But it doesn't happen, still any Windows story on here gets the same comments and the same furious people with the empty threat of saying they will move to other operating systems.
Hmmm. Wonder if there is a correllation between the rise of OS X/macOS use and the simultaneous decrease in Windows use, while Linux remains relatively stable, marketshare-wise?
Perhaps at least some of those people made good on their promise/threat to leave Windows. They just didn't end up in Linux-land.
As I understand it, OS X primarily checks for a particular string reported by the SMC in Apple hardware. If the string is missing or incorrect the boot process is halted. But I suspect their are probably additional checks in the current versions of OS X which is probably what caused the Netboot problems on some hardware configurations.
Reply to This
Funny. That doesn't seem to have stopped the Hackintosh community from installing El Capitan on their Hacks.
In other news, apple doesn't put a top row of special keys on the keyboard (like Dell does) and instead uses the function keys. To actually get a function key you have to use the Function modifier key. I find this annoying and it makes it easy to change display brightness when trying to contort for some god-awful keyboard shortcut (there's one I use frequently that is a horrible mashup of *four* modifier keys plus the key being modified -- and there is no menu equivalent, it is the keyboard or nothing).
You do realize you can reverse the "Fn" behavior, right?
OSX doesn't even know how to backspace vs delete. Can't get used to that...
Sure it does. There are multiple ways to do that; and as the list I linked-to clearly shows, much, much more. In fact, OS X/macOS has a QUITE comprehensive list of Keyboard shortcuts, and with the ability to define your own, it is actually one of the Mac's most under-advertised features (because it just isn't sexy outside of the Neckbeard community). And it has only been part of OS X since version 10.0.0 came out FIFTEEN years ago, so I guess it's understandable why Hatebois like you have never heard of this...
BTW, for those too lazy to spend.00005 nanoseconds on Google looking it up (or.05 seconds following the above link), the keyboard shortcut(s) for "Forward-Delete", in case you are using a keyboard that doesn't have a Forward-Delete key (which IS supported in macOS/OS X) is either "Fn + Delete (Backspace)", or "Control + D". All three solutions work equally well.
Bottom line: Ya gotta learn to Troll better than that, you whiny little Hateboi(tm)...
You could always use OSX. However I don't trust that one day Apple won't start verifying the hardware is genuine and your install stops working.
Yes, there's no guarantee that any version of Mac OS X^W^W^WOS X^W^WmacOS will run, or that it will continue to run, or that the next release after it will run, on a Hackintosh.
You're right: No guarantees. But after all this time, it seems logical to assume that if Apple has pretty much turned a blind-eye to the Hackintosh people, that unless they constitute more than a few percent of sales, I very much doubt they are going to actively do anything more to prevent macOS from running on Hacks, which of course they could easily do.
At least iOS GETS Security Patches, right? Now where's the same page for your non-Nexus Android phone?
Thought so.
I happen to have a Nexus 5X and I don't recommend anything other than the Nexus phones, thanks.
While it's true that iPhones have a longer support life than most Android phones, what you're failing to mention is that Apple quickly dumps support for the major iOS versions, so to get security updates, you have to bump up a major version. Since each newer version uses more resources than the older ones, the older iPhones slow to a crawl and become generally unusable.
That's why Apple sometimes releases sub-versions ("point" releases) that have changes specifically designed to address performance issues in older hardware. The most recent that comes to mind was, IIRC, the iOS 9.3.1 Update (later replaced with the more-stable (and slightly faster overall) iOS 9.3.2, both of which were specifically designed to improve performance on the iPad 2 and (IIRC) the iPhone 4s. Speaking of which, this site conducted an informal performance comparison between iOS 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 on iPhones from the iPhone 6 back to the 4s. If you think that the performance on the iPhone 4s for either 9.3.1 or 9.3.2 could be described as "slow[ed] to a crawl", then you are simply a liar.
I assume what mostly happens on those revisions is the re-nice-ing of interrupt priorities; but I am certainly not privvy to iOS internal development details.
This is a 24 page report that can be summed up as "An amazing number of people are stupid enough to click links embedded in SMS messages. However, since this sort of attack is blocked by anyone with the default 'do not allow third-party apps' setting in Android, we only saw 38 actual instances of infected devices contacting the C2 systems. Please take the other 23 1/2 pages of the report as proof we are highly technically skilled, but in general spreading FUD so you pay us lots of money to protect against a threat that has an almost insignificant likelihood of affecting you."
I wonder if your comment would be different if the article was about the iOS App Store?
Why? An external pass transistor is going to dissipate power as heat, and so is a fixed resistor. Meanwhile you just need to get some of the required current through something else so an active component can regulate the rest. If you know what your current requirements are in the first place, then there's no reason not to do it.
So, your contention is that, as long as the load is known, then all you need is the appropriate transformer and a rectifier. Afterall, who needs a voltage regulator anyway, right?
That's all fine and dandy if the line-voltage was constant; but it is not. And some (a lot) of digital ICs don't cotton to power supplies that are not kept to within 2% or greater of their nominal operating voltage. Things like logic thresholds, noise rejection, switching speeds, junction dissipation, protection diode operation, etc. depend on, and are directly affected by, even fairly small variances in supply voltage. And when we get down lower than 5 V, then the PS regulation gets even more critical.
LDOs were mainly created to supply things like 3.3V logic from a 5V rail, and 1.8V logic from 3.3V rails, without having to start with something like an 8 or 9V unregulated secondary supply, as is common for 5V analog regulators. The LDO part (Low-Drop-Out) is from the fact that those regulators don't need as much "headroom" to do their regulation, so they can use an Input voltage that is only about 1.5V above the intended Output voltage. Yes, that means there will be less heat; but that's not the REAL reason LDOs exist.
We'll have to settle on merely being orders of magnitude more secure than Windows, which is the point of the comparison.
Is that actually true anymore?
I am absolutely the farthest thing from being a WIndows fanboi; but it has been QUITE a while since I heard of a new IIS exploit being discovered. In fact, the newest search result on Google for "IIS vulnerability" is from over a year ago.
Allow apps from unknown sources should always be off, unless you know what you are doing. Period. That should stop this, and is the default on most mainstream devices. It gets turned off when people want hacked versions of games, etc, then the malware creeps in. That setting should be on a use count timer. Use it once, then have to go set it again (manually, not a simple yes like UAC), for a fresh sideload install.
Make the user think!
This is exactly how Apple implemented the "Allow Apps from Anywhere" setting in their "Gatekeeper" feature in OS X/macOS.
If you set it to that level, after a time (I think it is 30 days) it will revert to the next-more-secure-level (Allow Apps from Registered Developers; which, BTW, does NOT mean "only from the App Store"). I think it should be shorter; but it's the right idea for most people, and the timeout strikes a fairly decent balance between "too naggy" and "too dangerous", IMHO.
And since Apple will now issue Registered Developer certs for FREE (no $99/yr fee), there isn't any reasonable reason why any legit. Dev. shouldn't take advantage of that, if for no other reason than for the sake of peace-of-mind for its customers/downloaders.
That's nice. I'm glad you're happy with your computer. I'll be using one with equivalent specs but half the price, better performance, and a workflow customized to my liking.
...and a Warranty that... Oh, wait.
What "workflow" are you talking about? Every OS on the planet has pretty much solved the same challenges is pretty much the same way. The GUI may be slightly different (or in the case of the UI-Formerly-Known-As-Metro, completely different); but underneath it all, OSes are like DNA: The similarities from one species to another FAR outweigh the differences.
So I can't even fathom what you are trying to communicate with your "Workflow customized to my liking" comment, seriously. Your words are a non-sequitur. Your facts are un-coordinated.
Pac Man PCBs used something similar. It's actually a valid technique, if rather brute-force.
It's NOT a valid technique. It is cost-cutting bullshit at its worst! You will NEVER see that in the National Semiconductor Datasheet or Application Notes for ANY 3-Terminal regulator!
There ARE valid techniques for making a "voltage follower" for boosting the output current of a 3 terminal regulator (like the one using a "pass transistor" shown on page 5 of this NatSemi Ap-Note); but bypassing it with a power resistor ain't one of them!
But of course, that would cost almost a whole dollar's worth of extra components! Why do that when you can "cheat" with a 50 cent power resistor, right? (rolls eyes)
Well, most digital cameras and phone cameras currently have a filter to BLOCK IR light.
That is not my experience at all. In fact I've yet to find a digital camera or phone that I couldn't point at an IR source such as a TV remote and actually see the IR light being sent out. I use this little trick all the time to determine if faults with an IR remote lie with the remote or with the receiver.
You're replying to the GP's comment, not mine. I agree with what you are saying about IR filters now. I use the same trick, and for the same reason.
Just days after the will of the people of Great Britain showed that they wish to be independent again the EU counteracts with disarming and assimilating the militaries of EU member-states.
That's a very interesting claim. Care to back it up with a Citation?
For whatever reason (careful sourcing of components, instead of "this week's cheapest" I would imagine), Apple didn't suffer the infamous bootleg-electrolyte-formula capacitor debacle of the first part of this century on any of its own motherboards that I know of, that had plagued so many Wintel machines.
They suffered from bad capacitors in the iMac G5. Several persons had to replace their motherboard once or twice ! I have one home that works, but the MLB was replaced twice on it.
The iMac G5 seems like it was a little late for the bootleg capacitor debacle; but I'll take your word for that one, especially since there are several articles I was able to Google relating to capacitor replacement.
Now I wonder if that is what happened to a used 2004 eMac I purchased (and subsequently trashed) to use as a home surveillance computer. I just chalked it up to the power supply issues that many of those demonstrated.
Isn't it amazing, macs4all, that even despite all the conflicts, we Linux users still have an abundance of freedom of choice and customization, and still have a superior experience to Macs?
I agree that you have an abundance of freedom of choice and customization; because that's all you have.
It helps authorities disable your camera so you can't record them kicking your arse onto an encrypted device and/or up to the iCloud....
Maybe. But it is pretty clear that all cell phone (and maybe camera) manufacturers will be forced by the government to license this technology from Apple, and I expect the final version will not work with a separate IR sensor, it will just use the camera lens to capture the "DO NOT FILM" command and act on it. Of course you could cover up the lens, but that defeats the device too. I doubt if you can effectively block the signal that disables the camera and still have enough light to film the cops beating you or your family.
Well, most digital cameras and phone cameras currently have a filter to BLOCK IR light. Allowing IR to pass will affect the color balance of photos.
Still, you could put your own filter (or "hot mirror" which reflects IR light rather than absorbing it) over your phone camera lens.
Also, this doesn't affect the billions of cameras and camera-containing devices that don't have software to interpret the "beacon's 'barcode' ". They will all still happily shoot-away.
It helps authorities disable your camera so you can't record them kicking your arse onto an encrypted device and/or up to the iCloud....
Maybe. But it is pretty clear that all cell phone (and maybe camera) manufacturers will be forced by the government to license this technology from Apple, and I expect the final version will not work with a separate IR sensor, it will just use the camera lens to capture the "DO NOT FILM" command and act on it. Of course you could cover up the lens, but that defeats the device too. I doubt if you can effectively block the signal that disables the camera and still have enough light to film the cops beating you or your family.
Hmmm. The IR thingy will be, um, IR. That is to say, outside of the visible light spectrum (or at least very close to the edge of visibility).
Howabout a little IR filter that blocks the IR and lets visible light through. Many surveillance cams already have such a thing to cut down on daylight "washout" from extraneous IR from sunlight.
By the way, there was some noise on Slashdot a couple of years ago about a very similar Apple patent. That one never went anywhere, either.
Sometimes I think Apple patents things they DON'T want to see developed, with absolutely no intention of actually developing the ideas themselves, either.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, it never really bothered me enough to look into. Thanks!
No problem!
Actually, I got to learn about that "Function Flip" utility, too. So we both "win"!
But it doesn't happen, still any Windows story on here gets the same comments and the same furious people with the empty threat of saying they will move to other operating systems.
Hmmm. Wonder if there is a correllation between the rise of OS X/macOS use and the simultaneous decrease in Windows use, while Linux remains relatively stable, marketshare-wise?
Perhaps at least some of those people made good on their promise/threat to leave Windows. They just didn't end up in Linux-land.
As I understand it, OS X primarily checks for a particular string reported by the SMC in Apple hardware. If the string is missing or incorrect the boot process is halted. But I suspect their are probably additional checks in the current versions of OS X which is probably what caused the Netboot problems on some hardware configurations. Reply to This
Funny. That doesn't seem to have stopped the Hackintosh community from installing El Capitan on their Hacks.
In other news, apple doesn't put a top row of special keys on the keyboard (like Dell does) and instead uses the function keys. To actually get a function key you have to use the Function modifier key. I find this annoying and it makes it easy to change display brightness when trying to contort for some god-awful keyboard shortcut (there's one I use frequently that is a horrible mashup of *four* modifier keys plus the key being modified -- and there is no menu equivalent, it is the keyboard or nothing).
You do realize you can reverse the "Fn" behavior, right?
OS X/macOS will let you do it globally, or you can use the F/OSS (Donationware) "Function Flip" to do it individually for each Function key.
You're welcome.
OSX doesn't even know how to backspace vs delete. Can't get used to that...
Sure it does. There are multiple ways to do that; and as the list I linked-to clearly shows, much, much more. In fact, OS X/macOS has a QUITE comprehensive list of Keyboard shortcuts, and with the ability to define your own, it is actually one of the Mac's most under-advertised features (because it just isn't sexy outside of the Neckbeard community). And it has only been part of OS X since version 10.0.0 came out FIFTEEN years ago, so I guess it's understandable why Hatebois like you have never heard of this...
.00005 nanoseconds on Google looking it up (or .05 seconds following the above link), the keyboard shortcut(s) for "Forward-Delete", in case you are using a keyboard that doesn't have a Forward-Delete key (which IS supported in macOS/OS X) is either "Fn + Delete (Backspace)", or "Control + D". All three solutions work equally well.
BTW, for those too lazy to spend
Bottom line: Ya gotta learn to Troll better than that, you whiny little Hateboi(tm)...
You could always use OSX. However I don't trust that one day Apple won't start verifying the hardware is genuine and your install stops working.
Yes, there's no guarantee that any version of Mac OS X^W^W^WOS X^W^WmacOS will run, or that it will continue to run, or that the next release after it will run, on a Hackintosh.
You're right: No guarantees. But after all this time, it seems logical to assume that if Apple has pretty much turned a blind-eye to the Hackintosh people, that unless they constitute more than a few percent of sales, I very much doubt they are going to actively do anything more to prevent macOS from running on Hacks, which of course they could easily do.
torrenting is an ammoral practice, but thanks for playing.
So capitalism is now a sociopathic trait?
Use iOS.
Great plan. Because as we all know, iOS is 100% secure and never has to receive security patches.
At least iOS GETS Security Patches, right? Now where's the same page for your non-Nexus Android phone? Thought so.
I happen to have a Nexus 5X and I don't recommend anything other than the Nexus phones, thanks. While it's true that iPhones have a longer support life than most Android phones, what you're failing to mention is that Apple quickly dumps support for the major iOS versions, so to get security updates, you have to bump up a major version. Since each newer version uses more resources than the older ones, the older iPhones slow to a crawl and become generally unusable.
That's why Apple sometimes releases sub-versions ("point" releases) that have changes specifically designed to address performance issues in older hardware. The most recent that comes to mind was, IIRC, the iOS 9.3.1 Update (later replaced with the more-stable (and slightly faster overall) iOS 9.3.2, both of which were specifically designed to improve performance on the iPad 2 and (IIRC) the iPhone 4s. Speaking of which, this site conducted an informal performance comparison between iOS 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 on iPhones from the iPhone 6 back to the 4s. If you think that the performance on the iPhone 4s for either 9.3.1 or 9.3.2 could be described as "slow[ed] to a crawl", then you are simply a liar.
I assume what mostly happens on those revisions is the re-nice-ing of interrupt priorities; but I am certainly not privvy to iOS internal development details.
So, the sales of Surface Pro 4s AND XBox 1's are BOTH so shitty that you have to COMBINE their "unit sales"?!?
Or, the ONLY way you can get anyone to buy that overpriced POS Surface Pro 4 is to GIVE YOU a $300 toy to distract you???
LOLOL!!!
This is a 24 page report that can be summed up as "An amazing number of people are stupid enough to click links embedded in SMS messages. However, since this sort of attack is blocked by anyone with the default 'do not allow third-party apps' setting in Android, we only saw 38 actual instances of infected devices contacting the C2 systems. Please take the other 23 1/2 pages of the report as proof we are highly technically skilled, but in general spreading FUD so you pay us lots of money to protect against a threat that has an almost insignificant likelihood of affecting you."
I wonder if your comment would be different if the article was about the iOS App Store?
Why? An external pass transistor is going to dissipate power as heat, and so is a fixed resistor. Meanwhile you just need to get some of the required current through something else so an active component can regulate the rest. If you know what your current requirements are in the first place, then there's no reason not to do it.
So, your contention is that, as long as the load is known, then all you need is the appropriate transformer and a rectifier. Afterall, who needs a voltage regulator anyway, right?
That's all fine and dandy if the line-voltage was constant; but it is not. And some (a lot) of digital ICs don't cotton to power supplies that are not kept to within 2% or greater of their nominal operating voltage. Things like logic thresholds, noise rejection, switching speeds, junction dissipation, protection diode operation, etc. depend on, and are directly affected by, even fairly small variances in supply voltage. And when we get down lower than 5 V, then the PS regulation gets even more critical.
LDOs were mainly created to supply things like 3.3V logic from a 5V rail, and 1.8V logic from 3.3V rails, without having to start with something like an 8 or 9V unregulated secondary supply, as is common for 5V analog regulators. The LDO part (Low-Drop-Out) is from the fact that those regulators don't need as much "headroom" to do their regulation, so they can use an Input voltage that is only about 1.5V above the intended Output voltage. Yes, that means there will be less heat; but that's not the REAL reason LDOs exist.
Use iOS.
Great plan. Because as we all know, iOS is 100% secure and never has to receive security patches.
At least iOS GETS Security Patches, right? Now where's the same page for your non-Nexus Android phone?
Thought so.
We'll have to settle on merely being orders of magnitude more secure than Windows, which is the point of the comparison.
Is that actually true anymore?
I am absolutely the farthest thing from being a WIndows fanboi; but it has been QUITE a while since I heard of a new IIS exploit being discovered. In fact, the newest search result on Google for "IIS vulnerability" is from over a year ago.
It's certainly safe to assume that instant apps will always be at least as safe as the Play store in general... and that's quite safe.
ORLY?
Allow apps from unknown sources should always be off, unless you know what you are doing. Period. That should stop this, and is the default on most mainstream devices. It gets turned off when people want hacked versions of games, etc, then the malware creeps in. That setting should be on a use count timer. Use it once, then have to go set it again (manually, not a simple yes like UAC), for a fresh sideload install.
Make the user think!
This is exactly how Apple implemented the "Allow Apps from Anywhere" setting in their "Gatekeeper" feature in OS X/macOS.
If you set it to that level, after a time (I think it is 30 days) it will revert to the next-more-secure-level (Allow Apps from Registered Developers; which, BTW, does NOT mean "only from the App Store"). I think it should be shorter; but it's the right idea for most people, and the timeout strikes a fairly decent balance between "too naggy" and "too dangerous", IMHO.
And since Apple will now issue Registered Developer certs for FREE (no $99/yr fee), there isn't any reasonable reason why any legit. Dev. shouldn't take advantage of that, if for no other reason than for the sake of peace-of-mind for its customers/downloaders.
That's nice. I'm glad you're happy with your computer. I'll be using one with equivalent specs but half the price, better performance, and a workflow customized to my liking.
...and a Warranty that... Oh, wait.
What "workflow" are you talking about? Every OS on the planet has pretty much solved the same challenges is pretty much the same way. The GUI may be slightly different (or in the case of the UI-Formerly-Known-As-Metro, completely different); but underneath it all, OSes are like DNA: The similarities from one species to another FAR outweigh the differences.
So I can't even fathom what you are trying to communicate with your "Workflow customized to my liking" comment, seriously. Your words are a non-sequitur. Your facts are un-coordinated.
STERILIZE! STERILIZE! STER-I-LIIIIIZE!!!!
So, out of curiosity, how much does it pay to work in Apple's marketing department as a shill?
Wish they did; but sadly, I doubt they even know I exist.
Pac Man PCBs used something similar. It's actually a valid technique, if rather brute-force.
It's NOT a valid technique. It is cost-cutting bullshit at its worst! You will NEVER see that in the National Semiconductor Datasheet or Application Notes for ANY 3-Terminal regulator!
There ARE valid techniques for making a "voltage follower" for boosting the output current of a 3 terminal regulator (like the one using a "pass transistor" shown on page 5 of this NatSemi Ap-Note); but bypassing it with a power resistor ain't one of them!
But of course, that would cost almost a whole dollar's worth of extra components! Why do that when you can "cheat" with a 50 cent power resistor, right? (rolls eyes)
Well, most digital cameras and phone cameras currently have a filter to BLOCK IR light.
That is not my experience at all. In fact I've yet to find a digital camera or phone that I couldn't point at an IR source such as a TV remote and actually see the IR light being sent out. I use this little trick all the time to determine if faults with an IR remote lie with the remote or with the receiver.
You're replying to the GP's comment, not mine. I agree with what you are saying about IR filters now. I use the same trick, and for the same reason.
Just days after the will of the people of Great Britain showed that they wish to be independent again the EU counteracts with disarming and assimilating the militaries of EU member-states.
That's a very interesting claim. Care to back it up with a Citation?
For whatever reason (careful sourcing of components, instead of "this week's cheapest" I would imagine), Apple didn't suffer the infamous bootleg-electrolyte-formula capacitor debacle of the first part of this century on any of its own motherboards that I know of, that had plagued so many Wintel machines.
They suffered from bad capacitors in the iMac G5. Several persons had to replace their motherboard once or twice ! I have one home that works, but the MLB was replaced twice on it.
The iMac G5 seems like it was a little late for the bootleg capacitor debacle; but I'll take your word for that one, especially since there are several articles I was able to Google relating to capacitor replacement.
Now I wonder if that is what happened to a used 2004 eMac I purchased (and subsequently trashed) to use as a home surveillance computer. I just chalked it up to the power supply issues that many of those demonstrated.
Isn't it amazing, macs4all, that even despite all the conflicts, we Linux users still have an abundance of freedom of choice and customization, and still have a superior experience to Macs?
I agree that you have an abundance of freedom of choice and customization; because that's all you have.
But a "superior experience"? Not even close.
It helps authorities disable your camera so you can't record them kicking your arse onto an encrypted device and/or up to the iCloud....
Maybe. But it is pretty clear that all cell phone (and maybe camera) manufacturers will be forced by the government to license this technology from Apple, and I expect the final version will not work with a separate IR sensor, it will just use the camera lens to capture the "DO NOT FILM" command and act on it. Of course you could cover up the lens, but that defeats the device too. I doubt if you can effectively block the signal that disables the camera and still have enough light to film the cops beating you or your family.
Well, most digital cameras and phone cameras currently have a filter to BLOCK IR light. Allowing IR to pass will affect the color balance of photos. Still, you could put your own filter (or "hot mirror" which reflects IR light rather than absorbing it) over your phone camera lens.
Also, this doesn't affect the billions of cameras and camera-containing devices that don't have software to interpret the "beacon's 'barcode' ". They will all still happily shoot-away.
It helps authorities disable your camera so you can't record them kicking your arse onto an encrypted device and/or up to the iCloud....
Maybe. But it is pretty clear that all cell phone (and maybe camera) manufacturers will be forced by the government to license this technology from Apple, and I expect the final version will not work with a separate IR sensor, it will just use the camera lens to capture the "DO NOT FILM" command and act on it. Of course you could cover up the lens, but that defeats the device too. I doubt if you can effectively block the signal that disables the camera and still have enough light to film the cops beating you or your family.
Hmmm. The IR thingy will be, um, IR. That is to say, outside of the visible light spectrum (or at least very close to the edge of visibility).
Howabout a little IR filter that blocks the IR and lets visible light through. Many surveillance cams already have such a thing to cut down on daylight "washout" from extraneous IR from sunlight.
By the way, there was some noise on Slashdot a couple of years ago about a very similar Apple patent. That one never went anywhere, either.
Sometimes I think Apple patents things they DON'T want to see developed, with absolutely no intention of actually developing the ideas themselves, either.
I'm sure he never saw the 1987 Knowledge Navigator video either...
Yeah, that "Concept" video just about takes care of EVERY computing advancement up through the middle of the 21st Century...