Don't worry, Apple will make sure the boot code is locked down so you won't be able to run your own OS and every software you install has to come from the App Store.
Right.
The computer OEM that has placed a Bootloader in every version of OS X/macOS since DIRT, and specifically publishes and maintains a driver set to optimize performance under WINDOWS, is suddenly going to make it so a Mac only runs macOS???
Laptops with Win 10 ARM run x86 applications about the same as a low end laptop but at mid-range price. Give it another 5 years and they might be in a position to compete.
That's because they run it on Qualcomm or Intel ARM.
Just wait until W10 is running on APPLE's ARM chips...
ARM licenses the instruction set and their implementations of it independently. Apple licenses the instruction set, but their A-series chips are custom implementations of that architecture as far as I know. One of the differences is that the recent A-series chips no longer include support for the 32-bit instruction set –only 64-bit (iOS can't run any 32-bit code any more). This is important because the older 32-bit instruction set had some unpleasant aspects when it came to performance (barrel shifter in the data path, conditional execution bits taking up instruction encoding space, 16 architected registers, etc.; that's just from memory). The 64-bit ARM instruction set is pretty clean (I remember thinking it looked more like MIPS or Alpha when I looked at it briefly), and that helps when you're trying to go fast. Meanwhile, Qualcomm has to continue to support the older 32-bit instruction set (and maybe even the ancient "thumb" stuff) on the same die as the newer 64-bit mode. Intel is in the same boat (only with even more –and even older –baggage).
There's another difference between Apple's processors and the ones on Android phones that goes unnoticed by most. Apple's APIs are all non-blocking / event-driven. Want to run an HTTP server on the same thread as your UI? You can, and it's easy, and it even works pretty well. Android APIs are almost entirely blocking, because of the Java legacy. So, on iOS, you see lots of apps with only a few threads doing most of the work, while on Android, you see dozens of threads, and the work is spread across them. This is why Apple focused early on optimizing single-core performance while Qualcomm was busy adding lots of slower cores to their chips. Both companies were doing the right thing for the platforms they were targeting. But, now that Apple has those highly optimized single cores, and a machine like the big iPad Pro that can dissipate more heat, then can put 4 of those fast cores in there and get some impressive numbers.
Fascinating, and nicely explains why they pitched all the 32 bit Apps and support thereof.
The WOW64 layer of Windows 10 allows x86 code to run on the ARM64 version of Windows 10. x86 emulation works by compiling blocks of x86 instructions into ARM64 instructions with optimizations to improve performance. A service caches these translated blocks of code to reduce the overhead of instruction translation and allow for optimization when the code runs again. The caches are produced for each module so that other apps can make use of them on first launch.
Apple has an ARM "Architecture" License. On of only a few in the world. It allows them to actually CHANGE the ARM instruction set, and design CPU Cores FROM SCRATCH, rather than just piecing standard ARM IP together like most.
What fascinating is that Qualcomm and Samsung, who both ALSO have ARM Architecture licenses, can't produce anything that holds a candle to Apple's native ARM designs.
Could be because very few have as much ARM experience as Apple.
From a business perspective, they have always believed in vertical integration. Using their own CPUs will also leverage their existing investments in A-series CPUs. If ARM Macbooks can sell for the same price as Intel Macbooks, Apple's profits will increase sharply and they will better control their own destiny.
From a user perspective, ARM Macbooks will likely be quieter, lighter and need to be recharged less often. Old software will need to be recompiled, but all major software packages (Office, Adobe stuff, etc) will become available immediately and smaller software houses will have no option but to offer ARM versions of their code. Besides, most things are done in the browser these days.
The only losers will be people who want to dual boot Windows. Maybe Microsoft will rescue them with ARM Windows, but I doubt Apple cares very much.
MS already has an 64 bit ARM Port of Windows 10, and it even provides for x86 Application compatibility through a JIT Compiler scheme.
"The WOW64 layer of Windows 10 allows x86 code to run on the ARM64 version of Windows 10. x86 emulation works by compiling blocks of x86 instructions into ARM64 instructions with optimizations to improve performance. A service caches these translated blocks of code to reduce the overhead of instruction translation and allow for optimization when the code runs again. The caches are produced for each module so that other apps can make use of them on first launch."
So we have... Apple that basically uses slave labor in China to make money... Amazon that abuses warehouse employees... And Google that pays tens of millions to cover ups sexual abuse of employees..
Telling the reset of us how to be morally correct.
" I'm not sure what more people could want them to do on this subject"
Not hide it for years until it was discovered independently, then actually admit that it was about getting people to nuy new phones, not some smoke-and-mirrors story about battery life?
If Apple gave a fuck about battey life, they would. let. you. replace. it.
Um, it wasn't actually "hidden"; just inadequately explained. And it wasn't for YEARS.
Why is this "feature" only included after they release the next model? A battery can't degrade before that, even if charged/discharged 10 times per day?
For what it's worth, I'm definitely not an Apple hater... just someone who experienced what I thought at the time was that the so-called claim that it wouldn't void warranties was just lip service to the consumer protection laws, but when it came down to brass tacks, they could decide rather arbitrarily to discount the warranty if home repairs had actually been done, leaving me with little recourse unless I wished to bring a lawyer into the matter, which would have been even *more* expensive than the work I needed to get done, not to mention time consuming.
Well, as much as I (obviously) like Apple, an experience like that would have left me hopping-mad, too...
As I said, too bad you just walked-away mad, instead of escalating it up the chain, which (as I think we can both agree on at this point) would have most likely had the desired effect.
Well, at least you know NOW not to be mad at Apple, per se, about this anymore. One less piece of emotional baggage; always good for improving your lifespan, LOL!
It's 3M's replacement for halon(aka halon 1301), it's also a HFC, doesn't do as much damage as CFC's, and doesn't cause ozone damage. It's toxic to aquatic life though and is known to cause long-lasting genetic problems in fish. You can read about it here or on 3M's website.
It is a real thing in general contract law, but that isn't going to touch something with specific legislation like DMCA.
More likely, the argument is simply wrong on its claims due to being overly-broad when the statute is actually much narrower. Just because a code is needed doesn't actually make it an access control; many of the ICs in a circuit have to be sent a code during startup, so that the chip can make sure you were trying to start it up before it starts up. And to give you time to get everything ready before telling it to start. Being required at boot doesn't automatically make those things into access controls.
All VERY good points! Thanks for the info!!!
The sad thing is, something like the T2 chip, to ensure a "clean boot", is something that can be used for good, or evil. The "good" uses are the VERY nice thing that RootKits are effectively neutered; since a machine so-compromised will likely not pass the Boot Test. Same thing with many classes of viruses, I think.
But of course, that same capability can be used to effectively lock software to hardware, or to prevent the installation and dual-booting from alternative OSes, such as Linux. But it is very hard for me to believe that the same company that has a built-in Bootloader that the User can Invoke with a Startup Key-Combo (Hold the Alt/Option Key on Startup, until the Boot-Menu appears), a Bootloader that is also there to support BootCamp, as well as things like Booting from a USB Drive, is going to suddenly restrict the "on purpose" installation and booting of an alternative OS.
The Mac is only barely more immune from hacking and malware than Windoze.
That is demonstrably untrue.
But in which direction? [...]
Actually, I'd be willing to stipulate that Macs are far more impervious to malware than a Windows box, REGARDLESS of the above stipulations (all that would make it too easy, right?), with the notable exception that the User cannot have been tricked by Social Engineering into ignoring all warnings and instead, installed a Trojan.
I think we can all agree that NO reasonable OS can guard against a User with sufficient permissions and insufficient smarts. And I will stipulate that macOS is, of course, no exception.
I was talking about the rando "Open this email, get pwned" type of stuff. That STILL happens all too often in the Windows world. I work in that environment every day, and can also read.
Not to be argumentative, and I almost hate to ask it, but do you remember when Apple shipped a production version of macOS where you could gain root by trying to login as root and just provided no password?
I think the argument could be made that macOS is USUALLY more secure, when someone at Apple has not royally cocked up (as they occasionally do,) and left the keys metaphorically hanging from the lock in the highly secure door.
Did anyone hear if Apple fired anyone over that debacle? Im curious.
According to the Google Machine, it was about a year ago, on macOS High Sierra. The bug existed for all of about 24 hours after it was uncovered before being Patched. Obviously, an error in QA; but no sign that it was ever exploited (Thank $Deity)...
And as the article pointed out, it wasn't just that you could login with any random username and just skip the password, there was a particular "procedure" (that, BTW, didn't ALWAYS work!), to trigger the bug. That is also a good possibility why it slipped past testing.
Honestly don't know it anyone got the axe over that; Apple (and likely anyone else in that situation) wouldn't typically say, unless it was something that needed a showing of "a severed head to hold up". But I would imagine that, if not fired outright, that person got called on the carpet pretty severely (as one would hope!), although the fact that it didn't ALWAYS happen may have been a mitigating factor in any punishment that was, or was not, meted-out.
And the fact that it was newsworthy just shows how rare a serious gaffe like that really is.
Or, since those incidents were much smaller scale and helium poisoning is such an unlikely seeming issue for a cellphone, it was just written off as a random failure.
Given how unlikely seeming a problem with helium is, the warnings should be much more prominent at the least.
Possibly.
What I haven't seen is whether the "Helium Poisoning" is FATAL to the MEMS oscillator; or just a temporary issue?
So why would you use anything other than Nitrogen?
Also deep submersibles, which keep high pressure atmosphere have N2 replaced with He because of human physiology (someone more knowledgeable may provide some details).
You must admit that it flies directly in the face of several other posters
I'll have to admit that much, certainly... and honestly, until I started seeing people suggesting that should not have happened, I did not know that my experience was not typical.
I was speaking only from my experience. What baffles is me is why you would think I was lying when I clearly had no reason to.
Sorry. I really DO apologize for my ill-temper.
Too many Slashtards and Apple Haters (and, quite frankly, many of them DO LIE). It just makes one "Trigger Happy" after a while...
It's just a shame you didn't bitch louder at the time; perhaps you would have found some ammunition to hurl at whoever the asshole was that DID LIE TO *YOU*!!!
So, now you can buy that most-excellent new Mac mini, and know that you won't be denied warranty repair if you Upgrade the Memory yourself...;-)
So why would you use anything other than Nitrogen?
Cost, embargo, bean counter pinching pennies. Some components react to high concentrations of inert gases. Remember that inert systems aren't only used in an IT setting, but heavy industry, manufacturing, mining and so on too. Secondary byproducts from the fires can have unintended side effects with an inert gas making it no longer inert. One of the reasons halon was so popular is because it chemically disrupted the ability for a fire to burn. That's why there's a big boom in cabinet only fire suppression systems, and why stuff like NOVEC is becoming a popular choice for cabinet only use.
Not really, these days most of the attacks are on web browsers and the the same ones run on MacOS as on every other system. The only real differences are the level of protection that the OS provides (e.g. sandboxing) and how easy it is to manipulate the UI to confuse the user.
MacOS doesn't seem to be significantly better in these regards. It's had it's fair share of gaffes too, such as allowing Unicode bidirectional markers in file names.
The Mac is only barely more immune from hacking and malware than Windoze.
That is demonstrably untrue.
But in which direction? Are you asserting that the Mac* is no more immune to hackers and malware than a M$ Windows computer, or that it is FAR more? Can you substantiate your claim?
* By "Mac," I think we must agree because of the role the user plays as a sysadmin, that it's pointless because without qualification the word is functionally meaningless, to talk about a Mac generically. For the purposes of this discussion, I think we should limit the meaning of the word "Mac" to mean an Apple, Inc., built, offered for retail sale computer as part of the Mac line, (i.e., iMacs, Trash-Can Mac Pros, Mac Minis, and all variants of MacBook,) running a cleanly (or factory) installed copy of the latest version of macOS, which at any given time is the current version, that the "rootless" feature, or System Integrity Protection is and has always been enabled, that the "Allow apps downloaded from:" security settings has never been set to anything but "App Store" only, that firewall is enabled, that automatic updates is selected, and that all this was so BEFORE it was ever connected to the internet, and has remained so ever since. Therefore, excluded would be any Mac running any previous version of OS X or macOS, any Mac which has any updates that have ever not been immediately applied, any Mac on which any software NOT from Apple has ever been run, any "vintage" Mac that cannot run (or is not running) the latest stable/production release of the OS, and obviously any "Hackintosh" computers. Any Mac connected to the internet BEFORE all the security settings were selected must be excluded, which kind of means that MOST Macs would be excluded, since you'd have to connect yours TO the internet TO download security updates, meaning if you DID need an update right after you bought it... you'd have HAD to connect it to the internet BEFORE it was fully patched and up-to-date... (oops! that can't be counted,) and also any Mac for which you are not the first owner, as you can't prove what happened to it BEFORE you got it, and also any Mac which you've let any other people use under your login, or whom you have provided with their own login account on your machine, who was then allowed to use it (not completely supervised and observed,) by you. So honestly, there really aren't NEARLY as many Mac computers out there to make this comparison with as you might think or expect.
Obviously, any Mac running Bootcamp must also be excluded, at least when NOT booted into macOS.
What if instead of malware, we had MalWear? MalWear is something you can buy at a store (also called MalWear, or something similar,) which stocks war-surplus Independent Browncoats, guns that look like they should go "bang-bang" but instead go "pew-pew" or "zzaouuuu," and of course vaguely futuristic-looking yet simultaneously old-timey western-wear like what Captain Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds wears in the sci-fi/old-west series, "Firefly" (and of course, the film "Serenity"). I wouldn't mind having some of THAT kind of MalWear. I actually toyed with the idea of buying one of the jackets, but... guess I'm not enough of a Browncoat myself, after all. (I was raised on an Alliance world, (Earth that Was,) after all. It kind of spoils you.)
Actually, I'd be willing to stipulate that Macs are far more impervious to malware than a Windows box, REGARDLESS of the above stipulations (all that would make it too easy, right?), with the notable exception that the User cannot have been tricked by Social Engineering into ignoring all warnings and instead, installed a Trojan.
I think we can all agree that NO reasonable OS can guard against a User with sufficient permissions and insufficient smarts. And I will stipulate that macOS is, of course, no exception.
I was talking about the rando "Open this email, get pwned" type of stuff. That STILL happens all too often in the Windows world. I work in that environment every day, and can also read.
Slashdot Mirror
... yeah
Once they switch to their own ARM CPU's they'll totally open all that shit up.
you know, cause they do that so you can run Android on iPhones and iPads....
Like who in the FUCK would want to do THAT?!?
And BTW, Apple is first and foremost a HARDWARE Company; they would likely not even MIND if you did that, as long as you keep buying their HARDWARE.
Check, and Mate!
Don't worry, Apple will make sure the boot code is locked down so you won't be able to run your own OS and every software you install has to come from the App Store.
Right.
The computer OEM that has placed a Bootloader in every version of OS X/macOS since DIRT, and specifically publishes and maintains a driver set to optimize performance under WINDOWS, is suddenly going to make it so a Mac only runs macOS???
Haters gotta Hate.
Slashtard.
The Macbook sucks so much now that it's not even more powerful than an iPad?
I KNEW someone would try to spin it that way.
Stupid fuck.
Yes, since you describe a Windows 3.1 era problem, we can assume you are talking about 680x0 Macs.
And back then, they STILL didn't have those problems...
Laptops with Win 10 ARM run x86 applications about the same as a low end laptop but at mid-range price. Give it another 5 years and they might be in a position to compete.
That's because they run it on Qualcomm or Intel ARM.
Just wait until W10 is running on APPLE's ARM chips...
ARM licenses the instruction set and their implementations of it independently. Apple licenses the instruction set, but their A-series chips are custom implementations of that architecture as far as I know. One of the differences is that the recent A-series chips no longer include support for the 32-bit instruction set –only 64-bit (iOS can't run any 32-bit code any more). This is important because the older 32-bit instruction set had some unpleasant aspects when it came to performance (barrel shifter in the data path, conditional execution bits taking up instruction encoding space, 16 architected registers, etc.; that's just from memory). The 64-bit ARM instruction set is pretty clean (I remember thinking it looked more like MIPS or Alpha when I looked at it briefly), and that helps when you're trying to go fast. Meanwhile, Qualcomm has to continue to support the older 32-bit instruction set (and maybe even the ancient "thumb" stuff) on the same die as the newer 64-bit mode. Intel is in the same boat (only with even more –and even older –baggage).
There's another difference between Apple's processors and the ones on Android phones that goes unnoticed by most. Apple's APIs are all non-blocking / event-driven. Want to run an HTTP server on the same thread as your UI? You can, and it's easy, and it even works pretty well. Android APIs are almost entirely blocking, because of the Java legacy. So, on iOS, you see lots of apps with only a few threads doing most of the work, while on Android, you see dozens of threads, and the work is spread across them. This is why Apple focused early on optimizing single-core performance while Qualcomm was busy adding lots of slower cores to their chips. Both companies were doing the right thing for the platforms they were targeting. But, now that Apple has those highly optimized single cores, and a machine like the big iPad Pro that can dissipate more heat, then can put 4 of those fast cores in there and get some impressive numbers.
Fascinating, and nicely explains why they pitched all the 32 bit Apps and support thereof.
Apple truly DOES Rule ARM!
The WOW64 layer of Windows 10 allows x86 code to run on the ARM64 version of Windows 10. x86 emulation works by compiling blocks of x86 instructions into ARM64 instructions with optimizations to improve performance. A service caches these translated blocks of code to reduce the overhead of instruction translation and allow for optimization when the code runs again. The caches are produced for each module so that other apps can make use of them on first launch.
Apple has an ARM "Architecture" License. On of only a few in the world. It allows them to actually CHANGE the ARM instruction set, and design CPU Cores FROM SCRATCH, rather than just piecing standard ARM IP together like most.
What fascinating is that Qualcomm and Samsung, who both ALSO have ARM Architecture licenses, can't produce anything that holds a candle to Apple's native ARM designs.
Could be because very few have as much ARM experience as Apple.
The MacBook Pro prices are inflated, so the comparison between IPAD and MacBook is not that interesting.
But an ARM CPU on par with the (relatively) high end Intel Core i7!?!?!
This is big news!!!
On ARM, Apple RULES!
Mac on ARM makes a lot of sense for Apple.
From a business perspective, they have always believed in vertical integration. Using their own CPUs will also leverage their existing investments in A-series CPUs. If ARM Macbooks can sell for the same price as Intel Macbooks, Apple's profits will increase sharply and they will better control their own destiny.
From a user perspective, ARM Macbooks will likely be quieter, lighter and need to be recharged less often. Old software will need to be recompiled, but all major software packages (Office, Adobe stuff, etc) will become available immediately and smaller software houses will have no option but to offer ARM versions of their code. Besides, most things are done in the browser these days.
The only losers will be people who want to dual boot Windows. Maybe Microsoft will rescue them with ARM Windows, but I doubt Apple cares very much.
MS already has an 64 bit ARM Port of Windows 10, and it even provides for x86 Application compatibility through a JIT Compiler scheme.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-...
"The WOW64 layer of Windows 10 allows x86 code to run on the ARM64 version of Windows 10. x86 emulation works by compiling blocks of x86 instructions into ARM64 instructions with optimizations to improve performance. A service caches these translated blocks of code to reduce the overhead of instruction translation and allow for optimization when the code runs again. The caches are produced for each module so that other apps can make use of them on first launch."
So we have...
Apple that basically uses slave labor in China to make money...
Amazon that abuses warehouse employees...
And Google that pays tens of millions to cover ups sexual abuse of employees..
Telling the reset of us how to be morally correct.
...and don't forget:
Anonymous Cowards, where the name says it all...
It'd probably avoid a lot of complication to just take that box off the form entirely.
Best Suggestion Yet!
" I'm not sure what more people could want them to do on this subject"
Not hide it for years until it was discovered independently, then actually admit that it was about getting people to nuy new phones, not some smoke-and-mirrors story about battery life?
If Apple gave a fuck about battey life, they would. let. you. replace. it.
Um, it wasn't actually "hidden"; just inadequately explained. And it wasn't for YEARS.
But do the older iOS versions for the older devices even have this feature?
Anything old enough to be incompatible with iOS 12 would never have had the "throttling" feature, anyway.
Problem is, if you have an older device that they don't support the newer OSes on, you don't get the ability to turn the feature off.
Since they support devices back to the iPhone 5s with iOS 12, that isn't really an issue.
Why is this "feature" only included after they release the next model? A battery can't degrade before that, even if charged/discharged 10 times per day?
Pretty much not.
For what it's worth, I'm definitely not an Apple hater... just someone who experienced what I thought at the time was that the so-called claim that it wouldn't void warranties was just lip service to the consumer protection laws, but when it came down to brass tacks, they could decide rather arbitrarily to discount the warranty if home repairs had actually been done, leaving me with little recourse unless I wished to bring a lawyer into the matter, which would have been even *more* expensive than the work I needed to get done, not to mention time consuming.
Well, as much as I (obviously) like Apple, an experience like that would have left me hopping-mad, too...
As I said, too bad you just walked-away mad, instead of escalating it up the chain, which (as I think we can both agree on at this point) would have most likely had the desired effect.
Well, at least you know NOW not to be mad at Apple, per se, about this anymore. One less piece of emotional baggage; always good for improving your lifespan, LOL!
Sorry, never heard of "NOVEC".
It's 3M's replacement for halon(aka halon 1301), it's also a HFC, doesn't do as much damage as CFC's, and doesn't cause ozone damage. It's toxic to aquatic life though and is known to cause long-lasting genetic problems in fish. You can read about it here or on 3M's website.
Thanks! Sounds great, unless you're a fish...
It is a real thing in general contract law, but that isn't going to touch something with specific legislation like DMCA.
More likely, the argument is simply wrong on its claims due to being overly-broad when the statute is actually much narrower. Just because a code is needed doesn't actually make it an access control; many of the ICs in a circuit have to be sent a code during startup, so that the chip can make sure you were trying to start it up before it starts up. And to give you time to get everything ready before telling it to start. Being required at boot doesn't automatically make those things into access controls.
All VERY good points! Thanks for the info!!!
The sad thing is, something like the T2 chip, to ensure a "clean boot", is something that can be used for good, or evil. The "good" uses are the VERY nice thing that RootKits are effectively neutered; since a machine so-compromised will likely not pass the Boot Test. Same thing with many classes of viruses, I think.
But of course, that same capability can be used to effectively lock software to hardware, or to prevent the installation and dual-booting from alternative OSes, such as Linux. But it is very hard for me to believe that the same company that has a built-in Bootloader that the User can Invoke with a Startup Key-Combo (Hold the Alt/Option Key on Startup, until the Boot-Menu appears), a Bootloader that is also there to support BootCamp, as well as things like Booting from a USB Drive, is going to suddenly restrict the "on purpose" installation and booting of an alternative OS.
The Mac is only barely more immune from hacking and malware than Windoze.
That is demonstrably untrue.
But in which direction? [...]
Actually, I'd be willing to stipulate that Macs are far more impervious to malware than a Windows box, REGARDLESS of the above stipulations (all that would make it too easy, right?), with the notable exception that the User cannot have been tricked by Social Engineering into ignoring all warnings and instead, installed a Trojan.
I think we can all agree that NO reasonable OS can guard against a User with sufficient permissions and insufficient smarts. And I will stipulate that macOS is, of course, no exception.
I was talking about the rando "Open this email, get pwned" type of stuff. That STILL happens all too often in the Windows world. I work in that environment every day, and can also read.
Not to be argumentative, and I almost hate to ask it, but do you remember when Apple shipped a production version of macOS where you could gain root by trying to login as root and just provided no password?
I think the argument could be made that macOS is USUALLY more secure, when someone at Apple has not royally cocked up (as they occasionally do,) and left the keys metaphorically hanging from the lock in the highly secure door.
Did anyone hear if Apple fired anyone over that debacle? Im curious.
According to the Google Machine, it was about a year ago, on macOS High Sierra. The bug existed for all of about 24 hours after it was uncovered before being Patched. Obviously, an error in QA; but no sign that it was ever exploited (Thank $Deity)...
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
And as the article pointed out, it wasn't just that you could login with any random username and just skip the password, there was a particular "procedure" (that, BTW, didn't ALWAYS work!), to trigger the bug. That is also a good possibility why it slipped past testing.
Honestly don't know it anyone got the axe over that; Apple (and likely anyone else in that situation) wouldn't typically say, unless it was something that needed a showing of "a severed head to hold up". But I would imagine that, if not fired outright, that person got called on the carpet pretty severely (as one would hope!), although the fact that it didn't ALWAYS happen may have been a mitigating factor in any punishment that was, or was not, meted-out.
And the fact that it was newsworthy just shows how rare a serious gaffe like that really is.
Or, since those incidents were much smaller scale and helium poisoning is such an unlikely seeming issue for a cellphone, it was just written off as a random failure.
Given how unlikely seeming a problem with helium is, the warnings should be much more prominent at the least.
Possibly.
What I haven't seen is whether the "Helium Poisoning" is FATAL to the MEMS oscillator; or just a temporary issue?
So why would you use anything other than Nitrogen?
Also deep submersibles, which keep high pressure atmosphere have N2 replaced with He because of human physiology (someone more knowledgeable may provide some details).
I was talking in fire-suppression systems.
I'll have to admit that much, certainly... and honestly, until I started seeing people suggesting that should not have happened, I did not know that my experience was not typical.
I was speaking only from my experience. What baffles is me is why you would think I was lying when I clearly had no reason to.
Sorry. I really DO apologize for my ill-temper.
Too many Slashtards and Apple Haters (and, quite frankly, many of them DO LIE). It just makes one "Trigger Happy" after a while...
It's just a shame you didn't bitch louder at the time; perhaps you would have found some ammunition to hurl at whoever the asshole was that DID LIE TO *YOU*!!!
So, now you can buy that most-excellent new Mac mini, and know that you won't be denied warranty repair if you Upgrade the Memory yourself... ;-)
So why would you use anything other than Nitrogen?
Cost, embargo, bean counter pinching pennies. Some components react to high concentrations of inert gases. Remember that inert systems aren't only used in an IT setting, but heavy industry, manufacturing, mining and so on too. Secondary byproducts from the fires can have unintended side effects with an inert gas making it no longer inert. One of the reasons halon was so popular is because it chemically disrupted the ability for a fire to burn. That's why there's a big boom in cabinet only fire suppression systems, and why stuff like NOVEC is becoming a popular choice for cabinet only use.
Sorry, never heard of "NOVEC".
Not really, these days most of the attacks are on web browsers and the the same ones run on MacOS as on every other system. The only real differences are the level of protection that the OS provides (e.g. sandboxing) and how easy it is to manipulate the UI to confuse the user.
MacOS doesn't seem to be significantly better in these regards. It's had it's fair share of gaffes too, such as allowing Unicode bidirectional markers in file names.
...and yet?
The Mac is only barely more immune from hacking and malware than Windoze.
That is demonstrably untrue.
But in which direction? Are you asserting that the Mac* is no more immune to hackers and malware than a M$ Windows computer, or that it is FAR more? Can you substantiate your claim?
* By "Mac," I think we must agree because of the role the user plays as a sysadmin, that it's pointless because without qualification the word is functionally meaningless, to talk about a Mac generically. For the purposes of this discussion, I think we should limit the meaning of the word "Mac" to mean an Apple, Inc., built, offered for retail sale computer as part of the Mac line, (i.e., iMacs, Trash-Can Mac Pros, Mac Minis, and all variants of MacBook,) running a cleanly (or factory) installed copy of the latest version of macOS, which at any given time is the current version, that the "rootless" feature, or System Integrity Protection is and has always been enabled, that the "Allow apps downloaded from:" security settings has never been set to anything but "App Store" only, that firewall is enabled, that automatic updates is selected, and that all this was so BEFORE it was ever connected to the internet, and has remained so ever since. Therefore, excluded would be any Mac running any previous version of OS X or macOS, any Mac which has any updates that have ever not been immediately applied, any Mac on which any software NOT from Apple has ever been run, any "vintage" Mac that cannot run (or is not running) the latest stable/production release of the OS, and obviously any "Hackintosh" computers. Any Mac connected to the internet BEFORE all the security settings were selected must be excluded, which kind of means that MOST Macs would be excluded, since you'd have to connect yours TO the internet TO download security updates, meaning if you DID need an update right after you bought it... you'd have HAD to connect it to the internet BEFORE it was fully patched and up-to-date... (oops! that can't be counted,) and also any Mac for which you are not the first owner, as you can't prove what happened to it BEFORE you got it, and also any Mac which you've let any other people use under your login, or whom you have provided with their own login account on your machine, who was then allowed to use it (not completely supervised and observed,) by you. So honestly, there really aren't NEARLY as many Mac computers out there to make this comparison with as you might think or expect.
Obviously, any Mac running Bootcamp must also be excluded, at least when NOT booted into macOS.
What if instead of malware, we had MalWear? MalWear is something you can buy at a store (also called MalWear, or something similar,) which stocks war-surplus Independent Browncoats, guns that look like they should go "bang-bang" but instead go "pew-pew" or "zzaouuuu," and of course vaguely futuristic-looking yet simultaneously old-timey western-wear like what Captain Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds wears in the sci-fi/old-west series, "Firefly" (and of course, the film "Serenity"). I wouldn't mind having some of THAT kind of MalWear. I actually toyed with the idea of buying one of the jackets, but... guess I'm not enough of a Browncoat myself, after all. (I was raised on an Alliance world, (Earth that Was,) after all. It kind of spoils you.)
Actually, I'd be willing to stipulate that Macs are far more impervious to malware than a Windows box, REGARDLESS of the above stipulations (all that would make it too easy, right?), with the notable exception that the User cannot have been tricked by Social Engineering into ignoring all warnings and instead, installed a Trojan.
I think we can all agree that NO reasonable OS can guard against a User with sufficient permissions and insufficient smarts. And I will stipulate that macOS is, of course, no exception.
I was talking about the rando "Open this email, get pwned" type of stuff. That STILL happens all too often in the Windows world. I work in that environment every day, and can also read.