Exactly! I cannot understand why especially the technical people here on/. are so enamored of what hardware runs a computer! Who the h*** CARES!? All those stupid debates on RISC vs CISC etc.
It is the SOFTWARE that makes a computer what it is! If OSX runs better on Intel, that's great. Someday there may be OPTICAL rather than electronic hardware that will run at the equivalent of ten-thousand gighertz. Apple is very good at switching hardware -- this will be the third time they've done it now. I suspect though that their OSX and its software won't run on generic x86 no-name or Dell boxes. The CPU is only one aspect of a computer system's design. MS may even come out with a secure version of Windows to run on the new Mac boxes.
What difference does it make these days what kind of hardware runs a computer? Repeat this 100 times: It is the SOFTWARE that makes a computer what it is!
It is the insecurity and bug-infestedness of Windows crap from MS that causes the immense headaches for the average PC user, whether there is an Intel or AMD chip at the heart of the hardware.
What reason is there for software makers not to be able to write software, that can run on *any* chip? Its been done before, by Apple even. I still have a program or two that work on a 68000 and on a PowerPC under OSX 104.4. Why can't Apple and the developers do that again? Most of the popular Mac programs are also on Wintel boxes already! I suspect though that Apples with Intel inside will still be special designs and that cheap white box PC will not run OSX. The big loser in this will be MS.
....I've managed to run NT systems as a regular user day to day...
Yes, and so have I. But neither of us are like the clueless Joe who goes down to Costco or orders a Dell and then doesn't know much more. It is their computers that get messed up shortly after they connect it to their DSL or cable. When they buy and install some software, they expect it to "just work" (tm). They don't have the skill you and I have to implement the possible "workarounds" that would allow a particular piece of software to properly run under a limited user account. In order to avoid a lot of static from such clueless users, MS and the PC manufacturuers make everyone an admin by default. That means that any malware can later deeply imbed itself in the poor users system. From there the malware propagates to other such users and sends spam and DDOS attacks all over the Internet.
....."single points of failure" that exist in every OS....
There is NO place in the Mac OS system that needs to be writeable to every Tom-Dick and Harry application program that comes along and if that app is malicious or has a severe bug, renders the computer unbootable. Mac OS system files are read only, even to the administrator user. A Mac admin does not automatically run as root. In fact, root is disabled by default and 90% of Mac users never enable the root account. If any program suddenly asks for an admin password, that raises a VERY RED flag for most Mac users. Around here the users don't even know that password since I don't give it out.
I have never been able to ascertain WHY the computers would no longer boot. It was seldom hardware but a Windows crash. Often there was some obtuse error message about the registry, and then the BSOD, but not always. Sometimes the system was just totally dead, not even a BSOD. Usually I WAS able to get the users files saved by using a special boot CD or floppy that allowed copying to the network server. Then it was "wipe and re-install" time.
MS actually has quite a bit of clout over their developers, but the USERS have the ultimate clout. If the users would bitch loudly and insistently and/or not buy programs that refuse to run under a limited account, Windows could be much more secure, without users having to buy and keep up with all sorts of anti-malware protections.
...you also need to compare how often they cycle out of service to get an accurate installed base....
We still use a 1992 Color Classic running 24/7 as an answering/fax machine and to control X-10 modules. It is connected to our local network, but does not access the Internet. I suppose it it still part of that installed base?
Most Mac users will have learned long ago to configure their browser to pretend to be Internet Explorer.
Indeed, I do that much of the time. Since Mac users tend to be the creative type, they will likely not waste as much time browsing the web a lot. E-mail is still a bigger Internet application than the Web. I'd be more likely to believe e-mail statistics because everybody uses e-mail. Some sites do respond differently to Macs and may even SAY they don't service Macs, but work just fine when lied to by being told they are connected to a Windows box.
...so few of those Macs are actually used on the internet?...
I know some Mac owners who only use the Internet for e-mail. They seldom, if ever surf websites. Many Mac users use their computers for creative purposes more than their Wintel conterparts that don't neccessarily involve web browsing. There are still a number of websited that don't work with Macs, or at least SAY that they don't. I routinely set Safari to lie and tell websites that Windows Explorer is requesting the data. There are a number of sites that respond differently when they think they are being accessed by Windows or Macs. I have come across some that flat out tell me that they don't work correctly with a Mac. However when I set Safari to lie to those sites they often work just fine.
With my Mac set to lie like that, your program would count me in the Windows camp erroneously. Web browsing is NOT the largest use of the Internet. E-mail, FTP, Peer-to-peer, newsgroups, VOIP, and instant messaging all fall outside of the scope of web-visits your and everyone else's web statistcs gathering programs take note of.
...or just on an Intel chip?... Everybody, including the article writers seems to automatically conclude that this Intel thing is about the Mac and its future. Apple may be thinking of an entirely new entertainment device. I order for this to be inexpensive, they could make a deal with Intel to make all the chips for this new thing. Who is making the processor for the iPods, for example? How about a special purpose box that does all their iLife stuff and also Tivo like video in connection with their iTunes video service? It could even be a special peripheral device that works with existing Macs. The smart guys at Apple have a habit of thinking outside the box and may surprise us all.
...Of course they will wait until the majority of computers are based on the new hardware...
Humans are singularly bad at predicting the future. Who knows what kind of technology will be popular ten years from now? How about a "universal" computer that can execute any and all binary code ever created? A chip or chip-sets that reconfigure themselves intelligently or run any number of binaries concurrently? I think freely programmable, unencumbered systems will always be in demand and therefore available. The big, powerful corporations may buy enough legislators to get some laws passed in their favor, just like certain groups got prohibition passed. In the end though, if there is a demand it will always be met, whether legal, or like drugs, illegal.
....What will happen to the Gentoo distribution....
When hardware is powerful enough, emulation will not impact the performance of most applications. A system will have whatever number of emulators on it that are needed or download them from the Internet on the fly. ALL binaries ever compiled that have ever run on *any* hardware, anywhere, will run and perform whatever function was performed on the hardware they were originally written for. The system will be "intelligent" enough to figure out which of the many emulators to load the desired software into. The emulation may be in the form of automatically configurable instruction set processors that directly execute the binary instructions of whatever software is running at that moment.
There is no reason why all flavors of Windows, every Mac OS Apple has ever come out with, all could not run simultaneously on such hardware. There might be problems with certain peripherals if no translaters exist for peripherals that happen to be connected to a particular system. All those old Apple2 and Commodore64 programs will run flawlessly. Some of that is already happening today.
I can run DOS, Win3.11, Win95, Win98, Win2K WinXP, Linux, Mac-OS9 and most of their respective apps, all under OSX on my Mac, all at the same time, switching between each of their windows. XP and Win2k performance is still somehat slow, when compared to my real Wintel boxes, but in ten years, I expect that to be no longer the case with whatever hardware will be current then.
...password encrypted zip files and execute the contents...
If the user knows the administrator password and gives it, then they deserve what they get. However here at our house, only I have that admin password and the other household members have to call me in order to install or execute a program that is not already properly installed on our Macs. This would apply in most business establishments in that a more knowledgeable admin. person might prevent clueless users from screwing up their computers. If this could be done on MS systems, it would dramtically cut down on zombiefied, malware infested computers. Unfortunately, many Windows programs fail if the user is not an adminsistrator. This may not be the fault of MS, but that is the sad truth of the way things are in the Windows world.
...The problem is the *applications*, not the OS...
Well I don't know about you, but most people I know buy their computer to do real work running real application programs. It seems that Mac users are much less tolerant of crap software than their Windows counterparts. If I bought a program for my Mac that requires me to run as an admin for everyday use, I'd angrily demand my money back and so would almost all Mac users. MS has managed to condition most Windows users to accept such crapware as "normal". MS users could force these lazy developers to stop putting out crapware that needs admin access by not buying such apps.
If every user user has admin access to the entire computer, it is in effect a SINGLE USER system, no matter how many "accounts" are installed. The OLD Mac OS9 had a "multi-user" feature, but it too was in EFFECT a single user system.
If MS does change the default to "power user" as you suggest, they'd better be prepared for a lot of angry users, whose programs no longer work. They know this, so don't hold your breath thinking that their new OS next year will be significantly more secure than what is out there now. In a way, MS is between a rock and a hard place because of their huge base of users who'd be affected negatively by such a change. As for the registry, I still don't know why they built in such a single point of failure into their OS. I can't even count the number of re-installations of the OS I've done because some errant software hosed the registry to the point that the system would no longer boot, no matter what I tried.
...Would you be able to run Windows on an Intel Mac?...
I can run Windows on my PPC Mac, with virtual PC using emulation. Windows uses OSX services for all I/O and works reasonably well for most programs that are not very CPU intensive.
Running Windows on an Intel x86 Mac would be easier, since there is no or only a little emulation needed. Apple would not prevent that but encourage that, since Apple makes most of their $$$ on the hardware.
....Think of it as a JIT for processor emulation....
The "soul" of a computer is in its software, not hardware. Its the OSX, its security and elegance that makes Apple computers better than the Windows systems. Their hardware of course is also very well made. If the hardware is powerful enough, it becomes transparent and can run any software fast enough. Eventually there will be "universal" computers that will be able to run *any* software that has ever been written. It will no longer be neccessary to write or even compile software for any particular hardware configuration. For many applications, even on today's hardware, emulation is fast enough. Virtual PC, running Windows on a G5 Mac is plenty fast enough for many uses.
Most users outside of/. couldn't care less about what processor or other machinery that runs inside the box or even how it does all its "magic". They just want to use it to do their work or play and do it easily, without much fuss and bother. If Apple can make an inexpensive box that does all that, even if it has a squirrel running around in a cage powered by peanuts, it will sell if the squirrel doesn't get tired and the box does its job So, if the move to Intel gives Apple an advantage they will get a divorce from IBM or any other particular hardware or chip set.
....average user will download and run anything....
Unless the OS prevents them from installing stuff -- at least not without first asking for an administrator password and giving a strong warning in BIG RED PRINT that they should SURE that the source of the download is known to be trustworthy. On Mac OSX a user is asked for an adminstrator account name and password before software will install on the system and then further asked when a given program is run for the first time.
"File XXX has asked program YYY to run for the first time! Are you sure you want to do this?"
The user is allowed to click CANCEL and then nothing happens. Of course anyone who knows the admin password, gives and then also clicks OK to the warnings deserves to get whatever they get. That is the point, as you correctly wrote, is where education comes in.
Indeed! Why should ISPs pay for MS security shortcomings. That is like blaming the road because the brakes on your new car failed. Put the blame where it belongs -- on the maker of the OS -- Windows, or in the car's case, the automobile manufacturer.
...Safe computing practices CAN ensure that a Windows machine will not be "owned"....
Indeed true for most readers of/. but not the average Joe/Jane who just came back from Costco with a blender and a computer. Their expertise in running the blender and the computer are about equal. The machine they got will have Windows and be "owned" not long after it is connected to the Internet. Even IF the firewall is turned on, the computer will be messed up when they open that infected e-mail attachment they got from a "trusted", but equally computer ignorant friend or realtive. Too bad Costco doesn't sell Macs. In that case, if they had bought one, the malware laden attachment would not have done anything, but might have infected the neighbors Windows box it was forwarded to from that Mac. Computers ought to be reasonably secure out of the box.
...people who allow their computers to become platforms for attacking others...
You shouldn't "allow" pickpockets to lift your wallet either. These people bought their Dell or HP or whatever, expecting it to work just like their toaster or TV set. It seems that many/.ers think that computers are somehow special, rather than just another commodity appliance that just happens to do e-mail, web-surf etc.
It is the computer and/or software makers who ought to held responsible in the same way car makers are or makers of most other consumer goods. If MS had to pay 5 cents for every computer virus on every computer worldwide, they'd make Windows secure, very quickly. As it is, they really don't care, since it has not cost them very much. They still get a royalty on nine out of ten computers sold, just as they have since the Internet became popular.
....Moving to a new platform/OS without knowing all the ins and outs, could be just as dangerous as staying with Windows....
That might be true for running a highly visible and complicated corporate Internet server system, but certainly not for the millions of PCs owned by ordinary users. All they need to know is that a Mac running OSX doesn't get viruses or other malware and don't get made into zombies run via remote control by the Russian Mafia. Whether that is due to low marketshare or just better design has been debated endlessly. The facts are: No malware for Macs.
In a Mac, if there were any, the malwares can't imbed themselves deeply in the system, modify a critical file, such as the Windows registry. Getting rid of that stupid, obtuse registry, or at least making it read only to all non-system software would put a crimp into all these malware programs that set themselves up to automatically run at every re-boot.
With the Intenet came the end of the PERSONAL computer. Insecure computer are now multi-user systems, with users other than the owner physically located almost anywhere on Earth. All this crap happens because Windows is still a SINGE USER system. Every Windows account is set up as an administrator and any program run from there has full access to any part of the computer. If a limited user is set up, many if not most Widows programs malfunction. For a limited account, a smart admin CAN set the permissions such that many of these programs will get access to what they need and then work OK, but that is too hard to do for a clueless user and so they run as an admin. The responsibility of security of a computer lies within the OS, not any of the application programs. Since the Windows OS is insecure, the apps will be also. I hope MS fixes this in the new Windows, whatever they will ultimately call it.
.... but having to throw down cash for every book you checkout just seems to be taking it a bit far for me....
Indeed true. There are always people that need to fix things that are NOT broken. There have been public libraries almost since the printing press was invented that have worked and are still doing fine. Of course, now that we have computer sytems that can track people and their activities, we have to fill up all those empty data storage systems and give the dumb bureaucrats some data to look at. This of course will be implemented as an "anti-terrorism" measure and it will make us all so very much more secure!
...When someone goes to buy something, tax can be determined then....
Sounds like you are advocating a sales tax based not on the purchase price, but on the income of the buyer. That can be done when the "Mark of the Beast" is required and no cash is allowed so nobody can buy or sell anything anonymously.
Some peope are lazy and don't study in school and then get a low paying job. Others are hard working and do learn a desireable skill and then get punished for it the rest of their life becuase they have to pay more for everything. They already pay more income taxes at a higher rate than the lazy bastards. Sounds like communism on steroids to me.
Whoever designed these bacteria evidently knows the importance of backing up the data.:-) ! When was the last time YOU backed up your computer?
I understand that cockroaches are rather radiation resistant also. We had spiders living in the tunnels of the Stanford Linear Accelerator, where, when the beam was on, the radiation was sufficient to terminate a human being in a very short time.
I suppose it all hinges on the definition of "life", especially the "intelligent' life the SETI searchers are looking for. When computer scientists succeed in making a non-deterministic computer, perhaps using quantum science, I'll concede that such a computer could be considered "alive" and "intelligent". Just because some simple machine can be programmed to make an arrangement from relatively complex pre-manufactured parts, that bears some sort of resemblance of itself, does not mean that such a device is anywhere close to "life' as we see it here on earth. Living systems essentially are able to take a number of the 92 known basic elements and assemble these into incredibly complex entities, such as you. Until man is able to construct *any* kind of system that is even close to this, I would not grace such a device with the label "life".
Even a single celled organism, such as an Amoeba is, on the molecular level far more complex that any computing device ever even conceived of by man, let alone constructed. Until modern microbiology lifted the curtain of life a few inches, nobody ever imagined the molecular processes of life to be as complex as we have observed them so far. We have yet to get much more than a foggy idea how photosynthesthis operates for example. To me, even though I have not studied biology as a profession, but rather electronics, the intricacy of what I do know about living systems far exceeds anything mankind has yet accompished in all of engineering. How many precisely arranged atoms are there in a single living cell, as compared to how many gates and switches are found in the most advanced computer ever made? These arrangements in a computer are static, but are constantly being re-configured in a living cell. To me, whoever designed the molecular underpinnings of life did an astounding engineering job.
Right here on/. there was an article about Motorola demonstrating a carbon nanotube emissive display that uses CRT phosphors and has all the advantages of the CRT combined with the light weight, slim low power LCDs. Maybe that technolgy will replace LCDs someday.
I suppose in your imagination there could be basis other than carbon for life, but our present knowledge of the laws of physics and chemistry, there is no other atom that will work for physical life forms, especially intelligent life, such as the SETI folks are looking for. As far as we have OBSERVED, the laws of physics apply not only on Earth, but also in the most distant reaches of space we have yet looked at with our best instruments. One can always conjecture about other universes where the laws and principles are different and thereby postulate anything at all. However, as far as OUR universe is concerned, the laws thereof mandate some extremely narrow parameters for *any* possible physical life forms that can exist anywhere therein. We are talking about observable, verifiable, experimental science, not wild hypotheseis about how something might be.
Slashdot Mirror
...So they go Intel. Who cares?...
/. are so enamored of what hardware runs a computer! Who the h*** CARES!? All those stupid debates on RISC vs CISC etc.
Exactly! I cannot understand why especially the technical people here on
It is the SOFTWARE that makes a computer what it is! If OSX runs better on Intel, that's great. Someday there may be OPTICAL rather than electronic hardware that will run at the equivalent of ten-thousand gighertz. Apple is very good at switching hardware -- this will be the third time they've done it now. I suspect though that their OSX and its software won't run on generic x86 no-name or Dell boxes. The CPU is only one aspect of a computer system's design. MS may even come out with a secure version of Windows to run on the new Mac boxes.
...Going to x86 would be insanely stupid...
What difference does it make these days what kind of hardware runs a computer? Repeat this 100 times: It is the SOFTWARE that makes a computer what it is!
It is the insecurity and bug-infestedness of Windows crap from MS that causes the immense headaches for the average PC user, whether there is an Intel or AMD chip at the heart of the hardware.
What reason is there for software makers not to be able to write software, that can run on *any* chip? Its been done before, by Apple even. I still have a program or two that work on a 68000 and on a PowerPC under OSX 104.4. Why can't Apple and the developers do that again? Most of the popular Mac programs are also on Wintel boxes already! I suspect though that Apples with Intel inside will still be special designs and that cheap white box PC will not run OSX. The big loser in this will be MS.
....I've managed to run NT systems as a regular user day to day...
Yes, and so have I. But neither of us are like the clueless Joe who goes down to Costco or orders a Dell and then doesn't know much more. It is their computers that get messed up shortly after they connect it to their DSL or cable. When they buy and install some software, they expect it to "just work" (tm). They don't have the skill you and I have to implement the possible "workarounds" that would allow a particular piece of software to properly run under a limited user account. In order to avoid a lot of static from such clueless users, MS and the PC manufacturuers make everyone an admin by default. That means that any malware can later deeply imbed itself in the poor users system. From there the malware propagates to other such users and sends spam and DDOS attacks all over the Internet.
....."single points of failure" that exist in every OS....
There is NO place in the Mac OS system that needs to be writeable to every Tom-Dick and Harry application program that comes along and if that app is malicious or has a severe bug, renders the computer unbootable. Mac OS system files are read only, even to the administrator user. A Mac admin does not automatically run as root. In fact, root is disabled by default and 90% of Mac users never enable the root account. If any program suddenly asks for an admin password, that raises a VERY RED flag for most Mac users. Around here the users don't even know that password since I don't give it out.
I have never been able to ascertain WHY the computers would no longer boot. It was seldom hardware but a Windows crash. Often there was some obtuse error message about the registry, and then the BSOD, but not always. Sometimes the system was just totally dead, not even a BSOD. Usually I WAS able to get the users files saved by using a special boot CD or floppy that allowed copying to the network server. Then it was "wipe and re-install" time.
MS actually has quite a bit of clout over their developers, but the USERS have the ultimate clout. If the users would bitch loudly and insistently and/or not buy programs that refuse to run under a limited account, Windows could be much more secure, without users having to buy and keep up with all sorts of anti-malware protections.
...you also need to compare how often they cycle out of service to get an accurate installed base....
We still use a 1992 Color Classic running 24/7 as an answering/fax machine and to control X-10 modules. It is connected to our local network, but does not access the Internet. I suppose it it still part of that installed base?
Most Mac users will have learned long ago to configure their browser to pretend to be Internet Explorer.
Indeed, I do that much of the time. Since Mac users tend to be the creative type, they will likely not waste as much time browsing the web a lot. E-mail is still a bigger Internet application than the Web. I'd be more likely to believe e-mail statistics because everybody uses e-mail. Some sites do respond differently to Macs and may even SAY they don't service Macs, but work just fine when lied to by being told they are connected to a Windows box.
...so few of those Macs are actually used on the internet?...
I know some Mac owners who only use the Internet for e-mail. They seldom, if ever surf websites. Many Mac users use their computers for creative purposes more than their Wintel conterparts that don't neccessarily involve web browsing. There are still a number of websited that don't work with Macs, or at least SAY that they don't. I routinely set Safari to lie and tell websites that Windows Explorer is requesting the data. There are a number of sites that respond differently when they think they are being accessed by Windows or Macs. I have come across some that flat out tell me that they don't work correctly with a Mac. However when I set Safari to lie to those sites they often work just fine.
With my Mac set to lie like that, your program would count me in the Windows camp erroneously. Web browsing is NOT the largest use of the Internet. E-mail, FTP, Peer-to-peer, newsgroups, VOIP, and instant messaging all fall outside of the scope of web-visits your and everyone else's web statistcs gathering programs take note of.
...or just on an Intel chip?...
Everybody, including the article writers seems to automatically conclude that this Intel thing is about the Mac and its future. Apple may be thinking of an entirely new entertainment device. I order for this to be inexpensive, they could make a deal with Intel to make all the chips for this new thing. Who is making the processor for the iPods, for example? How about a special purpose box that does all their iLife stuff and also Tivo like video in connection with their iTunes video service? It could even be a special peripheral device that works with existing Macs. The smart guys at Apple have a habit of thinking outside the box and may surprise us all.
...Of course they will wait until the majority of computers are based on the new hardware...
Humans are singularly bad at predicting the future. Who knows what kind of technology will be popular ten years from now? How about a "universal" computer that can execute any and all binary code ever created? A chip or chip-sets that reconfigure themselves intelligently or run any number of binaries concurrently? I think freely programmable, unencumbered systems will always be in demand and therefore available. The big, powerful corporations may buy enough legislators to get some laws passed in their favor, just like certain groups got prohibition passed. In the end though, if there is a demand it will always be met, whether legal, or like drugs, illegal.
....What will happen to the Gentoo distribution....
When hardware is powerful enough, emulation will not impact the performance of most applications. A system will have whatever number of emulators on it that are needed or download them from the Internet on the fly. ALL binaries ever compiled that have ever run on *any* hardware, anywhere, will run and perform whatever function was performed on the hardware they were originally written for. The system will be "intelligent" enough to figure out which of the many emulators to load the desired software into. The emulation may be in the form of automatically configurable instruction set processors that directly execute the binary instructions of whatever software is running at that moment.
There is no reason why all flavors of Windows, every Mac OS Apple has ever come out with, all could not run simultaneously on such hardware. There might be problems with certain peripherals if no translaters exist for peripherals that happen to be connected to a particular system. All those old Apple2 and Commodore64 programs will run flawlessly. Some of that is already happening today.
I can run DOS, Win3.11, Win95, Win98, Win2K WinXP, Linux, Mac-OS9 and most of their respective apps, all under OSX on my Mac, all at the same time, switching between each of their windows. XP and Win2k performance is still somehat slow, when compared to my real Wintel boxes, but in ten years, I expect that to be no longer the case with whatever hardware will be current then.
...password encrypted zip files and execute the contents...
If the user knows the administrator password and gives it, then they deserve what they get. However here at our house, only I have that admin password and the other household members have to call me in order to install or execute a program that is not already properly installed on our Macs. This would apply in most business establishments in that a more knowledgeable admin. person might prevent clueless users from screwing up their computers. If this could be done on MS systems, it would dramtically cut down on zombiefied, malware infested computers. Unfortunately, many Windows programs fail if the user is not an adminsistrator. This may not be the fault of MS, but that is the sad truth of the way things are in the Windows world.
...The problem is the *applications*, not the OS...
Well I don't know about you, but most people I know buy their computer to do real work running real application programs. It seems that Mac users are much less tolerant of crap software than their Windows counterparts. If I bought a program for my Mac that requires me to run as an admin for everyday use, I'd angrily demand my money back and so would almost all Mac users. MS has managed to condition most Windows users to accept such crapware as "normal". MS users could force these lazy developers to stop putting out crapware that needs admin access by not buying such apps.
If every user user has admin access to the entire computer, it is in effect a SINGLE USER system, no matter how many "accounts" are installed. The OLD Mac OS9 had a "multi-user" feature, but it too was in EFFECT a single user system.
If MS does change the default to "power user" as you suggest, they'd better be prepared for a lot of angry users, whose programs no longer work. They know this, so don't hold your breath thinking that their new OS next year will be significantly more secure than what is out there now. In a way, MS is between a rock and a hard place because of their huge base of users who'd be affected negatively by such a change. As for the registry, I still don't know why they built in such a single point of failure into their OS. I can't even count the number of re-installations of the OS I've done because some errant software hosed the registry to the point that the system would no longer boot, no matter what I tried.
...Would you be able to run Windows on an Intel Mac?...
I can run Windows on my PPC Mac, with virtual PC using emulation. Windows uses OSX services for all I/O and works reasonably well for most programs that are not very CPU intensive.
Running Windows on an Intel x86 Mac would be easier, since there is no or only a little emulation needed. Apple would not prevent that but encourage that, since Apple makes most of their $$$ on the hardware.
....Think of it as a JIT for processor emulation....
/. couldn't care less about what processor or other machinery that runs inside the box or even how it does all its "magic". They just want to use it to do their work or play and do it easily, without much fuss and bother. If Apple can make an inexpensive box that does all that, even if it has a squirrel running around in a cage powered by peanuts, it will sell if the squirrel doesn't get tired and the box does its job So, if the move to Intel gives Apple an advantage they will get a divorce from IBM or any other particular hardware or chip set.
The "soul" of a computer is in its software, not hardware. Its the OSX, its security and elegance that makes Apple computers better than the Windows systems. Their hardware of course is also very well made. If the hardware is powerful enough, it becomes transparent and can run any software fast enough. Eventually there will be "universal" computers that will be able to run *any* software that has ever been written. It will no longer be neccessary to write or even compile software for any particular hardware configuration. For many applications, even on today's hardware, emulation is fast enough. Virtual PC, running Windows on a G5 Mac is plenty fast enough for many uses.
Most users outside of
....average user will download and run anything....
Unless the OS prevents them from installing stuff -- at least not without first asking for an administrator password and giving a strong warning in BIG RED PRINT that they should SURE that the source of the download is known to be trustworthy. On Mac OSX a user is asked for an adminstrator account name and password before software will install on the system and then further asked when a given program is run for the first time.
"File XXX has asked program YYY to run for the first time! Are you sure you want to do this?"
The user is allowed to click CANCEL and then nothing happens. Of course anyone who knows the admin password, gives and then also clicks OK to the warnings deserves to get whatever they get. That is the point, as you correctly wrote, is where education comes in.
...This is more work for ISP support staff...
Indeed! Why should ISPs pay for MS security shortcomings. That is like blaming the road because the brakes on your new car failed. Put the blame where it belongs -- on the maker of the OS -- Windows, or in the car's case, the automobile manufacturer.
...Safe computing practices CAN ensure that a Windows machine will not be "owned"....
/. but not the average Joe/Jane who just came back from Costco with a blender and a computer. Their expertise in running the blender and the computer are about equal. The machine they got will have Windows and be "owned" not long after it is connected to the Internet. Even IF the firewall is turned on, the computer will be messed up when they open that infected e-mail attachment they got from a "trusted", but equally computer ignorant friend or realtive. Too bad Costco doesn't sell Macs. In that case, if they had bought one, the malware laden attachment would not have done anything, but might have infected the neighbors Windows box it was forwarded to from that Mac. Computers ought to be reasonably secure out of the box.
Indeed true for most readers of
...people who allow their computers to become platforms for attacking others...
/.ers think that computers are somehow special, rather than just another commodity appliance that just happens to do e-mail, web-surf etc.
You shouldn't "allow" pickpockets to lift your wallet either. These people bought their Dell or HP or whatever, expecting it to work just like their toaster or TV set. It seems that many
It is the computer and/or software makers who ought to held responsible in the same way car makers are or makers of most other consumer goods. If MS had to pay 5 cents for every computer virus on every computer worldwide, they'd make Windows secure, very quickly. As it is, they really don't care, since it has not cost them very much. They still get a royalty on nine out of ten computers sold, just as they have since the Internet became popular.
....Moving to a new platform/OS without knowing all the ins and outs, could be just as dangerous as staying with Windows....
That might be true for running a highly visible and complicated corporate Internet server system, but certainly not for the millions of PCs owned by ordinary users. All they need to know is that a Mac running OSX doesn't get viruses or other malware and don't get made into zombies run via remote control by the Russian Mafia. Whether that is due to low marketshare or just better design has been debated endlessly. The facts are: No malware for Macs.
In a Mac, if there were any, the malwares can't imbed themselves deeply in the system, modify a critical file, such as the Windows registry. Getting rid of that stupid, obtuse registry, or at least making it read only to all non-system software would put a crimp into all these malware programs that set themselves up to automatically run at every re-boot.
With the Intenet came the end of the PERSONAL computer. Insecure computer are now multi-user systems, with users other than the owner physically located almost anywhere on Earth. All this crap happens because Windows is still a SINGE USER system. Every Windows account is set up as an administrator and any program run from there has full access to any part of the computer. If a limited user is set up, many if not most Widows programs malfunction. For a limited account, a smart admin CAN set the permissions such that many of these programs will get access to what they need and then work OK, but that is too hard to do for a clueless user and so they run as an admin. The responsibility of security of a computer lies within the OS, not any of the application programs. Since the Windows OS is insecure, the apps will be also. I hope MS fixes this in the new Windows, whatever they will ultimately call it.
.... but having to throw down cash for every book you checkout just seems to be taking it a bit far for me....
Indeed true. There are always people that need to fix things that are NOT broken. There have been public libraries almost since the printing press was invented that have worked and are still doing fine. Of course, now that we have computer sytems that can track people and their activities, we have to fill up all those empty data storage systems and give the dumb bureaucrats some data to look at. This of course will be implemented as an "anti-terrorism" measure and it will make us all so very much more secure!
...When someone goes to buy something, tax can be determined then....
Sounds like you are advocating a sales tax based not on the purchase price, but on the income of the buyer. That can be done when the "Mark of the Beast" is required and no cash is allowed so nobody can buy or sell anything anonymously.
Some peope are lazy and don't study in school and then get a low paying job. Others are hard working and do learn a desireable skill and then get punished for it the rest of their life becuase they have to pay more for everything. They already pay more income taxes at a higher rate than the lazy bastards. Sounds like communism on steroids to me.
...that it keeps backup copies..
:-) ! When was the last time YOU backed up your computer?
Whoever designed these bacteria evidently knows the importance of backing up the data.
I understand that cockroaches are rather radiation resistant also. We had spiders living in the tunnels of the Stanford Linear Accelerator, where, when the beam was on, the radiation was sufficient to terminate a human being in a very short time.
I suppose it all hinges on the definition of "life", especially the "intelligent' life the SETI searchers are looking for. When computer scientists succeed in making a non-deterministic computer, perhaps using quantum science, I'll concede that such a computer could be considered "alive" and "intelligent". Just because some simple machine can be programmed to make an arrangement from relatively complex pre-manufactured parts, that bears some sort of resemblance of itself, does not mean that such a device is anywhere close to "life' as we see it here on earth. Living systems essentially are able to take a number of the 92 known basic elements and assemble these into incredibly complex entities, such as you. Until man is able to construct *any* kind of system that is even close to this, I would not grace such a device with the label "life".
Even a single celled organism, such as an Amoeba is, on the molecular level far more complex that any computing device ever even conceived of by man, let alone constructed. Until modern microbiology lifted the curtain of life a few inches, nobody ever imagined the molecular processes of life to be as complex as we have observed them so far. We have yet to get much more than a foggy idea how photosynthesthis operates for example. To me, even though I have not studied biology as a profession, but rather electronics, the intricacy of what I do know about living systems far exceeds anything mankind has yet accompished in all of engineering. How many precisely arranged atoms are there in a single living cell, as compared to how many gates and switches are found in the most advanced computer ever made? These arrangements in a computer are static, but are constantly being re-configured in a living cell. To me, whoever designed the molecular underpinnings of life did an astounding engineering job.
Right here on /. there was an article about Motorola demonstrating a carbon nanotube emissive display that uses CRT phosphors and has all the advantages of the CRT combined with the light weight, slim low power LCDs. Maybe that technolgy will replace LCDs someday.
I suppose in your imagination there could be basis other than carbon for life, but our present knowledge of the laws of physics and chemistry, there is no other atom that will work for physical life forms, especially intelligent life, such as the SETI folks are looking for. As far as we have OBSERVED, the laws of physics apply not only on Earth, but also in the most distant reaches of space we have yet looked at with our best instruments. One can always conjecture about other universes where the laws and principles are different and thereby postulate anything at all. However, as far as OUR universe is concerned, the laws thereof mandate some extremely narrow parameters for *any* possible physical life forms that can exist anywhere therein. We are talking about observable, verifiable, experimental science, not wild hypotheseis about how something might be.