As others have also noted, there is a disconnect in your logic here. If Apple uncovers 25 potential exploits and patches 23, while MS uncovers 50 and patches 20...well, surely you get the picture.
But your logical already fails... You assume Apple patched 92% of their exploits and MS only patched 40% of their exploits.
Where do you base this argument unless you can show me were MS left 60% of any found exploits unpatched...
In fact, find even 50 exploits in XP Post SP2 for the past year...
MS has been very good about patching, and so has Apple...
But go back to MY point... If you had a choice of Boat A) and the captain found 200 holes in it and patched them all and Boat B) where the captain found 50 holes and patched them all, which boat would you assume to be safer?
Both are fully patched, but wouldn't you question the design and safety of the boat that had 200 holes in the first place?
So this is my point, in the last year OSX was boat A, and Windows was boat B...
I wasn't saying neither were unsafe or unpatched, but one HAD to be patched more than the other.
PERIOD.
Now what you suggest... It's harder to exploit because its default behaviors are more secure.
TRUE - the Root abstraction for Users is a better method than what Windows Uses.
* Its overall design harvests security strengths from its UNIX heritage.
FALSE - Having a *nix heritage means little to NOTHING. In fact MS's NT team specifically designed NT NOT like *nix to avoid the shortcoming and security holes of the *nix model from the early 90s.
Go look up Inside Windows NT, or a book called UNIX-HATERS
Unix Doesn't mean anything, there are good and bad Unix implmentations, period.
PS. Windows has a full Unix Subsystem just like it has what you see as Windows the (Win32) subsystem that you can run natively on the NT kernel. Goto MS and lookup UNIX. It is a free download for Win2k, XP, etc.
* Yes, its low installed base makes it a less attractive target.
This is true, this was also true of WIndows NT back when Win3.1 and Win95 were being hit with a lot of viruses. Many orgainizations moved to the NT platform in the early 90s where this was important as the Win3.x and Win9x viruses failed on NT, and it was not a very big target for hackers of the time.
The same is true of OSX. If OSX becomes more successful as NT did by BECOMING the Only form of Windows, then OSX will have the same growing pains. (Remember Security was built into NT from the begining, a robust C2 level of security even.)
* BUT, so does its superior security model. ^(1)
This is not so much a fact... The Root abstraction is a good model, but underlying that, the security descriptors, file system, and underlying security mechanisms are not any more robust. NT for example has a token and client/server process security model - actually fairly advanced.
Also NTFS is more robust than any file system offered by OSX, expecially where integrity and security are concerned. (Truly go read up on NTFS and NT's internal Security handling.)
Aqua is not open source, but OS X as a whole is packed with a lot of open source. The operating system that the window server Aqua runs on, Darwin, is open source
Wow, using your reasoning, Windows would be just as open source or open source friendly as OSX.
Windows uses IPv6, TCP/IP, DNS, and many other open source projects, so this means we love Windows as much as OSX now too then?
Apple is actually 'using' the open source world and giving back very little that is NOT required. The whole GUI that makes OSX, OSX is proprietary, get it yet? Aqua, Adobe 2D Display (PDF), Carbon.
If I was using OSX and only running XWindows on it, then sure it would be a great fully open OS, but then it wouldn't be OSX, it would be BSD/Darwin with XWindows on it.
I might as well run Windows with the *nix subsystem if that was my goal...
Either people know so little about OSX, Open Source, and *nix or they have drank so much of the Apple Marketing Kool-Aid that Macs could hack up their children and we would still have to listen to the same people brag about how well their Mac used a Knife to hack up their children. Then a 200 page debate about how Steve Jobs should be a saint for making more miracle computers and helping the open source world by contribuiting back only the modifications to the TCP Stack from their'iSerial Killer' peripherals.
BTW Anyone really ever work with Jobs or his projects at Apple? Besides being good at marketing, most of his 'innovative' work at Apple were flops. And people look up to him like some god. WTH?
Even OSX, instead of actually bringing something new to the computer world, they slapped a proprietary interface on BSD that they basically ripped off and now I am even running into Mac users that think Steve Jobs invented all the Mach and BSD technologies, and the others are ripping Apple off. Geesh.
Sure Darwin is open source, but OS X is not just Darwin and is just as proprietary as Windows. Indeed with a Mac, Apple ultimately controls both the hardware and software. So this fits into the open source geek mentality exactly how?
Because....
1) Apple has cool ads and one of the best marketing teams in the world.
2) OSX runs UNIX apps natively, which geeks really like.
Oh wait, scratch #2, Windows also runs *nix natively with a complete *nix subsystem.
That's bullshit, and you know it. Are you really saying that Windows runs on more hardware configurations and architectures than any flavor of BSD? Are you really saying that poor, poor Microsoft has to bend over for manufacturers who build crappy products and write bad drivers? Are you really saying that OS X has a monolithic plain-vanilla BSD kernel?
Actually I am saying that... Windows supports more hardware including peripherials than any other OS in history by a very large magnitude.
I was not referring to the base architecture, but the vast amount of not only the hardware it runs on but also has to support reliably.
I have 5 devices in my office alone that have NO support in BSD, and these are not ancient or abstract devices.
Now, address my entire point. MS also has to cater to the LARGEST 3rd party Application support in the world. There are literally 100s of millions of programs written for Windows.
On the software side, this is why you will find that WindowsXP is more stable than even Windows 2000, as it not only has better compatibility for these mass 3rd party applications, but it also has some clever tools built into the OS from multiple DLL isolation, to even catching offending calls from poorly written Applications, and redirecting the call - as to not crash the poorly written application, nor allow it to interfere with another process. For the last example Win2k would just terminate the poorly written application, WindowsXP corrects what it was doing wrong and lets it continue to run.
And BTW this is OS technology that doesn't even exist in other OSes, even BSD.
Everyone needs to get off the MS is crap wagon once and for all.
Sure they have done some suck stuff, but they have also done some remarkable stuff if looked at objectively.
Additionally, even if you find MS's work to be of the devil, it is going to be a part of the consumer markets for a while longer, NO MATTER what.
So it comes down to this, you either A) Support your ideals more than your fellow humankind by using your angst for MS against the Windows market - or B) You actually contribute to making computing better for everyone, even if they are Windows users.
If people here think they can really do better than MS or make Windows better, jump in, there are people that need your help NOW, not in 5 years when there is the possibility of another OS becoming the leader.
Apple updates its OS more, so it must be less reliable?
That was not my suggestion or point.. Mislead much?
If there were not fixes to implement, then Apple would have not implemented. Obviously there were security issues and exploits, or they would have not updated them.
If MS had the number of exploits or security issues that OSX had in the last year, the world would be in chaos with rampant viruses running everywhere.
My point was MS Windows actually had less identified security issues and problems in the last year than even OSX.
Here is an analogy... Boat A had 200 holes, and the crew patched 200 holes. Boat B had 50 holes and the crew patched 50 holes. Which boat would YOU consider safer? This is common sense...
OSX is boat A in the above analogy...
We are just lucky neither boat sank in the last year. Period.
You wasted more time typing up your complaints than if you just copied and pasted (CTRL-C, CTRL-V, 5 seconds?) your examples you claimed to have been posted. Face it, you have an irrational hatred toward Mac OS X and its users. It's alright to dislike something, but it's unacceptable to go out of your way to spread false arguments.
Actually, I'm trying to give some insight to the truth that for some reason is easily overlooked, even in the face of fact.
I posted a couple of examples of both exploits and exploits that were used on OSX. These are fact. Another poster even went as far to list a massive list of exploits and real viruses and thrests that affected both SystemX and OSX on the Mac, even though you will still hear people say that NO Viruses existed for SystemX software and none exist for OSX.
So I gave up... If you want to stick your head in the sand, believe all the marketing hype that is not only misleading but dangerous, go right ahead, I don't have time to convert 'we will love OSX and it is perfect zealots'.
BTW, I use OSX daily, so don't call me a basher, I'm just a bit more realistic than the OSX is perfect crowd.
The huge majority of hacked Windows boxen, are hacked by automated tools though, like viruses or worms
I get what you are saying, but you are missing part of the myth here, especially in regard to Windows.
The majority of infections on Windows PCs are propogated by USER APPROVED actions. So even if the system prompted for a root password, many users would still give the virus access to the system.
(We have demonstrated the user element on Macs as well, and even with the root password prompts, people just type it in and let our demonstration infection take place.)
It has been a long time since a large outbreak of viruses has happened on Windows that has not required user intervention. If you timeline it, you will see that the Windows 2003 Code base that was also brought back to WindowsXP SP2 has been pretty much immune to automated and backdoor exploits. (Actually more immune than even OSX, although Apple quietly patched their exploits before anything ever happened with them.)
The user element is the biggest problem with viruses on any OS, and especially in the Windows world, as MS gave TOO much power to developers and users in the ability to modify the OS... Of course if MS would have tightened down the OS with the security it needed, not only would it have broken more applications, but people would have screamed that microsoft was screwing over this company or that company.
Look at Kaza for example, the amount of control it had on the Windows OS, the level that anything could be launched easily with no safty check. The amount of spyware and viruses from P2P apps like this was staggering.
And even if the users were NOT running as the administrator on the system, these applications would still have had the abiliity to erase the user's files and do a lot of things, that if presentd in the same fashion on OSX would also occur.
MS with SP2 just by flagging and marking applications that were obtained via the Internet and giving the users a secondary prompt about security has helped a lot in this regard, but it didn't stop the user element of virus spreading.
Even Windows Vista will not put users in Administrator mode, and even if given an Admin role will not have full authority of the actual 'administrator' account. (Much like a designated root.)
However, just like on any *nix, OSX, even Vista the Adminstrating users will be able to turn off some of this protection, and the user element will come back into play unless MS decides to lock the users completely from doing any OS level modificatinos to their system, and again people will cry out that MS is censoring or taking control of their computers...
Ummm, NT was designed by David Cutler; a DEC VMS architect.
NT is based on VMS, not UNIX. This has several implications in the basic architecture of the OS including a desire to keep things limited to a few very large virtual memory spaces.
I never said NT was based on *nix whatsoever.
Strangely, you also only see Cutler as having worked with VMS, when he worked with a lot of *nix environments as well. Additionally you are discounting the rest of the entire NT development team at the time, that primarily DID come from the *nix world.
As for NT being derived from *nix I would argue the opposite. Cutler and his team very much had the go ahead to build a *nix framework for Windows at the time, this is why MS held the Xenix license in case that is the direction the NT Team decided to go.
In direct opposition to a *nix based OS and Kernel model, NT was designed to NOT be *nix and be contrained to the inherent shortcomings of the *nix foundations.
Go look this stuff up, read Inside Windows NT, or any other book by the NT engineering team.
This is why NT's kernel is quite different from the simplistic kernels in BSD and Linux today. NT is the first (especially consumer level) kernel design that is not constrained in a monolithic fashion and yet yeild performs near a monolithic kernel level.
It is also the first Client/Server kernel technology, and still leverages this technology today. This means that the User OSes run in subsystems, like Win32 or the *nix subsystem that is shipped by default with Windows 2003 R2.
They are not emulation layers, but because of the kernel design are OSes sitting on top of the NT Kernel independantly. Something no mainstream *nix can yet do...
I appreciate your 'checking' my facts, but at least reference what I WAS saying and not what you thought I was saying. Also do a bit more research on the NT Team and Culter before you just dismiss him and the other designers of NT as VMS only OS architects, when combined time they spent more time working in the *nix world than anywhere else.
Opener isn't a virus. It doesn't selfmultiply... What Opener is, it's a rootkit
Yes it is a rootkit, but you missed the point of how it GOT on the Macs without someone installing it, that is where the problem is, it doesn't matter what rootkit or trojan was being dropped in using the exploit it used.
I give in, you caught me in my evil plan to scare people for no reason what so ever...
I now will admit this out loud - "Macs and specifically OSX are perfect, virus free and always will be."
So all you OSX users, don't worry your pretty little heads, you will NEVER ever get a virus, or ever lose data.
Just open anything you want, give any program password access when it asks, and never even bother with Apple's security updates, they are not needed since they are just busy work to keep their developers happy, since they love the art of coding for a perfect Operating System and a perfect company.
You have found computing and OS Utopia... *Queue Harp Music*
In the last five years, there's been several reports of in-principle exploits, around 5 or so. I.e. someone has theoretically demonstrated a vulnerability, and created a program and shown how it can infect a machine.
But none of these have ever been found "in the wild" and infecting other peoples' machines. None. Not one. That's what we mean.
Because most weren't critical vulnerabilities and there are no exploits. Show me an exploit for a Mac OS X vulnerability. Now, show me one in the wild. Can't? The only thing you have to do to wipe the smug look of a Mac users face is to release an exploit in to the wild.
I actually don't have to do anything that hasn't already been done...
Here is my 2 minute search for a response to your questions specifically.
I don't have time to do more research to help your denial, but I would suggest you actually do a bit of research yourself and see that OSX is no more perfect than any other OS. PERIOD.
Windows is inherently insecure. Hell, in unpatched machines you can even infect it remotely! Their ancient code, silly way of doing things, etc., make it much more vulnerable to all sorts of attacks. OS X is not Windows, it's not anywhere near Windows, and it has much more in common with FreeBSD than anything else.
Ok, you demonstrate you have a good basic knowledge of OSX, but you also demonstate you have little to no understanding of Windows.
Windows is built on Windows NT, a kernel very much like the BSD interface and kernel that is in OSX; however, being a bit more advanced as it is a non-monolithic client/server kernel technology.
What this means is that WIndows (Win32) and Windows NT, the core under what you see as windows are two very different things.
Windows NT is a true commericial scale OS designed by some very brilliant *nix OS engineers in the early 90s. However it was designed with a bit more extensibility and features than other *nix kernel concepts of the time.
This is why the Windows you see (Win32) is actually a subsystem OS running on top of the Windows NT core.
Security in the Win32 area of the OS is typically where you see viruses and secuirty problems in Windows, not in the NT core underneath.
So to contrast OSX as being 'better' because of its BSD variant kernel is showing a great misunderstanding of the kernel technologies in Windows, as WindowsXP is a Win32 Subsystem running on a NT kernel, a kernel that is as highly regarded in the computing world as any other modern kernel technology, even BSD.
Now if you want to see windows as Win95 or Win98 or WinME, that is a different story, they are completely different Operating Systems and do NOT have the NT kernel or core under them and virtually no security.
Why is having the NT core underneath an important issue?
The NT architecture and kernel were designed with security in mind, more so than a lot of *nix variants at the time in the early 90s. NT has a lot of security that any subsystem running on it MUST adhere to, even the Win32(Windows) subsystem that most people see as Windows.
WindowsXP with SP2 is a fairly secure and safe OS, more so than people that have not used Windows in many years would like to believe. (SP2 is technology derived from the security refocusing at MS that was put into Windows 2003 Server - Since XP on the desktop and Windows Server share the same code base.)
OSX has done some things right, and Apple deserves credit for that. Running users out of the Admin/Root area was done very well (even though System9 didn't even have such a distinction).
Windows Vista (with the NT Core) will also bring the root/admin abstraction to the Windows World. MS should had done this with WindowsXP, but instead choose compatibility for older applications.
MS truly isn't stupid about security, nor is Windows. But Windows has to do something OSX doesn't. It has to support a staggering amount of hardware configurations (without conflicts), and a staggering amount of third party software, and then add in that it is the most targeted Operating System for hackers.
Since Windows 2003 Server and XP SP2, MS hasn't done so bad in the perspective of things, truly...
.P.S. You dont even know how computers work do you? what are you doing here? a mac virus that erases the hard drive? Macs dont even run in root 99% of the time!!!
Ok, going to skip over the bloviating crap, and address a few very important issues.
Just because the USER does not run as root by default on OSX, does not mean that an overflow or other type of exploit could not gain access to protected areas and execute at the root level.
Go read the Apple security bulletins, they actually explain this fairly well even for non-tech people.
Secondly, do you realize how easy it is to get a Mac user to type in the root password when installing software, and giving a trojan full access to the system? This is something our security people actually use to demostrate the user element in security to companies.
95% of the time, the average Mac Employee gives the fake virus full control when asked to do so, and we issue the root password request very blatently, when it could be embedded into a series where the users normally expects to give root access to the OS, which increases the % of users that give the virus control of the system at root level.
Thirdly, even if a virus is not running as root, it can still delete everything in your user folders, you know, all the documents you created. This is usally important to users for some strange reason.
As for my knowledge of computers and security, figure that out for yourself...
They would be scanning for OSX Viruses and Trojans...
I can't believe the number of people on here that say 'none' exist for OSX...
Truly do a bit of research on this, and skip the Mac Zealot sites that try to propagate the myth that no Viruses exist for OSX.
This is simply NOT TRUE! From Trojans and Worms that affect OSX directly with even remote exploits, to bundle application exploits (iTunes, Safari, etc) to mainstream applications that run on OSX like Word and Macro Viruses.
Many DO exist for OSX, but when dealing in small numbers there is no rampant infection that takes place. (Even with Windows a mass infection hasn't happened in a long time either, and there are 100s of millions more Windows PCs hooked up to the Internet.)
The people that keep saying that 'no' OSX Viruses exist are living in their own reality, really stupid, or both.
Please do look this stuff up and don't buy into the common Mac/. response that no viruses exist on Macs...
Also as you do a bit of research, notice where security people are critical of Apple, because they delete and censor as much information about users that HAVE been infected by viruses as they can... This also helps to keep the 0 Virus myth alive.
Why? The design of the operating systems makes the risk of infection very low.
The very same words were used for Windows NT during the early 90s. And it was just as true then for Windows NT as it is now for OSX. But as with NT, the Grace period for OSX is about up, it is gaining some popularity again and even if not marketshare, media visibility.
Most viruses of the time were written to target 16bit Windows and DOS, so NT was immune to most viruses.
It however did not mean that it was truly more immune to viruses. Even with all the security inherently built into NT, all it takes is a user to give an application permission to infect it. The same IS true on OSX as well.
So feel more secure, Anti-Virus software for Windows NT really didn't even exist until NT 4.0 and the Internet became popular. It wasn't needed as it was not targeted for viruses.
Now remember Windows NT is the core of Windows 2000 and WindowsXP... And you have seen the security of WindowsNT be circumvented many times in the past few years..
So do you still feel so safe, or will it take popularity or a mass OSX infection to give you a wake up call?
(PS I'm also a good judge of what to run or not run, and that is a key. I have NEVER had a virus or infection of anytype on my Windows PC. And I have been running Windows since the 3.0 and Win386 days. But trust me, this does not mean Windows is virus proof. *wink*)
I also use to caution NT advocates in the early 90s that touted it as being immune to viruses. Even though it was true at the time since the viruses were targeting DOS and 16bit Windows, it was very misleading and a dis-service to users as NT grew in popularity.
Take Care and continue to be cautious, but don't propogate the OSX is safe myth, even if you know what to run yourself, not all users do.
Safer? I guess, except in the past year Apple released more security and exploit fixes for OSX than Microsoft did for WindowsXP...
So again how is it a safer OS if these exploits existed in the first place?
Go stick you head in the sand until the great Mac worm hits that erases everyone's OSX drives. Then maybe people will realize that NO Operating System is completely safe. PERIOD.
Windows gets a lot of press because 95% of the world are using it, and it truly is targeted a bit more. Think about it, if you were going to write a virus to screw with the world, would you spend time finding a way to infect 5% of the world's computers or the other 95%?
Most of the time people will hook up their powerbook to an external display. Thats why you dont see a huge resolution on the lcd built into it. Powerbooks are great lapops, and im sure the new macbooks are just as nice
I'm sure there is 'some' truth to this, but I also work with offices where I see people with ONLY their laptops on their desks as they are not always at their desk, and are used to working with it at work and home, or wherever.
And yes, Graphic Designers are included in this mix, not just people checking their email.
I have a Graphic Designer here with a 1920x1200 17" laptop a lot like mine that has a tiny BlueTooth mouse in his pocket and a Bluetooth Tablet in his laptop case. And uses it from Starbucks and home to his main computer at work.
When you are packing a 'quality' laptop there is NO reason Apple of all people should 'cheapen' the display on the units.
In the past Mac customers have been willing to pay the few extra dollars for the quality, and why Apple screws over their customers instead of delivering the 'latest' technology is mystifying to me...
It would be like BMW coming out with a 2 door 2 cylinder Car cheap parts, no AC, no Radio and then telling the world that is the the best fastest and most feature filled car they ever made. (The sad part of this, if they were Mac Fans instead of BMW enthusiasts, the customers would be nodding their heads and screaming how wonderful BMW was for 'inventing' such a wonderful cool car.)
I don't get it, full-time Apple and Mac users should be more pissed at Apple for some of their latest computer products than anyone. Why aren't Apple customers demanding more? Or are they and Apple is still censoring every Mac Forum they can get their fingers into?
What? I assume you're directly comparing clock speeds here? Even so, I've never seen a 2.66GHz Windows tablet PC, and even if I had I dare say the PowerPC wouldn't be left as far adrift as you'd think, performance wise, since it's a completely different processor architecture.
Ok, I was not just comparing Clock Speeds of the CPU, but Storage, RAM and the Video subsystem.
And PS, quit with the G4 Clock Speed myth, Adobe keeps smacking it down and now even Apple has stopped spreading that lie, sure the PowerPC clock speed performance is not equal, but it still is not near what Apple tried to make people believe it was.
Remember the old Supercomputer ads with the G4 and G5s - where they couldn't even export it without Govt approval? Look at the XBox 360, it has a tri-core 3ghz PowerPC CPU in it that is a generation ahead of the G5. Did the Govt put it on the export supercomputer list also? That was what you call marketing my friend, not real performance... PERIOD.
Also we that also live outside the Mac world, don't go by Clock Speed, we go by actual performance, even though Mac users would like to believe different, oh go look up AMD for example...
No. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work out a lot cheaper, and it certainly wouldn't be anywhere near performance wise. Also there's the chance that things like the touchscreen wouldn't work particularly well through software emulation, thereby completely negating the point of having a tablet.
Actually OSX works fine in PearPC on a tablet PC, of course you don't get full pen support in OSX, but with the product they are selling, they are not offering this anyway.
And performance wise, it would surprise you the relative speed of OSX in PearPC, it works quite well.
Even on my low end laptop with PearPC, I can watch Videos at 30fps and play basic games just fine on OSX, and visually the performace is very comparable to a lower end G4 Mac Laptop.
And truly my biggest point was, WTH, why buy a product that won't even support Apple's Tablet/Pen technologies. You would be better off buying a Windows Tablet PC, even if you were just going to run OSX on it in an emulator. At least you would get real pen support for handwriting recognition and also when out of the OSX emulator, ink support and all the other 'utilities' that truly make a Tablet PC.
-PS this is not a joke, reality is the real joke.;)
Not to tarnish your tin foil hat, but actually this isn't the reason.
Exchange is built around a Windows MAPI standard that was first in Windows 95, so by even supporting Exchange as MS is doing with Entourage, they had to reinvent the wheel for it to work on the Mac. (You see, MAPI is built into the Windows Platform.)
Secondly, look for most users to be migrated to online interfaces for Exchange. The Web Browser Interface for Exchange is almost as good as Outlook itself, and in corporate environments I have seen people move more to the Web Exchange interface than Outlook. (Even if they have Outlook on their computer.)
So take off the tin foil hat, if MS wanted to smash Apple, they truly have many things they could do. And as 'evil' as MS appears to Apple users, they really aren't quite so bad to Apple.
Just like Office for the Mac, if it was about Market Share, MS would be smarter to make Office for Linux and FreeBSD. Period.
Office on the Mac is what gave the Mac credibility in the corporate environment in the first place. If it wasn't for Microsoft and Adobe in the 1980s, the Mac might be a footnote in history.
So give MS their dues and a bit of respect that they are going to keep up their Mac Support of Office.
Microsoft also isn't trying to step on toes, they dropped IE when Apple started supplying their own Safari.
Also don't see MS as trying to hurt Apple with the recent dropping of Media Player, it was very much not MS's choice in the matter. Apple would not give MS developer information so they could implement the DRM and codecs, since Apple would only allow their DRM.
Sad considering MS gives away information to this technology on Windows to anyone that browses their web site, hence MS is more open about their media technologies.
Also this was not a 'look good' move for Apple, as they look more closed and closed minded about only using their DRM and codecs on the Mac platform.
Also a bit ironic, as Apple is big on MPEG4, and the first MPEG4 codecs were developed by Microsoft and basically given away, which both the current MPEG4 and even DIVX are based on.
It looks like the media center standards are going to be wrappd around UPnP technologies. Specifically DHWG UPnP.
In setting up various test and used Media Servers and DVR systems, it all comes back to a standard for the servers and the clients.
Windows Media Center takes a lot of flack being MS, but it works in this senerio for a lot of items, as it uses UPnP.
It is only a start though, as should have been stronger as UPnP was built into WindowsXP from 2001. MS will be adding more UPnP technologies in the upcoming Longhorn Server, as well as the Vista clients will also be more robust even as home media servers.
Not that we will all run to use the MS technologies, but it will push the consumer market as they are the 800lb Gorilla, heck this is what the XBox 360 is using and I already know a lot of 360 owners that are adopting other UPnP and Media Center devices because of this 'little' push already.
Also the Media Extenders that were initially created for Windows Media Center are DHWG UPnP compatible already and are helping to create a device market. (And they don't have to use Windows Media Center PCs, most of them support UPnP streaming from any server, especially the newer models.
There are tons of good UPnP clients and Server technologies and devices out there, check out everything from TwonkyMedia for servers to D-Link for standalone clients.
Maybe someone could do a google and provide a more complete list of compatible server and client products, if so please add to this thread to help people out trying to piece together a good system using MS or non-MS technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
As others have also noted, there is a disconnect in your logic here. If Apple uncovers 25 potential exploits and patches 23, while MS uncovers 50 and patches 20...well, surely you get the picture.
But your logical already fails... You assume Apple patched 92% of their exploits and MS only patched 40% of their exploits.
Where do you base this argument unless you can show me were MS left 60% of any found exploits unpatched...
In fact, find even 50 exploits in XP Post SP2 for the past year...
MS has been very good about patching, and so has Apple...
But go back to MY point... If you had a choice of Boat A) and the captain found 200 holes in it and patched them all and Boat B) where the captain found 50 holes and patched them all, which boat would you assume to be safer?
Both are fully patched, but wouldn't you question the design and safety of the boat that had 200 holes in the first place?
So this is my point, in the last year OSX was boat A, and Windows was boat B...
I wasn't saying neither were unsafe or unpatched, but one HAD to be patched more than the other.
PERIOD.
Now what you suggest...
It's harder to exploit because its default behaviors are more secure.
TRUE - the Root abstraction for Users is a better method than what Windows Uses.
* Its overall design harvests security strengths from its UNIX heritage.
FALSE - Having a *nix heritage means little to NOTHING. In fact MS's NT team specifically designed NT NOT like *nix to avoid the shortcoming and security holes of the *nix model from the early 90s.
Go look up Inside Windows NT, or a book called UNIX-HATERS
Unix Doesn't mean anything, there are good and bad Unix implmentations, period.
PS. Windows has a full Unix Subsystem just like it has what you see as Windows the (Win32) subsystem that you can run natively on the NT kernel. Goto MS and lookup UNIX. It is a free download for Win2k, XP, etc.
* Yes, its low installed base makes it a less attractive target.
This is true, this was also true of WIndows NT back when Win3.1 and Win95 were being hit with a lot of viruses. Many orgainizations moved to the NT platform in the early 90s where this was important as the Win3.x and Win9x viruses failed on NT, and it was not a very big target for hackers of the time.
The same is true of OSX. If OSX becomes more successful as NT did by BECOMING the Only form of Windows, then OSX will have the same growing pains. (Remember Security was built into NT from the begining, a robust C2 level of security even.)
* BUT, so does its superior security model. ^(1)
This is not so much a fact... The Root abstraction is a good model, but underlying that, the security descriptors, file system, and underlying security mechanisms are not any more robust. NT for example has a token and client/server process security model - actually fairly advanced.
Also NTFS is more robust than any file system offered by OSX, expecially where integrity and security are concerned. (Truly go read up on NTFS and NT's internal Security handling.)
Take Care...
Aqua is not open source, but OS X as a whole is packed with a lot of open source. The operating system that the window server Aqua runs on, Darwin, is open source
Wow, using your reasoning, Windows would be just as open source or open source friendly as OSX.
Windows uses IPv6, TCP/IP, DNS, and many other open source projects, so this means we love Windows as much as OSX now too then?
Apple is actually 'using' the open source world and giving back very little that is NOT required. The whole GUI that makes OSX, OSX is proprietary, get it yet? Aqua, Adobe 2D Display (PDF), Carbon.
If I was using OSX and only running XWindows on it, then sure it would be a great fully open OS, but then it wouldn't be OSX, it would be BSD/Darwin with XWindows on it.
I might as well run Windows with the *nix subsystem if that was my goal...
Either people know so little about OSX, Open Source, and *nix or they have drank so much of the Apple Marketing Kool-Aid that Macs could hack up their children and we would still have to listen to the same people brag about how well their Mac used a Knife to hack up their children. Then a 200 page debate about how Steve Jobs should be a saint for making more miracle computers and helping the open source world by contribuiting back only the modifications to the TCP Stack from their'iSerial Killer' peripherals.
BTW Anyone really ever work with Jobs or his projects at Apple? Besides being good at marketing, most of his 'innovative' work at Apple were flops. And people look up to him like some god. WTH?
Even OSX, instead of actually bringing something new to the computer world, they slapped a proprietary interface on BSD that they basically ripped off and now I am even running into Mac users that think Steve Jobs invented all the Mach and BSD technologies, and the others are ripping Apple off. Geesh.
(gag) Oh wait, GAG....
Sure Darwin is open source, but OS X is not just Darwin and is just as proprietary as Windows. Indeed with a Mac, Apple ultimately controls both the hardware and software. So this fits into the open source geek mentality exactly how?
Because....
1) Apple has cool ads and one of the best marketing teams in the world.
2) OSX runs UNIX apps natively, which geeks really like.
Oh wait, scratch #2, Windows also runs *nix natively with a complete *nix subsystem.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sfu
I Guess just #1 then?
That's bullshit, and you know it. Are you really saying that Windows runs on more hardware configurations and architectures than any flavor of BSD? Are you really saying that poor, poor Microsoft has to bend over for manufacturers who build crappy products and write bad drivers? Are you really saying that OS X has a monolithic plain-vanilla BSD kernel?
Actually I am saying that... Windows supports more hardware including peripherials than any other OS in history by a very large magnitude.
I was not referring to the base architecture, but the vast amount of not only the hardware it runs on but also has to support reliably.
I have 5 devices in my office alone that have NO support in BSD, and these are not ancient or abstract devices.
Now, address my entire point. MS also has to cater to the LARGEST 3rd party Application support in the world. There are literally 100s of millions of programs written for Windows.
On the software side, this is why you will find that WindowsXP is more stable than even Windows 2000, as it not only has better compatibility for these mass 3rd party applications, but it also has some clever tools built into the OS from multiple DLL isolation, to even catching offending calls from poorly written Applications, and redirecting the call - as to not crash the poorly written application, nor allow it to interfere with another process. For the last example Win2k would just terminate the poorly written application, WindowsXP corrects what it was doing wrong and lets it continue to run.
And BTW this is OS technology that doesn't even exist in other OSes, even BSD.
Everyone needs to get off the MS is crap wagon once and for all.
Sure they have done some suck stuff, but they have also done some remarkable stuff if looked at objectively.
Additionally, even if you find MS's work to be of the devil, it is going to be a part of the consumer markets for a while longer, NO MATTER what.
So it comes down to this, you either A) Support your ideals more than your fellow humankind by using your angst for MS against the Windows market - or B) You actually contribute to making computing better for everyone, even if they are Windows users.
If people here think they can really do better than MS or make Windows better, jump in, there are people that need your help NOW, not in 5 years when there is the possibility of another OS becoming the leader.
Apple updates its OS more, so it must be less reliable?
That was not my suggestion or point.. Mislead much?
If there were not fixes to implement, then Apple would have not implemented. Obviously there were security issues and exploits, or they would have not updated them.
If MS had the number of exploits or security issues that OSX had in the last year, the world would be in chaos with rampant viruses running everywhere.
My point was MS Windows actually had less identified security issues and problems in the last year than even OSX.
Here is an analogy... Boat A had 200 holes, and the crew patched 200 holes. Boat B had 50 holes and the crew patched 50 holes. Which boat would YOU consider safer? This is common sense...
OSX is boat A in the above analogy...
We are just lucky neither boat sank in the last year. Period.
I submit that your motivation is to engage people in pointless debate. This is widely known as "trolling".
Actually trolling is defined as A) Providing false or unsubstantiated information as fact; or B) Being rude or trying to upset other individuals.
Go look it up...
You wasted more time typing up your complaints than if you just copied and pasted (CTRL-C, CTRL-V, 5 seconds?) your examples you claimed to have been posted. Face it, you have an irrational hatred toward Mac OS X and its users. It's alright to dislike something, but it's unacceptable to go out of your way to spread false arguments.
Actually, I'm trying to give some insight to the truth that for some reason is easily overlooked, even in the face of fact.
I posted a couple of examples of both exploits and exploits that were used on OSX. These are fact. Another poster even went as far to list a massive list of exploits and real viruses and thrests that affected both SystemX and OSX on the Mac, even though you will still hear people say that NO Viruses existed for SystemX software and none exist for OSX.
So I gave up... If you want to stick your head in the sand, believe all the marketing hype that is not only misleading but dangerous, go right ahead, I don't have time to convert 'we will love OSX and it is perfect zealots'.
BTW, I use OSX daily, so don't call me a basher, I'm just a bit more realistic than the OSX is perfect crowd.
The huge majority of hacked Windows boxen, are hacked by automated tools though, like viruses or worms
I get what you are saying, but you are missing part of the myth here, especially in regard to Windows.
The majority of infections on Windows PCs are propogated by USER APPROVED actions. So even if the system prompted for a root password, many users would still give the virus access to the system.
(We have demonstrated the user element on Macs as well, and even with the root password prompts, people just type it in and let our demonstration infection take place.)
It has been a long time since a large outbreak of viruses has happened on Windows that has not required user intervention. If you timeline it, you will see that the Windows 2003 Code base that was also brought back to WindowsXP SP2 has been pretty much immune to automated and backdoor exploits. (Actually more immune than even OSX, although Apple quietly patched their exploits before anything ever happened with them.)
The user element is the biggest problem with viruses on any OS, and especially in the Windows world, as MS gave TOO much power to developers and users in the ability to modify the OS... Of course if MS would have tightened down the OS with the security it needed, not only would it have broken more applications, but people would have screamed that microsoft was screwing over this company or that company.
Look at Kaza for example, the amount of control it had on the Windows OS, the level that anything could be launched easily with no safty check. The amount of spyware and viruses from P2P apps like this was staggering.
And even if the users were NOT running as the administrator on the system, these applications would still have had the abiliity to erase the user's files and do a lot of things, that if presentd in the same fashion on OSX would also occur.
MS with SP2 just by flagging and marking applications that were obtained via the Internet and giving the users a secondary prompt about security has helped a lot in this regard, but it didn't stop the user element of virus spreading.
Even Windows Vista will not put users in Administrator mode, and even if given an Admin role will not have full authority of the actual 'administrator' account. (Much like a designated root.)
However, just like on any *nix, OSX, even Vista the Adminstrating users will be able to turn off some of this protection, and the user element will come back into play unless MS decides to lock the users completely from doing any OS level modificatinos to their system, and again people will cry out that MS is censoring or taking control of their computers...
Security is a tough gig...
Take Care
To which you reply with some sarcastic diatribe making it look like the reply was completely unreasonable and vindictive towards you. WALB...
No I actually provided examples several other times in the post, but like you, the above poster never took time to read them.
Bascially, it was a waste of time because the poster didn't bother to read any other posts, just as you have done.
Ummm, NT was designed by David Cutler; a DEC VMS architect.
NT is based on VMS, not UNIX. This has several implications in the basic architecture of the OS including a desire to keep things limited to a few very large virtual memory spaces.
I never said NT was based on *nix whatsoever.
Strangely, you also only see Cutler as having worked with VMS, when he worked with a lot of *nix environments as well. Additionally you are discounting the rest of the entire NT development team at the time, that primarily DID come from the *nix world.
As for NT being derived from *nix I would argue the opposite. Cutler and his team very much had the go ahead to build a *nix framework for Windows at the time, this is why MS held the Xenix license in case that is the direction the NT Team decided to go.
In direct opposition to a *nix based OS and Kernel model, NT was designed to NOT be *nix and be contrained to the inherent shortcomings of the *nix foundations.
Go look this stuff up, read Inside Windows NT, or any other book by the NT engineering team.
This is why NT's kernel is quite different from the simplistic kernels in BSD and Linux today. NT is the first (especially consumer level) kernel design that is not constrained in a monolithic fashion and yet yeild performs near a monolithic kernel level.
It is also the first Client/Server kernel technology, and still leverages this technology today. This means that the User OSes run in subsystems, like Win32 or the *nix subsystem that is shipped by default with Windows 2003 R2.
They are not emulation layers, but because of the kernel design are OSes sitting on top of the NT Kernel independantly. Something no mainstream *nix can yet do...
I appreciate your 'checking' my facts, but at least reference what I WAS saying and not what you thought I was saying. Also do a bit more research on the NT Team and Culter before you just dismiss him and the other designers of NT as VMS only OS architects, when combined time they spent more time working in the *nix world than anywhere else.
Opener isn't a virus. It doesn't selfmultiply... What Opener is, it's a rootkit
Yes it is a rootkit, but you missed the point of how it GOT on the Macs without someone installing it, that is where the problem is, it doesn't matter what rootkit or trojan was being dropped in using the exploit it used.
Get it?
I give in, you caught me in my evil plan to scare people for no reason what so ever...
I now will admit this out loud - "Macs and specifically OSX are perfect, virus free and always will be."
So all you OSX users, don't worry your pretty little heads, you will NEVER ever get a virus, or ever lose data.
Just open anything you want, give any program password access when it asks, and never even bother with Apple's security updates, they are not needed since they are just busy work to keep their developers happy, since they love the art of coding for a perfect Operating System and a perfect company.
You have found computing and OS Utopia... *Queue Harp Music*
A bit more? What are you smoking?
Apparently not the good stuff... *smile*
Uh, buddy, you're making stuff up.
3 75,39155837,00.htm
In the last five years, there's been several reports of in-principle exploits, around 5 or so. I.e. someone has theoretically demonstrated a vulnerability, and created a program and shown how it can infect a machine.
But none of these have ever been found "in the wild" and infecting other peoples' machines. None. Not one. That's what we mean.
Really, none uh?
In Wild, known Infections:
http://www.macintouch.com/opener.html
Exploit, unknown level of infections:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020
Thanks for the intellectual response, it is what I would expect from an 'informed' user like yourself.
Next time you juggle the 'reality or belief' concept, don't give in to what you want, but try facts instead.
Because most weren't critical vulnerabilities and there are no exploits. Show me an exploit for a Mac OS X vulnerability. Now, show me one in the wild. Can't? The only thing you have to do to wipe the smug look of a Mac users face is to release an exploit in to the wild.
a g=zdfd.newsfeed
3 75,39155837,00.htm
I actually don't have to do anything that hasn't already been done...
Here is my 2 minute search for a response to your questions specifically.
Proof of concept exploit:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5189335.html?t
Exploit, infections from not known:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020
In Wild exploit, known infections:
http://www.macintouch.com/opener.html
I don't have time to do more research to help your denial, but I would suggest you actually do a bit of research yourself and see that OSX is no more perfect than any other OS. PERIOD.
Windows is inherently insecure. Hell, in unpatched machines you can even infect it remotely! Their ancient code, silly way of doing things, etc., make it much more vulnerable to all sorts of attacks. OS X is not Windows, it's not anywhere near Windows, and it has much more in common with FreeBSD than anything else.
Ok, you demonstrate you have a good basic knowledge of OSX, but you also demonstate you have little to no understanding of Windows.
Windows is built on Windows NT, a kernel very much like the BSD interface and kernel that is in OSX; however, being a bit more advanced as it is a non-monolithic client/server kernel technology.
What this means is that WIndows (Win32) and Windows NT, the core under what you see as windows are two very different things.
Windows NT is a true commericial scale OS designed by some very brilliant *nix OS engineers in the early 90s. However it was designed with a bit more extensibility and features than other *nix kernel concepts of the time.
This is why the Windows you see (Win32) is actually a subsystem OS running on top of the Windows NT core.
Security in the Win32 area of the OS is typically where you see viruses and secuirty problems in Windows, not in the NT core underneath.
So to contrast OSX as being 'better' because of its BSD variant kernel is showing a great misunderstanding of the kernel technologies in Windows, as WindowsXP is a Win32 Subsystem running on a NT kernel, a kernel that is as highly regarded in the computing world as any other modern kernel technology, even BSD.
Now if you want to see windows as Win95 or Win98 or WinME, that is a different story, they are completely different Operating Systems and do NOT have the NT kernel or core under them and virtually no security.
Why is having the NT core underneath an important issue?
The NT architecture and kernel were designed with security in mind, more so than a lot of *nix variants at the time in the early 90s. NT has a lot of security that any subsystem running on it MUST adhere to, even the Win32(Windows) subsystem that most people see as Windows.
WindowsXP with SP2 is a fairly secure and safe OS, more so than people that have not used Windows in many years would like to believe. (SP2 is technology derived from the security refocusing at MS that was put into Windows 2003 Server - Since XP on the desktop and Windows Server share the same code base.)
OSX has done some things right, and Apple deserves credit for that. Running users out of the Admin/Root area was done very well (even though System9 didn't even have such a distinction).
Windows Vista (with the NT Core) will also bring the root/admin abstraction to the Windows World. MS should had done this with WindowsXP, but instead choose compatibility for older applications.
MS truly isn't stupid about security, nor is Windows. But Windows has to do something OSX doesn't. It has to support a staggering amount of hardware configurations (without conflicts), and a staggering amount of third party software, and then add in that it is the most targeted Operating System for hackers.
Since Windows 2003 Server and XP SP2, MS hasn't done so bad in the perspective of things, truly...
.P.S. You dont even know how computers work do you? what are you doing here? a mac virus that erases the hard drive? Macs dont even run in root 99% of the time!!!
Ok, going to skip over the bloviating crap, and address a few very important issues.
Just because the USER does not run as root by default on OSX, does not mean that an overflow or other type of exploit could not gain access to protected areas and execute at the root level.
Go read the Apple security bulletins, they actually explain this fairly well even for non-tech people.
Secondly, do you realize how easy it is to get a Mac user to type in the root password when installing software, and giving a trojan full access to the system? This is something our security people actually use to demostrate the user element in security to companies.
95% of the time, the average Mac Employee gives the fake virus full control when asked to do so, and we issue the root password request very blatently, when it could be embedded into a series where the users normally expects to give root access to the OS, which increases the % of users that give the virus control of the system at root level.
Thirdly, even if a virus is not running as root, it can still delete everything in your user folders, you know, all the documents you created. This is usally important to users for some strange reason.
As for my knowledge of computers and security, figure that out for yourself...
, but what virus are they scanning for?
/. response that no viruses exist on Macs...
They would be scanning for OSX Viruses and Trojans...
I can't believe the number of people on here that say 'none' exist for OSX...
Truly do a bit of research on this, and skip the Mac Zealot sites that try to propagate the myth that no Viruses exist for OSX.
This is simply NOT TRUE! From Trojans and Worms that affect OSX directly with even remote exploits, to bundle application exploits (iTunes, Safari, etc) to mainstream applications that run on OSX like Word and Macro Viruses.
Many DO exist for OSX, but when dealing in small numbers there is no rampant infection that takes place. (Even with Windows a mass infection hasn't happened in a long time either, and there are 100s of millions more Windows PCs hooked up to the Internet.)
The people that keep saying that 'no' OSX Viruses exist are living in their own reality, really stupid, or both.
Please do look this stuff up and don't buy into the common Mac
Also as you do a bit of research, notice where security people are critical of Apple, because they delete and censor as much information about users that HAVE been infected by viruses as they can... This also helps to keep the 0 Virus myth alive.
Take Care
Why? The design of the operating systems makes the risk of infection very low.
The very same words were used for Windows NT during the early 90s. And it was just as true then for Windows NT as it is now for OSX. But as with NT, the Grace period for OSX is about up, it is gaining some popularity again and even if not marketshare, media visibility.
Most viruses of the time were written to target 16bit Windows and DOS, so NT was immune to most viruses.
It however did not mean that it was truly more immune to viruses. Even with all the security inherently built into NT, all it takes is a user to give an application permission to infect it. The same IS true on OSX as well.
So feel more secure, Anti-Virus software for Windows NT really didn't even exist until NT 4.0 and the Internet became popular. It wasn't needed as it was not targeted for viruses.
Now remember Windows NT is the core of Windows 2000 and WindowsXP... And you have seen the security of WindowsNT be circumvented many times in the past few years..
So do you still feel so safe, or will it take popularity or a mass OSX infection to give you a wake up call?
(PS I'm also a good judge of what to run or not run, and that is a key. I have NEVER had a virus or infection of anytype on my Windows PC. And I have been running Windows since the 3.0 and Win386 days. But trust me, this does not mean Windows is virus proof. *wink*)
I also use to caution NT advocates in the early 90s that touted it as being immune to viruses. Even though it was true at the time since the viruses were targeting DOS and 16bit Windows, it was very misleading and a dis-service to users as NT grew in popularity.
Take Care and continue to be cautious, but don't propogate the OSX is safe myth, even if you know what to run yourself, not all users do.
"safer" OS
Safer? I guess, except in the past year Apple released more security and exploit fixes for OSX than Microsoft did for WindowsXP...
So again how is it a safer OS if these exploits existed in the first place?
Go stick you head in the sand until the great Mac worm hits that erases everyone's OSX drives. Then maybe people will realize that NO Operating System is completely safe. PERIOD.
Windows gets a lot of press because 95% of the world are using it, and it truly is targeted a bit more. Think about it, if you were going to write a virus to screw with the world, would you spend time finding a way to infect 5% of the world's computers or the other 95%?
Most of the time people will hook up their powerbook to an external display. Thats why you dont see a huge resolution on the lcd built into it. Powerbooks are great lapops, and im sure the new macbooks are just as nice
I'm sure there is 'some' truth to this, but I also work with offices where I see people with ONLY their laptops on their desks as they are not always at their desk, and are used to working with it at work and home, or wherever.
And yes, Graphic Designers are included in this mix, not just people checking their email.
I have a Graphic Designer here with a 1920x1200 17" laptop a lot like mine that has a tiny BlueTooth mouse in his pocket and a Bluetooth Tablet in his laptop case. And uses it from Starbucks and home to his main computer at work.
When you are packing a 'quality' laptop there is NO reason Apple of all people should 'cheapen' the display on the units.
In the past Mac customers have been willing to pay the few extra dollars for the quality, and why Apple screws over their customers instead of delivering the 'latest' technology is mystifying to me...
It would be like BMW coming out with a 2 door 2 cylinder Car cheap parts, no AC, no Radio and then telling the world that is the the best fastest and most feature filled car they ever made. (The sad part of this, if they were Mac Fans instead of BMW enthusiasts, the customers would be nodding their heads and screaming how wonderful BMW was for 'inventing' such a wonderful cool car.)
I don't get it, full-time Apple and Mac users should be more pissed at Apple for some of their latest computer products than anyone. Why aren't Apple customers demanding more? Or are they and Apple is still censoring every Mac Forum they can get their fingers into?
It just don't make sense...
What? I assume you're directly comparing clock speeds here? Even so, I've never seen a 2.66GHz Windows tablet PC, and even if I had I dare say the PowerPC wouldn't be left as far adrift as you'd think, performance wise, since it's a completely different processor architecture.
;)
Ok, I was not just comparing Clock Speeds of the CPU, but Storage, RAM and the Video subsystem.
And PS, quit with the G4 Clock Speed myth, Adobe keeps smacking it down and now even Apple has stopped spreading that lie, sure the PowerPC clock speed performance is not equal, but it still is not near what Apple tried to make people believe it was.
Remember the old Supercomputer ads with the G4 and G5s - where they couldn't even export it without Govt approval? Look at the XBox 360, it has a tri-core 3ghz PowerPC CPU in it that is a generation ahead of the G5. Did the Govt put it on the export supercomputer list also? That was what you call marketing my friend, not real performance... PERIOD.
Also we that also live outside the Mac world, don't go by Clock Speed, we go by actual performance, even though Mac users would like to believe different, oh go look up AMD for example...
No. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work out a lot cheaper, and it certainly wouldn't be anywhere near performance wise. Also there's the chance that things like the touchscreen wouldn't work particularly well through software emulation, thereby completely negating the point of having a tablet.
Actually OSX works fine in PearPC on a tablet PC, of course you don't get full pen support in OSX, but with the product they are selling, they are not offering this anyway.
And performance wise, it would surprise you the relative speed of OSX in PearPC, it works quite well.
Even on my low end laptop with PearPC, I can watch Videos at 30fps and play basic games just fine on OSX, and visually the performace is very comparable to a lower end G4 Mac Laptop.
And truly my biggest point was, WTH, why buy a product that won't even support Apple's Tablet/Pen technologies. You would be better off buying a Windows Tablet PC, even if you were just going to run OSX on it in an emulator. At least you would get real pen support for handwriting recognition and also when out of the OSX emulator, ink support and all the other 'utilities' that truly make a Tablet PC.
-PS this is not a joke, reality is the real joke.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
Not to tarnish your tin foil hat, but actually this isn't the reason.
Exchange is built around a Windows MAPI standard that was first in Windows 95, so by even supporting Exchange as MS is doing with Entourage, they had to reinvent the wheel for it to work on the Mac. (You see, MAPI is built into the Windows Platform.)
Secondly, look for most users to be migrated to online interfaces for Exchange. The Web Browser Interface for Exchange is almost as good as Outlook itself, and in corporate environments I have seen people move more to the Web Exchange interface than Outlook. (Even if they have Outlook on their computer.)
So take off the tin foil hat, if MS wanted to smash Apple, they truly have many things they could do. And as 'evil' as MS appears to Apple users, they really aren't quite so bad to Apple.
Just like Office for the Mac, if it was about Market Share, MS would be smarter to make Office for Linux and FreeBSD. Period.
Office on the Mac is what gave the Mac credibility in the corporate environment in the first place. If it wasn't for Microsoft and Adobe in the 1980s, the Mac might be a footnote in history.
So give MS their dues and a bit of respect that they are going to keep up their Mac Support of Office.
Microsoft also isn't trying to step on toes, they dropped IE when Apple started supplying their own Safari.
Also don't see MS as trying to hurt Apple with the recent dropping of Media Player, it was very much not MS's choice in the matter. Apple would not give MS developer information so they could implement the DRM and codecs, since Apple would only allow their DRM.
Sad considering MS gives away information to this technology on Windows to anyone that browses their web site, hence MS is more open about their media technologies.
Also this was not a 'look good' move for Apple, as they look more closed and closed minded about only using their DRM and codecs on the Mac platform.
Also a bit ironic, as Apple is big on MPEG4, and the first MPEG4 codecs were developed by Microsoft and basically given away, which both the current MPEG4 and even DIVX are based on.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
It looks like the media center standards are going to be wrappd around UPnP technologies. Specifically DHWG UPnP.
In setting up various test and used Media Servers and DVR systems, it all comes back to a standard for the servers and the clients.
Windows Media Center takes a lot of flack being MS, but it works in this senerio for a lot of items, as it uses UPnP.
It is only a start though, as should have been stronger as UPnP was built into WindowsXP from 2001. MS will be adding more UPnP technologies in the upcoming Longhorn Server, as well as the Vista clients will also be more robust even as home media servers.
Not that we will all run to use the MS technologies, but it will push the consumer market as they are the 800lb Gorilla, heck this is what the XBox 360 is using and I already know a lot of 360 owners that are adopting other UPnP and Media Center devices because of this 'little' push already.
Also the Media Extenders that were initially created for Windows Media Center are DHWG UPnP compatible already and are helping to create a device market. (And they don't have to use Windows Media Center PCs, most of them support UPnP streaming from any server, especially the newer models.
There are tons of good UPnP clients and Server technologies and devices out there, check out everything from TwonkyMedia for servers to D-Link for standalone clients.
Maybe someone could do a google and provide a more complete list of compatible server and client products, if so please add to this thread to help people out trying to piece together a good system using MS or non-MS technologies.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
That is a pretty impressive configuration for a tablet PC.
Ya, wow, it is almost half as fast as last years models of Windows Tablet PCs...
Has the world gone mad?
Ok, would it not be smarter to just buy a Windows Tablet PC, and run PearPC on it? (Sure you have to buy a copy of OSX).
This has to be a con or joke, I can't believe this is a real product.