So, all the $$$$$ Apple put into R&D counts for nothing? It took over 5 years for Apple to develop OS X (not counting NextStep), and more time for them to enhance it.
And after all that effort, they should be forced to essentially give it away for $130 and sacrifice their hardware business?
What's "pure, unmitigated bullshit", is the mentality that some people should be force to essentially give away the fruits of their labours.
Disclaimer: My primary home computer is a Mac (which you probably guessed from my sig).
If Pystar wins their lawsuit, it will be terrible for not just Apple, but OS X users too.
Apple is still a small company with limited programming resources. One of the reasons OS X evolved so quickly is that Apple could channel its limited programming and QA resources into improving the features and stability of the operating system, while supporting only a very small limited subset of the available hardware in the PC market.
One of the reasons Microsoft has so many problems is that Windows needs to support every hardware configuration imaginable. If Windows fails to do so, as it did with Vista, Microsoft bears the brunt of the criticism (not the hardware or driver maker), and essentially has to take the lead in solving the problem.
If OS X has to support every hardware imaginable, OS X releases will be delayed further and the end products will no longer be as stable. Look at what support for both Intel and PowerPC did to Leopard, and its associated QA and development process. The end product was not as stable or reliable as quickly as previous OS X releases.
What's more, Apple nearly went bankrupt after licensing Mac OS to third party clone makers. Clone sales undercut Mac sales far more than Apple received licensing fees for Mac OS.
For OS X to continue as a high quality operating system, Pystar must lose.
First of all, Microsoft screwed up initially because DOS and the non-NT versions of Windows didn't implement the concept of a multi-user, networked operating system like Unix and NT did. This means that when the internet took off, Microsoft was selling an operating system for the masses that was not architected to be used securely over the internet.
The consequences were disastrous. Malware, including viruses, warms, trojans, adware and spyware spread like wildfire over Windows systems over the internet. Zombie machines became common. Software was written to require admin privileges to install and run correctly.
By the time Microsoft realized they needed to fix the problem (between XP and XP SP2, depending on how you look at it), there were too many legacy dependencies for Microsoft to switch whole-hog to a Unix style multi-user, restricted user by default system.
Still, they did try to do something about it. They merged NT and 9.x into a single operating system and kernel, namely, Windows XP. It was now possible to create multiple users, including admin and non-admin users. They implement the Run As functionality, to allow non-admin users to temporarily escalate their permissions.
I know Run As mostly worked, because I spent a few hours setting up my dad's XP and Vista computers with regular user accounts. There's the odd program that doesn't run correctly (or at all) as a regular user, but they all run correctly with Run As. I think there was only one program he had that used to run correctly under his old account that didn't work at all under the new setup.
Still, there are third party software developers that perpetuate use of the old system, and force Microsoft to enable admin users by default. Among those are game developers, that require users to run as admin *AND* stay connected to the internet (I believe Half-Life 2 requires this, but I'm not sure). This is grossly irresponsible, and Microsoft needs to do more to discourage this practise.
Still, as awkward as it initially was, UAC was a step in the right direction. It was too obtrusive in Vista, so they toned it down in Windows 7. Now, they realize they need to go partway back in the opposite direction again.
I'll give Microsoft credit for trying really hard to fix their past mistakes. However, some third party developers need to be smacked down hard for forcing Microsoft to maintain its past mistakes.
I know I'm late to the party, but I have a question about games that use admin accounts.
First of all, I haven't played Windows games for years, since I've been using a Mac as my primary system since 2005.
My question is this: Is there anything that prevents you from disconnecting from the internet while playing games that require admin rights? I heard Half-Life 2 requires you to be online for DRM authentication, but I don't know about other games.
If these admin-rights requiring games require you to be online while playing, then the tech media need to come down *hard* on these game development shops. By requiring admin rights *and* an internet connection, then they are grossly irresponsible as they're effectively encouraging the continuation of an insecure internet.
Aside from Windows on consumer PCs (which includes gaming PCs), Microsoft's consumer-facing businesses have either lost tons of money or have broken even.
What keeps Microsoft as a going concern is its enterprise customers. Businesses are generally slow to adopt new technology (there are exceptions, of course), and Microsoft has benefited from that fact. With Windows, Office, Exchange, SQLServer, ActiveDirectory, Sharepoint, IE-only intranet applications, not to mention the large number of Windows-only speciality applications, etc, they are firmly entrenched in the enterprise.
However, once somebody offers an affordable, standards-compliance, and possible open-source Exchange + ActiveDirectory alternative to small and medium sized businesses, then Microsoft's enterprise business will start to get chizelled away.
Morality aside, who would give up that much power if they were offered it?
It took Nixon and Watergate for Congress to strip the president and administration of their power the last time such powers were reduced, and 9/11 for Congress to give back that power.
Nothing short of a Congressional revolt similar to what took place during Watergate will force *any* president to give up those powers.
Obama will in all probability be a much better president than Bush, but that doesn't mean that he's going to give up those presidential powers just to win brownie points from the ACLU.
To put my comments in their proper context, it's a good idea to disclose that I'm Canadian.
Having said that, I understand the national security concerns with Obama using a Blackberry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't all Blackberry traffic pass through RIM's servers in Waterloo, Ontario. Given the fact that such information can be intercepted on foreign soil should be worrisome to a U.S. security agency such as the NSA.
Other smartphones don't appear to have that problem. Perhaps the NSA can persuade Obama to get an iPhone instead?:D
Microsoft really isn't a monopoly anymore. It's easy for a home computer user to switch to a Mac or to get a Linux PC from Dell or HP. Also, it's easy for them to download and install OpenOffice.
So how exactly is Microsoft supposed to implement their software rental fantasy?
I'm not Microsoft's biggest fan, not by a longshot, but the EU is just being stupid.
If the EU goes after Microsoft for including a browser, then they must go after Apple for bundling Safari with OS X, KDE for bundling Konqueror, and so forth.
*Any* operating system needs a browser to run. The internet is an indispensable part of any computing experience.
Microsoft is losing its monopoly on consumer operating systems, and has already lost its monopoly on browsers.
The reasoning that the iPhone Nano can't exist is that iPhone apps rely on a certain screen size and resolution.
Well, who says the iPhone Nano won't be a device that lacks the functionality to run custom apps?
There's a great demand by people like me who carry an iPod and cell phone who would rather carry a single device. This device would have simple requirements:
1) Music player 2) View and Edit Contacts 3) View and Edit Calendars 4) No contract 5) No data plan/ voice plan only 6) Sync with iTunes/Addressbook/iCal 7) Calculator and other simple apps
Essentially, it would be an iPod Nano would a phone attached, and it would sell like hotcakes. Apple could charge a premium over other "dumbphones" because it would be an Apple phone. It wouldn't need anymore than simple first party apps. Later on, the iPhone SDK would be updated so that third party developers could port their existing apps to it.
The only reason Apple wouldn't do this is if, despite the flood of volume, it simply wouldn't be profitable enough.
Hey, I'm as much of a Sun fan as they come, but Sun doesn't have any expertise in writing user-friendly GUIs. There's no way they could compete with companies like Microsoft and Apple that have been doing this for decades.
The best that Sun could do is make OpenSolaris as much of a developer workstation OS as they can, in competition with Linux. Still, as much as OpenSolaris has improved, they still have a long way to go to catch up to Linux distros like Ubuntu. Perhaps they could make is a Java developer OS, with a wide array of Java packages in their IPS packaging system.
Vista 64-bit works just fine. Vista can run 32-bit apps on a 64-bit version just fine. I can't recall if I loaded 32-bit drivers, but I believe that userland drivers can be 32-bit.
If this is true, why would Microsoft release 32-bit Windows 7 at all? All new PCs come with 64-bit chips.
From what I understand, Windows 7 is Vista with some GUI improvement, significant performance enhancements, and new features. It's not a rewrite. It doesn't break backward compatibility. It doesn't solve the 32-bit 64-bit dilemma that both Linux and OS X are addressing. It doesn't eliminate the behaviour of configuring user accounts to be admin/root by default. It also doesn't force application developers to break old habits.
It's definitely an improvement over Vista, but Microsoft is bound by backward compatibility requirements to keep shipping OS's that are fundamentally broken and that do not allow for 32-bit apps and drivers to run out of one 64-bit OS.
They missed a golden opportunity to fix these problems to keep their OS relevant in terms of keeping up with OS technology.
I tried Chrome, and while I find it's a refreshing innovation in GUI design for a browser, it has a *long* way to go to match Firefox's features.
Also, it's not yet-cross platform, and from what I understand, it'll take some doing before there's even a Mac version.
There's no browser for me that comes close to Firefox in terms of features. Many will argue that Opera does, and this may be true, but I find the interface a little too alien for my preference.
Also, there's the question of privacy, which Google has a poor track record on. Will Firefox users start to trust Google? I'm not so sure.
I know this is *totally* off-topic, but why should the car companies get an unconditional bailout? They'll just burn through the cash in a few months anyways.
Since people aren't buying new cars anymore, what we need is to use those factories to build things other than cars, like windmills and solar panels.
1) Why is Toshiba doing this? This will make them money either directly (Sun is paying them with either money or services) or indirectly (Toshiba wants to get a better deal from Microsoft).
2) Why is Sun doing this? I think they want to drive adoption of OpenSolaris among the open source developers that would normally use Linux. The low-hanging fruit is probably Java devs like me who would otherwise prefer to use Linux.
The market for developer workstations is not small, even the market for Java developers. Just look at how much of a stink Apple created when they left initially Java 6 off Leopard (now it's available for 64-bit Intel Macs only).
Isn't most software available for Linux available as source code? Oh, yeah, it is, because that software is open source.
Any Linux software written by a semi-competent coder (that doesn't use Linux-specific calls) can easily be ported to Solaris, or any other Unix. Hell, much of it has been ported to Windows and OS X (ex Gimp).
Besides, by ensuring that OpenSolaris runs on laptops, any subsequent updates will make it easier to install on a range of hardware. After all, all the drivers will have to be open source.
Sun and Microsoft are not mortal enemies, but that doesn't mean they're in bed with each other. They're interests seem to coincide in many areas. Sun's strategy is to sell as many of their products, interoperating with as many 3rd party products as possible. That's why they've become a Windows OEM.
Are you seriously going to tell Schwartz that if one of his customers asks for a Windows box running on commodity hardware with a Java stack that he should turn down that business? Get real! Sun has to cooperate with Microsoft to ensure that setup goes smoothly.
So please explain how Sun's cooperation with Microsoft equates to Novell's desperate sellout?
I'm sure Google is trying to work out deals with OEM's to bundle Chrome on Windows PC's. Obviously, they can't do this while the browser still carries the "beta" tag, which is akin to a scarlet letter.
It's interesting they chose to drop out of "beta" before they implemented one of their supposed top features, namely, cross-platform compatibility.
I installed it on my 2nd PC (1st is a Mac). Since I hadn't partitioned my hard drive, I dared to install it over my Ubuntu installation, even though the Live CD didn't detect my ethernet card. It wasn't much of a risk, since I hadn't been using my 2nd PC over the last few months.
Since then, I haven't looked back. I found the driver for my network card on the vendor's site and installed it. It worked right away. After that, I was ready to roll.
I had run the previous version within a VM, and found it to be severely lacking. The newest version is much improved.
The package manager, although not yet perfect, is far more usable. It's possible to add new repositories from the GUI, and the performance is much improved. There's a GUI update manager, so that OS updates install more easily. Compiz runs really smoothly, and it's just generally more stable. I haven't tried Time Slider yet, but I've heard really good things about it. It has the latest version of Java installed, and the JDK and Netbeans are but a few clicks away. Overall, it's just feels snappier and crisper.
Granted, there are still annoying kinks to be worked out. The available packages still pale in comparison to Ubuntu.
Also, the community is pretty good. The opensolaris.com forum has been responsive.
There are no shortages of bottom feeding trial lawyers looking for a meal at Apple's treasury.
Think of the liability, if Apple wasn't cautioning users about security and the steps they should consider, when someone finally cracks OSX, and OSX malware finally breaks into the wild.
Isn't the main problem with Windows security, and thus the spread of viruses on that platform, due to the fact that Windows users run as root by default? Since Mac users must enter their password anytime they or a program attempt to write to system directories, isn't the Mac platform largely safe from viruses?
I'm not bashing Microsoft. If Microsoft could find a way to force all third party software developers to make their programs run from non-admin users, I'm sure they would have made users non-admin by default by now.
Slashdot Mirror
So, all the $$$$$ Apple put into R&D counts for nothing? It took over 5 years for Apple to develop OS X (not counting NextStep), and more time for them to enhance it.
And after all that effort, they should be forced to essentially give it away for $130 and sacrifice their hardware business?
What's "pure, unmitigated bullshit", is the mentality that some people should be force to essentially give away the fruits of their labours.
Disclaimer: My primary home computer is a Mac (which you probably guessed from my sig).
If Pystar wins their lawsuit, it will be terrible for not just Apple, but OS X users too.
Apple is still a small company with limited programming resources. One of the reasons OS X evolved so quickly is that Apple could channel its limited programming and QA resources into improving the features and stability of the operating system, while supporting only a very small limited subset of the available hardware in the PC market.
One of the reasons Microsoft has so many problems is that Windows needs to support every hardware configuration imaginable. If Windows fails to do so, as it did with Vista, Microsoft bears the brunt of the criticism (not the hardware or driver maker), and essentially has to take the lead in solving the problem.
If OS X has to support every hardware imaginable, OS X releases will be delayed further and the end products will no longer be as stable. Look at what support for both Intel and PowerPC did to Leopard, and its associated QA and development process. The end product was not as stable or reliable as quickly as previous OS X releases.
What's more, Apple nearly went bankrupt after licensing Mac OS to third party clone makers. Clone sales undercut Mac sales far more than Apple received licensing fees for Mac OS.
For OS X to continue as a high quality operating system, Pystar must lose.
First of all, Microsoft screwed up initially because DOS and the non-NT versions of Windows didn't implement the concept of a multi-user, networked operating system like Unix and NT did. This means that when the internet took off, Microsoft was selling an operating system for the masses that was not architected to be used securely over the internet.
The consequences were disastrous. Malware, including viruses, warms, trojans, adware and spyware spread like wildfire over Windows systems over the internet. Zombie machines became common. Software was written to require admin privileges to install and run correctly.
By the time Microsoft realized they needed to fix the problem (between XP and XP SP2, depending on how you look at it), there were too many legacy dependencies for Microsoft to switch whole-hog to a Unix style multi-user, restricted user by default system.
Still, they did try to do something about it. They merged NT and 9.x into a single operating system and kernel, namely, Windows XP. It was now possible to create multiple users, including admin and non-admin users. They implement the Run As functionality, to allow non-admin users to temporarily escalate their permissions.
I know Run As mostly worked, because I spent a few hours setting up my dad's XP and Vista computers with regular user accounts. There's the odd program that doesn't run correctly (or at all) as a regular user, but they all run correctly with Run As. I think there was only one program he had that used to run correctly under his old account that didn't work at all under the new setup.
Still, there are third party software developers that perpetuate use of the old system, and force Microsoft to enable admin users by default. Among those are game developers, that require users to run as admin *AND* stay connected to the internet (I believe Half-Life 2 requires this, but I'm not sure). This is grossly irresponsible, and Microsoft needs to do more to discourage this practise.
Still, as awkward as it initially was, UAC was a step in the right direction. It was too obtrusive in Vista, so they toned it down in Windows 7. Now, they realize they need to go partway back in the opposite direction again.
I'll give Microsoft credit for trying really hard to fix their past mistakes. However, some third party developers need to be smacked down hard for forcing Microsoft to maintain its past mistakes.
I know I'm late to the party, but I have a question about games that use admin accounts.
First of all, I haven't played Windows games for years, since I've been using a Mac as my primary system since 2005.
My question is this: Is there anything that prevents you from disconnecting from the internet while playing games that require admin rights? I heard Half-Life 2 requires you to be online for DRM authentication, but I don't know about other games.
If these admin-rights requiring games require you to be online while playing, then the tech media need to come down *hard* on these game development shops. By requiring admin rights *and* an internet connection, then they are grossly irresponsible as they're effectively encouraging the continuation of an insecure internet.
Aside from Windows on consumer PCs (which includes gaming PCs), Microsoft's consumer-facing businesses have either lost tons of money or have broken even.
What keeps Microsoft as a going concern is its enterprise customers. Businesses are generally slow to adopt new technology (there are exceptions, of course), and Microsoft has benefited from that fact. With Windows, Office, Exchange, SQLServer, ActiveDirectory, Sharepoint, IE-only intranet applications, not to mention the large number of Windows-only speciality applications, etc, they are firmly entrenched in the enterprise.
However, once somebody offers an affordable, standards-compliance, and possible open-source Exchange + ActiveDirectory alternative to small and medium sized businesses, then Microsoft's enterprise business will start to get chizelled away.
Morality aside, who would give up that much power if they were offered it?
It took Nixon and Watergate for Congress to strip the president and administration of their power the last time such powers were reduced, and 9/11 for Congress to give back that power.
Nothing short of a Congressional revolt similar to what took place during Watergate will force *any* president to give up those powers.
Obama will in all probability be a much better president than Bush, but that doesn't mean that he's going to give up those presidential powers just to win brownie points from the ACLU.
To put my comments in their proper context, it's a good idea to disclose that I'm Canadian.
Having said that, I understand the national security concerns with Obama using a Blackberry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't all Blackberry traffic pass through RIM's servers in Waterloo, Ontario. Given the fact that such information can be intercepted on foreign soil should be worrisome to a U.S. security agency such as the NSA.
Other smartphones don't appear to have that problem. Perhaps the NSA can persuade Obama to get an iPhone instead? :D
Microsoft really isn't a monopoly anymore. It's easy for a home computer user to switch to a Mac or to get a Linux PC from Dell or HP. Also, it's easy for them to download and install OpenOffice.
So how exactly is Microsoft supposed to implement their software rental fantasy?
I'm not Microsoft's biggest fan, not by a longshot, but the EU is just being stupid.
If the EU goes after Microsoft for including a browser, then they must go after Apple for bundling Safari with OS X, KDE for bundling Konqueror, and so forth.
*Any* operating system needs a browser to run. The internet is an indispensable part of any computing experience.
Microsoft is losing its monopoly on consumer operating systems, and has already lost its monopoly on browsers.
The reasoning that the iPhone Nano can't exist is that iPhone apps rely on a certain screen size and resolution.
Well, who says the iPhone Nano won't be a device that lacks the functionality to run custom apps?
There's a great demand by people like me who carry an iPod and cell phone who would rather carry a single device. This device would have simple requirements:
1) Music player
2) View and Edit Contacts
3) View and Edit Calendars
4) No contract
5) No data plan/ voice plan only
6) Sync with iTunes/Addressbook/iCal
7) Calculator and other simple apps
Essentially, it would be an iPod Nano would a phone attached, and it would sell like hotcakes. Apple could charge a premium over other "dumbphones" because it would be an Apple phone. It wouldn't need anymore than simple first party apps. Later on, the iPhone SDK would be updated so that third party developers could port their existing apps to it.
The only reason Apple wouldn't do this is if, despite the flood of volume, it simply wouldn't be profitable enough.
Desktop market? You must be joking.
Hey, I'm as much of a Sun fan as they come, but Sun doesn't have any expertise in writing user-friendly GUIs. There's no way they could compete with companies like Microsoft and Apple that have been doing this for decades.
The best that Sun could do is make OpenSolaris as much of a developer workstation OS as they can, in competition with Linux. Still, as much as OpenSolaris has improved, they still have a long way to go to catch up to Linux distros like Ubuntu. Perhaps they could make is a Java developer OS, with a wide array of Java packages in their IPS packaging system.
Vista 64-bit works just fine. Vista can run 32-bit apps on a 64-bit version just fine. I can't recall if I loaded 32-bit drivers, but I believe that userland drivers can be 32-bit.
If this is true, why would Microsoft release 32-bit Windows 7 at all? All new PCs come with 64-bit chips.
From what I understand, Windows 7 is Vista with some GUI improvement, significant performance enhancements, and new features. It's not a rewrite. It doesn't break backward compatibility. It doesn't solve the 32-bit 64-bit dilemma that both Linux and OS X are addressing. It doesn't eliminate the behaviour of configuring user accounts to be admin/root by default. It also doesn't force application developers to break old habits.
It's definitely an improvement over Vista, but Microsoft is bound by backward compatibility requirements to keep shipping OS's that are fundamentally broken and that do not allow for 32-bit apps and drivers to run out of one 64-bit OS.
They missed a golden opportunity to fix these problems to keep their OS relevant in terms of keeping up with OS technology.
One thing that's not mentioned anywhere is whether iTunes DRM-free music will be available internationally or only in the U.S.
Does anybody know?
I tried Chrome, and while I find it's a refreshing innovation in GUI design for a browser, it has a *long* way to go to match Firefox's features.
Also, it's not yet-cross platform, and from what I understand, it'll take some doing before there's even a Mac version.
There's no browser for me that comes close to Firefox in terms of features. Many will argue that Opera does, and this may be true, but I find the interface a little too alien for my preference.
Also, there's the question of privacy, which Google has a poor track record on. Will Firefox users start to trust Google? I'm not so sure.
If Apple had any say in the matter, they would sell *all* iTunes content without DRM.
It's not their content, therefore it's not up to them. It's the content owners who decide whether or not iTunes can sell DRM-free content.
In the case of music, only EMI and some independent labels allowed this.
So, are the people at DefectiveByDesign.org obtuse, or are they deliberately obscuring the issue for publicity?
I know this is *totally* off-topic, but why should the car companies get an unconditional bailout? They'll just burn through the cash in a few months anyways.
Since people aren't buying new cars anymore, what we need is to use those factories to build things other than cars, like windmills and solar panels.
Nobody's asking the right questions.
1) Why is Toshiba doing this? This will make them money either directly (Sun is paying them with either money or services) or indirectly (Toshiba wants to get a better deal from Microsoft).
2) Why is Sun doing this? I think they want to drive adoption of OpenSolaris among the open source developers that would normally use Linux. The low-hanging fruit is probably Java devs like me who would otherwise prefer to use Linux.
The market for developer workstations is not small, even the market for Java developers. Just look at how much of a stink Apple created when they left initially Java 6 off Leopard (now it's available for 64-bit Intel Macs only).
Isn't most software available for Linux available as source code? Oh, yeah, it is, because that software is open source.
Any Linux software written by a semi-competent coder (that doesn't use Linux-specific calls) can easily be ported to Solaris, or any other Unix. Hell, much of it has been ported to Windows and OS X (ex Gimp).
Besides, by ensuring that OpenSolaris runs on laptops, any subsequent updates will make it easier to install on a range of hardware. After all, all the drivers will have to be open source.
Sun and Microsoft are not mortal enemies, but that doesn't mean they're in bed with each other. They're interests seem to coincide in many areas. Sun's strategy is to sell as many of their products, interoperating with as many 3rd party products as possible. That's why they've become a Windows OEM.
Are you seriously going to tell Schwartz that if one of his customers asks for a Windows box running on commodity hardware with a Java stack that he should turn down that business? Get real! Sun has to cooperate with Microsoft to ensure that setup goes smoothly.
So please explain how Sun's cooperation with Microsoft equates to Novell's desperate sellout?
I'm sure Google is trying to work out deals with OEM's to bundle Chrome on Windows PC's. Obviously, they can't do this while the browser still carries the "beta" tag, which is akin to a scarlet letter.
It's interesting they chose to drop out of "beta" before they implemented one of their supposed top features, namely, cross-platform compatibility.
Here's a list of new features in the latest release:
http://www.opensolaris.com/learn/features/whats-new/200811/
I installed it on my 2nd PC (1st is a Mac). Since I hadn't partitioned my hard drive, I dared to install it over my Ubuntu installation, even though the Live CD didn't detect my ethernet card. It wasn't much of a risk, since I hadn't been using my 2nd PC over the last few months.
Since then, I haven't looked back. I found the driver for my network card on the vendor's site and installed it. It worked right away. After that, I was ready to roll.
I had run the previous version within a VM, and found it to be severely lacking. The newest version is much improved.
The package manager, although not yet perfect, is far more usable. It's possible to add new repositories from the GUI, and the performance is much improved. There's a GUI update manager, so that OS updates install more easily. Compiz runs really smoothly, and it's just generally more stable. I haven't tried Time Slider yet, but I've heard really good things about it. It has the latest version of Java installed, and the JDK and Netbeans are but a few clicks away. Overall, it's just feels snappier and crisper.
Granted, there are still annoying kinks to be worked out. The available packages still pale in comparison to Ubuntu.
Also, the community is pretty good. The opensolaris.com forum has been responsive.
Somebody on AppleInsider brought up this very interesting point:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1344735&postcount=13
I agree.
There are no shortages of bottom feeding trial lawyers looking for a meal at Apple's treasury.
Think of the liability, if Apple wasn't cautioning users about security and the steps they should consider, when someone finally cracks OSX, and OSX malware finally breaks into the wild.
This is just smart business.
Isn't the main problem with Windows security, and thus the spread of viruses on that platform, due to the fact that Windows users run as root by default? Since Mac users must enter their password anytime they or a program attempt to write to system directories, isn't the Mac platform largely safe from viruses?
I'm not bashing Microsoft. If Microsoft could find a way to force all third party software developers to make their programs run from non-admin users, I'm sure they would have made users non-admin by default by now.