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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
Member since:2006-01-11
> But how would Linux fare under the same stress as Windows? I can only assume better,
Sorry but we're talking WinVista. Even Win2K3 is more robust than Linux - moreover Linux kernel is pretty lame for backwards compatibility issue because you can't take drivers compiled on Linux 2.6.15.1 and run them on Linux 2.6.15.2.
Member since:2005-07-09
But parent was not talking about desktop usage, he talked about kernel.
You're absolutely correct. Hardening is much different than the kernel on its own. Still, OS's are installed with default kernel configurations as well that run deeper than the desktop.
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....
I agree. I've never said that XP can't be made more secure, just that, as you said, the default configuration (which the majority of users never change) is overwhelming vulnerable.
And comparing apples to orages doesn't make it either.
Comparisons can, indeed, make a point. The desktop does have an effect on the kernel with regards to interaction. Default installations have an impact on both the desktop and the kernel. There are a large number of variables involved in maintaining system security, and pigeon-holeing one aspect is akin to saying that living leads to cancer; the whole picture needs to be looked at.
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.