First Look at Apple's Intel Developer Macs

xyankee writes "Think Secret is reporting that developers have started taking receipt of Apple's Intel-based Mac kits. Along with some specs and photos, the site reports that Windows XP installs without a hitch on the systems and that casually trying to install Mac OS X for Intel on a Dell doesn't work... yet..."

Comments

Strategy?

[dsginter]

the site reports that Windows XP installs without a hitch

Perhaps this is part of the strategy? I wonder if they could run Windows on one core and OSX on the other.

Re:Strategy?

[hcdejong]

Probably not; you'd need some kind of arbitration, otherwise the cores would interfere with each other's communication to the rest of the system. A 'virtual machine' approach would be much easier to accomplish.

Re:Strategy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel's chips for 2006 should all have the 'Vanderpool' work in them, which improves hardware support for virtualization. This will make programs like VMWare, VirtualPC and Xen much faster.

Re:Strategy?

[pedantic bore]

A simpler explaination is that Windows XP has already been ported to practically every x86 chipset and common peripheral, so it's no surprise it works.

Re:Strategy?

[adjensen]

I have met lots of people that say they love Mac hardware and design but hate the operating system. I would think Apple would probably try to appeal to them.

Really? That's almost exactly the opposite of what most people say... "Oh, I love the UI and OS, but I'm sure not paying an extra [$100 / $500 / $1000] for their hardware!"

Aesthetics being the usual culprit, it's amazing that Apple's more "unique" designs, like the original iMac, appeal to people despite the fact that the machines are really kinda marginal.

So, would someone pay an extra hardware fee just to have a funky looking hardware design that runs Windows (gamerz not withstanding; I guess they've demonstrated that people will, but we're talking mainstream here.)

I doubt it. If Apple chucked OS X into the bin and just started shipping Windows boxes, they'd stay in the computer hardware business, oh, maybe 14 minutes. No "true" Mac person would buy one, out of righteous indignation, if nothing else, and the snobs out there who would be willing to pay a premium for what would amount to nothing more than a cool looking beige box would be too few in number to keep it going long.

Apple's strength is indeed in design, but that's bolstered by a great software product holding it up. Without OS X, Aqua and all the doo-dads that you show off to your friends, it's just a pretty looking box.

And if said box is stuffed under your desk and the only entry to it you have is through your monitor, who cares what it looks like?

Re:Strategy?

[adjensen]

No, no we're not talking mainstream. We're talking people that like Mac hardware but want to run Windows, much like the gaming community. If that is ten people then that is ten more sales. Apple is not planning on chucking OSX so that is irrelevant.

Well, I'm not a mind reader, but I don't think that Steve Jobs' intent in the grand scheme of things is to become a boutique manufacturer. Apple sees the Intel roadmap as a path to a significantly greater market share, and that means hitting the mainstream, not picking up ten guys here and there.

This is an argument that I've seen numerous times over the years... Apple should just dump the OS and start selling PC clones with pizzazz. But distinguishing yourself in a design which, like I said, for most people is irrelevant because it's still just a computer that few people see, and a higher price, isn't going to bring people in the doors.

Logically, your argument is correct. Ten guys is ten guys. Realistically, it's not. That's not where Apple is headed. Well, hopefully not, because that's a dead end.

Re:Strategy?

[pohl]

"The soul of the Mac is the operating system" - Steve Jobs, at the very end of the WWDC keynote, right before he says "thank you". And look at their front page today, which features a Fox Trot comic strip that plugs the forthcomming "Leopard" version of OSX. I think they're moving tap into a high-margin software revenue stream.

Re:Strategy?

[avdp]

Yes, you get whatever version of the OS is on the box at the time you bought it. It's not different than the PC market in that regard. The point was, software upgrades are not free. They're not in the PC world either, but in the PC world the software comes from a different company than the hardware (Microsoft, usually). That's what I mean by double dipping: they make money on their hardware AND the software that runs on it, and of course, since there are no clones, they can leverage one over the other.

Re:Strategy?

[InvalidError]

Vander may have some performance issues though since much of the memory management is done in software.

AMD pulled an ace on Intel with x86-64 and it seems AMD will also have the better deal on virtualization with more of it being transparently handled by hardware.

To me, it seems Intel severely dulled its edge on the P4 anvil. I wonder how many years it will take for it to be solidly back on tracks... I am guessing 3-5 years as a minimum unless something truly ground-breaking failed to leak through the usual rumour channels.

In case we lose the article due to slashdotting

[Anonymous Coward]

A first look at Apple's Intel Mac (with photos)

By Ryan Katz, Senior Editor
June 22, 2005 - Apple's Intel-based Mac development kits have started trickling into developer's hands, Think Secret has learned.
advertisement

The Apple Development Platform ADP2,1, as the systems are officially designated, features 3.6GHz Pentium 4 processors with 2MB of L2 cache operating on an 800MHz bus with 1GB of RAM.

The Intel systems run Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger identically on the surface as ordinary Macs, with the exception of a modified Processor System Preference (from Apple's CHUD tools) that allows the user to toggle Hyper-Threading on or off. Apple System Profiler includes a new line under Hardware listing CPU Features; for the 3.6GHz Pentium 4 this comprises a rather lengthy list of technical acronyms: FPU, VME, DE, PSE, TSC, MSR, PAE, MCE, CX8, APIC, SEP, MTRR, PGE, MCA, CMOV, PAT, PSE36, CLFSH, DS, SCPI, MMX, FXSR, SSE, SEE2, SS, HTT, TM, SSE3, MON, DSCPL, EST, TM2, CX16, and TPR.

Apple's System Profiler reports the graphics card as an Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 800. Inside the Intel Mac, DVI support for the video card is provided by a Silicon Image Orion ADD2-N Dual Pad x16. Oddly, neither Silicon Image's Web site nor Google turns up much information on the latter card, the latter yielding a single link to a recent Dell support forum posting.

The motherboard on the system is unmarked except for the word Barracuda. The system's internals are housed inside a case similar to Apple's Power Mac G5 systems but with a different configuration of fans.

Running Windows; Mac OS X on other PCs

Along with running Mac OS X, Windows XP installs without hitch on the Intel-based Mac, just as it would on any other PC, and booted without issue when installed on an NTFS-formatted partition. The only misbehavior sources encountered involved the video card. Initially, Windows refused to budge from an 800x600 setting on a 23-inch Cinema Display. Some prodding managed to get the screen to 1600x1200, but sources were unable to get Windows to take advantage of the entire screen.

Apple alluded to developers at its recent Worldwide Developer Conference that Windows should be able to run on Apple's Intel Macs.

As for installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, attempts to boot from the included Mac OS X for Intel disc resulted in an error message on both a Dell and off-brand PC. The message states that the hardware configuration is not supported by Darwin x86.

Sources have indicated that Apple will employ an EDID chip on the motherboard of Intel-based Macs that Mac OS X will look for and must handshake with first in order to boot. Such an approach, similar to hardware dongles, could theoretically be defeated, although it's unknown what level of sophistication Apple will employ.

Also uncertain is whether the Intel-based development kits seeded to developers already feature the EDID chip or whether the installation disc contains a less sophisticated installation check that simply seeks out one particular hardware configuration--the one given to developers--and will not install on other configurations.

Re:In case we lose the article due to slashdotting

[CODiNE]

Also uncertain is whether the Intel-based development kits seeded to developers already feature the EDID chip or whether the installation disc contains a less sophisticated installation check that simply seeks out one particular hardware configuration--the one given to developers--and will not install on other configurations.

I think the 2nd option is more likely. It's exactly what Apple has been doing with OS X for years. When you buy a Mac you get an install CD which is exactly like any other except each model comes with a "supported hardware" check as it installs. The eMac install will not work on a Mac mini, nor the iBook install on a Powerbook, etc... They all have a list of chipsets / CPU's and other hardware built in that they use to identify which system it's running on. (That is, assuming you don't have OF as these x86 Macs won't) All Apple has to do is keep doing what they've always done and you're pretty much locked into Apple hardware, I suspect they'll simply include drivers for their own chipsets and motherboards and tada... everyone is already locked out. There's no need to add extra hardware components simply to identify it as a Mac when Apple is the only one using a certain Mobo.

-Don.

so..

[isecore]

where's the torrent for OSX Intel Edition?

Can't decide

[wchin]

I worked one over at WWDC for 2 hours... our stuff doesn't need six or 9 months to port, as we mostly have Java or Cocoa Obj-C code. However, we do need it for a short period of time for testing. It would be nice to be able to ARD into a Macintel for testing, but $999 for a 1.5 year lease is a bit steep when we won't be able to effectively use the box for very long.

Re:Can't decide

[jcr]

maybe what you want is for Apple to make these available in the compatibility labs?

They already are. If you're in the Bay Area, call up ADC and make an appointment to drop in and test your app.

-jcr

Re:Can't decide

[rampant mac]

"Please post that link if you happen across it, it'd be useful..."

3rd paragraph from the bottom.

"For smaller companies that may not want to invest the time or the US$1,000 to rent the Intel system, a company called Advenio has a service in which it will do the necessary porting work. As an indication of the relative time involved, the company is charging a flat US$100 fee to create a universal binary of a Cocoa application; the fee for porting a Carbonised program starts at US$500 and depends on the amount of work involved."

http://www.advenio.com/

Driver Support

[Bob Gelumph]

There might be some simple (or complex) mechanism for locking the OS to the Apple/Intel system, but even if this is broken, who is going to write all of the drivers for that Dell that everyone keeps talking about?

Re:Driver Support

[paulbd]

This is utterly and completely wrong.

SCSI may be SCSI but a Tekram SCSI controller is not an Adaptec SCSI controller, so you need driver for each. WiFi may be WiFi (not, depending on which version you are thinking of), but Broadcom continually makes minor tweaks to their chips that require new versions of drivers. PCI - heh, clearly you've never read the internals of an operating system with all of its tweaks for different PCI bridge chipsets, and lets not forget PCI-X and PCI-E. And don't forget audio, a domain in which there are still at least a a half-dozen chipset makers and at least twice that many board makers with widely different products.

Re:Driver Support

[jtshaw]

It is "based" on BSD... at least the user space environment is. The kernel, however, is vastly different from the BSD's (it is actually a Mach kernel at heart) and thus the BSD drivers require heavy modification... it is almost easier just to rewrite them honestly. At least that was my experience with the one driver I've written for OSX.

First Post of the Inevitable Post

[Ath]

I will say it before someone else does:

Nowhere did Apple say x86, they just said Intel chips! So maybe there is a brand new chip that Apple will use from Intel.

Now the truth: Apple did say x86 and that, if you are interested in which specific Intel x86 chips Apple will use, check the Intel CPU roadmap for mid 2006 to get an idea.

Just trying to be efficient...

OS X on a PC...

[mpontes]

Can't wait until someone hacks the x86 version of Mac OS X to run on non-Mac. However, I suppose the biggest problem wouldn't be the "Mac-only" protection itself, it would be to find OS X drivers for your average PC hardware. Well, I suppose you could make many BSD drivers work under the x86 Darwin with little tweaking, but I might be wrong.

Can't wait, though. Triple boot PC! Or if a decent OpenSolaris distro comes out, tetra-boot! After that, no one on Slashdot can trash my OS anymore...

OS X on a PC

[LittleGuernica]

No doubt that they will eventually get OS X to work on a generic PC clone. It will probably take some serious work around and then you have the driver problem. nobody can get an airport extreme to work on a mac right now with any version of linux, so driver's are goign to be a problem.

But since Apple won't officially allow it to install OS X on any other computer but a mac, nobody will ever be able to sell a computer with OS X pre-installed. So it will enver get mainstream and i'm sure Apple will have few sleepless nights because a few geeks have it running on their generic PC box.

Missing the point...

[lxt]

I think you're missing the point - this is a developer's model. It's sole purpose is to enable developers to transition across to Intel based macs. Lets just wait until Apple start releasing actual Intel based products before complaining about the hardware?

with photos....

[kibbylow]

Wow! They showed us photos of a motherboard, a video card and a monitor displaying windows XP.... I've never seen that before!

Re:OS X on a Dell

[numbski]

People people people....

We're all unix geeks here, right?

**crickets**

Okay, well even if not....

Go to the Darwin site. Download Darwin for x86, install it. Ta da! We have the BSD Subsystem. :)

Okay, get your shiny new developer mac, place it side by side with your Darwin machine. Check the passwd file, the passwd entry in netinfo, and groups. Make sure the uid's and gid's generally match up.

Export for nfs from you dev mac:

/ --alldirs --maproot=0

Now, mount that someplace on your darwin boxen.

Use cp -pr anything of interest to the darwin box. I would take special note of anything in /etc/rc.

Kick the darwin box.

I filesystem comparison between a clean dev box and a clean Darwin box might me useful, diffs on text files to go along with it.

Provide me or any good hacker that, and we'll have an installer out in no time. ;)

It is easier to carry the "antiquated baggage"

[Anonymous Coward]

When you look at a PC under the hood (not literally, but from a system architecture standpoint), you really do see twenty years of computing history, from a time when DOS programs manually invoked the PIT8253 timer to invoke timing interrupts, 16 bit code, the BIOS, and all of that junk. Yes, in a perfect world, it would be nice to wave goodbye to all of that crap.

However, the laws of economics say otherwise.

The reason that it is hard to dump them is because it doesn't really cost anything to continue to support them. You cannot buy an Intel processor that does not support 16 bit code. Antiquated timers like the PIT8253 are supported in the chipsets. Unless the legacy parts actually take up physical space on the motherboard (like ISA slots and the physical parallel port itself), it is much easier to buy an off the shelf chipset that supports everything. The alternative is to make a custom chipset that may be cleaner but have less volume.

You would be paying extra so that CGA doesn't exist. Thats just plain silly.

Coral Cache

[cr3ative]

Looks like the server is groaning already, so here:

http://www.thinksecret.com.nyud.net:8090/news/0506 intelmac.html

Why run OS X on generic PCs, anyways?

[jht]

You know, outside of a few Slashdotters who desperately want to run OS X on their pimped-out x86 boxes, there's probably not a lot of people who give a darn about this. Apple makes Macs, and as long as they provide a reasonably complete spectrum of systems across the price band, there's going to be zero measurable demand to defeat Apple's tying and install OS X on a generic PC. Zero. The biggest reason Mac cloning worked in the market for a few years last decade was that Apple wasn't providing the systems that the Mac marketplace wanted to buy. Even then, it cost Apple a lot more money than they ever expected it to, because even with the licensing fees it didn't make up for the lost hardware margins. Apple needs a lot more base market share before they can stop worrying about cannibalization.

Sure, somebody'll figure out a way to do it - every DRM scheme devised thus far has been cracked, pretty much - but what do you get after cracking OS X? You get a unsupported OS on your PC that may or may not work right with the combination of cards, chipset, and BIOS you happen to have. Do people really think that there's going to be any enterprise demand for that? Really?

Bottom line: Macs are Macs, PCs are PCs, and despite the change in architecture the twain are not going to meet any time soon. Stick to Windows, Linux, or xBSD on your generic PC, and run OS X on your Mactel. You can probably expect Apple to give up a little bit of their price delta now that the hardware is directly comparable (and the hardware superiority image is gone), but not all of it - after all, Apple puts a lot more engineering into their boxes than the typical PC vendor does. And when you're running your Mactel, you can look forward to emulation that's finally less crappy than what Virtual PC gives you. Yippee!

Apple's "Red Box" for Windows compatibility

[amichalo]

This article, which is an opinion piece, brings up some insightful benefits of Apple reinvigorating the "Red Box" project to allow full compatibility between OS X and Windows apps.

Seems to fit with this whole Intel dev edition story.

Re:I can't wait

[BlogPope]

even though the only difference will be a missing chip on the motherboard.

Just the way I mock those people who paid too much for their Ferrari's. I built mine with a VW Beettle frame and a fiberglass kit I ordered from a magazine. Man those "Ferrari ethusiasts" look down their nose at me because they paid too much for their cars. I laugh and laugh at them!

w00t!

Re:Too bad

[jcr]

Keep in mind that the developer evaluation machine is not a product, or even a prototype.

-jcr

Re:Why have apple just built a PC?

[Have Blue]

How many times does it have to be said? These machines do not represent the final products Apple will put up for sale to the public. These are a quick hack to get developers working on the Intel platform, nothing more. The real Intel Macs will use 2006-era processors and chipsets, will be legacy-free, and will almost certainly not use BIOS (the best possibility is EFI), and will probably feature some custom Apple logic on the motherboard somewhere to head off all the problems you're predicting.

Re:Just imagine...

[jcr]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...

IMHO, if Apple hadn't fired Steve, NeXTSTEP wouldn't have been around to save Apple from oblivion. Apple would have vanished while trying yet another OpenDoc, Pink, or MacApp on top of the same old outdated OS.

-jcr

Re:Here's what I think

[Mr. Cancelled]

Not trolling, just my thoughts:

Hmmm... Sounds like trolling, but I'll bite.

What's the incentive to port an app when you can tell the user to run it under these applications?

Well, for one thing Mac users are fanatical about the look/feel/integration of the entire OS. This is largely why such cool technologies as Fink, and Darwin ports haven't taken over more on the Mac: The look and feel isn't the same as native OSX apps. The GUI/widgets are different, they don't share data off the clipboard in the same way that the Mac does. They don't support standard OSX keyboard commands, instead defaulting to the same shortcuts and such as their x86 counterparts.

Another great example is Open Office - It's no longer being ported due to the low number of users. Instead, NeoOffice was born from the ashes of OO, and is rapidly gaining in popularity due to it's native look/feel, and it's overall integration as a native OSX app.

Running Windows apps under OSX (emulated, or via a virtual pc, such as vmware)will meet some people's needs (read this as potential switchers), but the diehard Mac users will still demand native apps, and an OSX look/feel.

Further, Apple has said, it wont stop people from putting Windows on their Macs, which I think is a mistake. Don't have that specific application? Boot into Windows or run it via emulation

I disagree... There's a helluva lot more apps written for Windows than there is for OSX. And a lot of the apps for Windows duplicate a lot of the other Windows apps that are out there. There's a lot of very similar programs, doing very similar things on the Windows end of things. I personally like to find the best tool for a job, when the need arises. On the Windows end, this means constantly evaluating a lot of different, but similar programs to find which meets my needs/wants the best, and there's constantly more apps coming out that need to be evaluated.

On the Mac end, there's fewer programs, but they're usually of a much higher caliber, and they're way more integrated with the OS look/feel than Windows apps typlically are. As opposed to you, I think that once Windows users start checking out OSX and seenig what can be done w/it, these same people will begin looking for native apps to replace their Windows apps, rather than running them emulated, or rebooting into Windows. Keyboard shortcuts are a great example! Will the average switcher want to remember all the OSX commands, in addition to all the Windows ones, or will they just prefer to memorize one set of commands for all apps? I personally think it'll be the latter, but time will tell.

One quick note about the above: The one app that I use regularly on Windows, which has no Mac counterpart yet is Homesite! There is no Mac editor that will allow me to highlight code the way that Homesite will. Specifically, I'm referring to letting me mod the foreground AND the background colors, based on code syntax. Very disapointing, and I'm a very visual guy, and being able to do this is very important to me. Dreamweaver MX allows me to do this, but it comes with so much bloat that I really hate to use it when all's I really need is a decent editor. If BBEdit allowed me to do this, my life would be much happier! But I digress...

A few die hard companies make Linux games, for instance, but very few. That's the future: A widespread OS with no nifty applications.

I think the difference here is the number and type of users. Linux users tend to be few in numbers (compared to OSX and Windows users - Although that is slowly changing), and of a much geekier variety than the average Windows user (I'm not counting the users of very dumbed down Linux distros, such as Linspire and such... These people are typically the point-and-click, email and web users types, and never stray too much from these basic tasks.). Several companies have tried to make a living out of writing native ports of Windows games for Linux, and you know what? They al

Re:OS X on a Dell

[John Harrison]

Which is probably just fine with Apple. The more that gets pirated the more that gets sold. It has worked well for MS, it will work for Apple as well. Remember, if you pirate it and you like it and you want to use it at work then you are going to get your work to buy it.

Apple/Intel FAQ

[daveschroeder]

http://appleintelfaq.com/

What did Apple announce at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) on June 6, 2005?

Apple announced that it is transitioning from PowerPC processors provided by IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola) to x86 architecture processors from Intel. The first Intel-based Macs will ship before mid-2006, and the transition will be complete by the end of 2007.

Where can I find out more official information about this announcement?

Apple press release

Intel press release

WWDC keynote address (Transcript)

Why did Apple make this change?

The following scenario likely contributed to this decision:

IBM has been unable to meet its performance commitments for the PowerPC 970 family (G5) processors. In mid-2003, IBM promised 3 GHz G5s to Apple by mid-2004. As of mid-2005, 3 GHz G5s are still not available, over two years after the initial announcement, and over one year after the promised delivery.[1]

Meanwhile, Microsoft has announced that IBM will make 3.2 GHz triple-core G5 derivatives available to Microsoft for Xbox 360.[2] IBM is also concentrating efforts on chips for Nintendo Revolution and Sony PlayStation 3.[3, 3.1] With IBM concentrating on expensive high-end server class processors and the console and embedded markets, and with Apple at less than 2%[4] of IBM's PowerPC business, it was clear IBM's priorities were focused elsewhere.

Apple is also less than 3%[4] of Freescale's PowerPC business, with Freescale focusing on embedded, communications, and automotive markets. The priorities of IBM and Freescale do not coincide with performance and other needs of the traditional desktop and portable computing marketplace.

What has Apple done to prepare for this transition?

Apple has been publicly maintaining the core OS of Mac OS X, Darwin, for both PowerPC and x86 platforms since the release of Mac OS X. Internally, Apple has been secretly maintaining Mac OS X in its entirety and all Apple applications for both PowerPC and x86 for over 5 years, since before Mac OS X's public release.[5] Mac OS X's predecessors also ran on x86.

Apple has made available Xcode 2.1, which adds the capability of creating PowerPC/x86 universal binaries. Xcode 2.1 can be used on either PowerPC or x86 systems to create universal binaries. Application developers already using Xcode in most cases need only recompile their application with an additional checkbox adding x86 architecture support.

Apple has also licensed[6] QuickTransit from Transitive Corporation for Rosetta, a realtime binary translation system to support PowerPC binaries seamlessly on x86 hardware. The current performance of Rosetta

Re:Is anyone listening?

[moonbender]

Yes, well, so what? Linux already works moderately great on current Apple hardware, and it works great on existing x86 hardware. Yes, you probably will be able to run Linux on the Apple/x86 hardware, which probably will be pretty "sexy" as far as x86 hardware goes. But being able to run Windows on that same hardware is a much bigger deal for most people. OS X already is a very capable Unix-like niche operating system - but it's not very good in some aspects that Windows is extremely good in, mostly this comes down to the application support.

Or in other words: Hardly anybody cares about running Linux applications on an OS X platform because many Linux applications have been ported and run just as well on OS X. The same isn't true for Windows.

iMacs are a consumer machine. Marginal?

[ianscot]

So often, people who aren't the iMac target demographic don't "get" the machines at all. You're a pretty good example, judging by this post. Not that you're being nasty; you just don't see what the system is aimed at because it's not you.

Aesthetics being the usual culprit, it's amazing that Apple's more "unique" designs, like the original iMac, appeal to people despite the fact that the machines are really kinda marginal.

iMacs with each freshening have been re-situated at a tier and a nudge behind a power/graphics user's level -- which is to say as a decidedly middle-class system. "Marginal" isn't the word for that. They're middle-class appliance computers. Actually as each generation of iMac has come out, Apple watchers have wondered whether the top-of-the-line models were being undercut by them on performance-for-price. The iMac G5 models were no exception. As they came out, /. types were anticipating new tower G5s, because otherwise that line almost didn't make sense any more.

And if said box is stuffed under your desk and the only entry to it you have is through your monitor, who cares what it looks like?

And again, iMacs are designed precisely for people who do not NOT NOT want to dedicate a hutch shrine to their tower down in the basement. Desk? Who wants to dedicate a whole desk in some extra office in their house? That's exactly the model that Apple was tilting against. Note the emphasis on low footprint, from the first CRT models on. This is for people whose response to a tower under the typical chintzy computer desk is "ugh" (and to some extent for schools with limited space or spots on a long counter).

(Personally I got an original Rev A CRT iMac gratis, and it grew on us a ton. There's a lampshade 17" version on the narrow kitchen counter now. The machine's lasted for years now, so if it was marginal when it started it must be positively archaic now -- despite being quite capable of handling Tiger and everything else I've had to touch on it. And it's displaced the [more recent] Wintel boxes in the house, despite my being required to keep those up for work reasons. They're in the basement corner for over a year now. The kids liked the iMacs far more.)

Ludicrous?

[Paradox]

All the bugs listed there are patched.

That's one of the reasons people like to say Apple is secure. For remote exploits, they have a fabulous reputation of quick patches. For local exploits, they have an average (good, but marred by a few bad apples, like the sync bug).

But, MacOSX has always defaulted to all-services-off. So, you wouldn't see a worm targetting the AFP server making it very far on the net.

Apple's security is on par with most Linux distros. This does not mean it's OpenBSD. It means that it does have some bugs, but is highly resistant to most attacks. Apple has been able to be more lax about buffer overflows because of the PPC's architecture, which makes a classic buffer overflow more difficult. When they switch to Intel, we'll probably see them step up their local security policy to compensate.

And your comment, "Most of these are ludicrous! Look at how many remote vulnerabilities there are! Some are absurd! Didn't apple do ANY checking?" That implies that you are not a security person, don't really understand the vulnerabilities listed, and are trying to spread FUD. I count 5 exploits that are triggerable remotely (even if they are not going to disclose data and permissions remotely). Of course Apple does checking. That's why the thing isn't riddled with bugs, has awesome security features like a time sensitive, integrity-checking Keychain, and generally has a good set of secure, default settings.

Re:Ludicrous?

[Paradox]

This implies that you are not a security person. If your main argument is "oh it's patched, it'se secure", you have done a day of security in your life.

There are two kinds of insecure. The first, insecure and everyone knows it, is Windows. That's bad. The second is statistically insecure, which is the state of most software today. Very few systems actually go to the level of rigor provided by OpenBSD which allows them to make bold claims about security.

And even then, they mess up.

Some of us want stable, non-changing software for long periods of time. You know, so I don't have to go through updating foo-OS every week because my vendor can't get his shit together.

Well yeah, that'd be great, I'm sure. But you're tragically misinformed if you think this will ever be the case. The state of software engineering, and by extension security techniques, is constantly changing. In software, you update until you're obsolete. If you don't like that, don't use software.

Indeed, patching something does make it secure after the fact, but it doesn't help with it being secure in the first place. Apple needs to sit down, hire some GOOD programmers, and comb through their code.

Bugs have slipped through, and they will continue to slip through. This is a problem endemic to the industry, and Free Software is no exception. Please do not blame Apple. If you must blame someone, blame the Apple Fanboys who preach absolute security, because they're creating unfair expectations. So far, OS X has a good track record as a desktop OS. As a server OS, I wouldn't go that far.

Maybe the quicktime heap overwrite from last year, that Apple refused to give attention to.

You mean the qts file heap overflow?. The one blown totally out of proportion because successful remote code execution was extremely difficult?

How about the MP3Concept spoof thing floating around early last year? The one apple failed to acknowledge?

You mean the one Secunia rated at "Very Low Risk"? because it was trumped up by the mac antivirus community? The one that doesn't work properly if you have "show file extensions" on? The one that Apple publicly acknowledged?

Both of these allow me to get access to the computer from somewhere other than in front of it. Especially with some social engineering.

Yeah, too bad they don't work anymore.

Bullshit. Gentoo, Debian, Linux and Freebsd had no vulnerabilites as abusurd as "at not dropping root privileges" in years, Apple did is in Jan. In 1994, it would have been ok to let that slip by, but not any more. Solaris is a different matter..they can't seem to keep their "passwd" utility safe no matter what they do.

Because things like Gentoo, Debian and Redhat get special poster-child treatment. They cheerfully call people when their integrated apps have holes. But, when someone points out that many standard linux applications have holes in them, they claim it's "not part of the distribution."

I go to osvdb, search Apple, OSX and check "remote". I see 56. I don't know what you're smoking. Hell, I see 18 this year alone, and it's only June!

I was talking about on the front page. Yes, Apple has has remote exploits. As I said, in general their track record on patching them has been at least as good as any other commercial vendor. A heck of a lot better than some. They are not the paragon of security, and as they move to intel machines (which, architecturally, are easier to exploit and better understood by the crowd who writes exploits) t