanfebrianto
and before this thread descends further south than it already has, I'm locking it.
If anyone wishes to continue the conversation, hop on over to the Spyware, viruses & Security forum.
P
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
