Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 12th Mar 2006 18:40 UTC, submitted by Varg Vikernes
Apple Dan Kusnetzky, Apple program vice president, spoke to PC Pro News at IDC and said that Apple has no plans to support booting into Vista on the new Intel Macs. However, a Microsoft spokesman said that Microsoft would have no problem granting a Windows licence to Apple, in exactly the same way it currently provides licences to Dell and HP: "Microsoft would support Apple the same way it supports every other PC manufacturer." But Dan Kusnetzky said it would be difficult to know who would support that machine if Windows was running on a Mac. However, "no doubt someone will work out how to run Windows on the Mac, even if Apple doesn't technically support that."
Thread beginning with comment 103695
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apple should use WinVista as the kernel
by stephanem on Sun 12th Mar 2006 19:23 UTC
stephanem
Member since:
2006-01-11

Then you are really getting into interesting territory. After all the only magic in MacOS is at the UI level, the kernel has just been shown to be as insecure as WinXP. I really wonder how fast OSX kernel compares to WinVista in speed since MS has years and years of expertise in optimising for x86.

Edited 2006-03-12 19:24

Reply Score: -2

mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

After all the only magic in MacOS is at the UI level, the kernel has just been shown to be as insecure as WinXP

When? By whom?

Reply Parent Score: 5

MikeGA Member since:
2005-07-22

There's a hell of a lot of "magic" in Quartz, which I believe is fairly closely tied to the kernal.

And more importantly, do you think replacing the entire kernal would be that easy? Plus all the BSD tools that many people rely on would just stop working. And Apple would have to persuade Microsoft to provide a PPC versionb of the kernel, becuase Apple certainly aren't going to suddenly stop PPC versions of the software, just because they now have some computers that run on Intel chips.

Reply Parent Score: 3

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

No it's not, that's the point of having a micro-kernel. If it's closely tied to the kernel than Apple has got a largely monolithic kernel ;) .

I think there's a lot of magic in quartz that's dependant on driver functionality which runs as "servlets" (or whatever they call them) for the kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 1

stephanem Member since:
2006-01-11

> There's a hell of a lot of "magic" in Quartz, which I believe is fairly closely tied to the kernal.

It's a freaking Microkernel!. There's NO magic inside the kernel.


> lus all the BSD tools that many people rely on would just stop working

As for all BSD tools, Windows has it - it's called Services for UNIX. Windows networking stack is based on BSD.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Pseudo Cyborg Member since:
2005-07-09

And BSD has had absoluetely no experience on x86?

There is more "magic" than the UI level, and OS X is not "as insecure as WinXP".

False statistics do not a point make.

Reply Parent Score: 5

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

There is more "magic" than the UI level, and OS X is not "as insecure as WinXP".

Actualy, as much as I don't like MS (hell I hate Apple even more), I say bull to that.

Both OSs are more or less secure, trouble is how they default their desktop usage (this is the reason of one being secure and one not in common opinion). OSX is directed to more secure usage, while XP is directed (in point of security view) to as stupid approach as possible.

But parent was not talking about desktop usage, he talked about kernel.

If one secures WinXP as he should, usage without problems is almost guaranteed. The fact that 100% of viruses and mallware is Windows-ware should not count here either, OSX just isn't interesting platform for that. One who wants to make damage, is always inclined to greater damage, and Apple 2% is not wished result here.

Personaly, I preffer Linux over anything. But I wouldn't dare to say Linux is the most secure here. Sure it provides solutions like Xen, AppArmour or SELinux, UML, chroot, least-privilege-model, now even Trusted-X, etc. But how would Linux fare under the same stress as Windows? I can only assume better, because they have advantage of seeing mistakes on Windows before even getting to them. And the more security features it gets before hits actualy start to show, the better it will be and the better it will fare comparing to others.

False statistics do not a point make.

And comparing apples to orages doesn't make it either.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Jimmy Member since:
2005-07-06

I believe the OS X kernel is very efficient. I'm horrible with operating systems; I can crash them easily, and when I'm messing around with Linux I usually mess it up so I can't boot X anymore.

I have to reinstall Windows XP every six months because it slows down, and just generally becomes unstable. I used to have an iBook, and man no matter what I did I just couldn't screw up OS X. After a year the system was still working wonderfully.

I think Apple is just fine and dandy sticking with present OSX kernel. If these were the OS 9 days, then maybe I could see your argument, but saying that Apple should use the Vista kernel with OSX being so stable and mature now is just crazy.

Reply Parent Score: 1

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

No, the OS X kernel is very innefficient. It's a micro-kernel. It's an elegant, debuggable, modular, beautiful, slow solution.

I imagine Windows kernel is fairly efficient, although I think the massive amount of code dedicated to UI responsiveness may make it a lot less efficient, but that's a sacrific intentionally for responsiveness at the cost of throughput.

Linux is efficient. I'm sure most BSD kernels are efficient.

Apple should probably stick with their kernel, but if they did move it'd be idiotic to license the kernel from Microsoft. That'd simply be financially stupid (waste of money). It'd be strategically dangerous (depending on Microsoft, a competitor). And it'd be ignorant, of the other two kernels more suited to your present system.

OS X on top of NT would be nuts. OS X on top of OpenBSD's kernel might make a shred of sense though. But OS X on (is it mach?) where it's at now is a working solution and I don't think I've heard about many kernel security issues yet!

Reply Parent Score: 1

situation Member since:
2006-01-10

So you're trying to say that because you can cause Linux to not boot X the kernel is somehow ineffecient? I'm sorry, but I don't think you have a clear concept of what the kernel does or what would make it ineffecient (and yes, the OS X kernel is ineffecient imho).

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"I really wonder how fast OSX kernel compares to WinVista in speed since MS has years and years of expertise in optimising for x86."

Really? It doesnt show.

Reply Parent Score: 2